|Forum Index > TL Mafia|
On December 20 2011 11:58 bumatlarge wrote:
I think it might be the princess is kidnapped, but then two different factions chase the kidnappers and one faction is just one dude by himself. He manages to get ahead of the other faction and catch up the kidnapers. And after takig out most of the kidnap crew, he confronts the final boss kidnapper, and wins because he loves the princess, and claimed the kidnapper was using + Show Spoiler +
WIFOM, :D ur face when I just described the beginning of the princess bride
the princess bride started with buttercup at her farm with westley as her farmhand and he kept sayinf as you wish until one day she realized she loved him so they got engaged but he wanted to go make a fortune so he set sail but then his ship got attacked by the dread pirate roberts who leaves no one alive so after five years buttercup thought he died and when the prince, humperdinck saw her and asked her for her hand in marriage, she accepted it reluctantly.
THEN she gets kidnapped
epic fail bumatlarge
I think SLJ is a null tell. I don't understand why people thought his asking Chenizu if he was traitor or nor was scummy since I thought it was a great idea. Chenizu's first post definitely looked like a breadcrumb that he is traitor to me when I first saw it and by asking him a direct question about it in the thread, SLJ makes it so that there's direct and intense pressure on Chenizu if he actually IS the traitor and WIFOMs the mafia along with Chenizu's first post into wasting their recruitment power if he's not. This at first made me think SLJ was a townie but the lack of pressure on chenizu after the fact has caused me to think of him as null. The fact that he's a hydra though makes it easier to catch him later on if he actually is mafia and since Curu and sandroba can be strong players, I'm sure we'll figure it out soon. For now, I'm against lynching him.
prplhz concerns me since he came out the gate with three negative/accusatory statements that are extremely weak (against me, bum and a RNG vote on VE) and then doesn't follow up on any one of them (his questions to VE barely count). I remember in LOTR he would just tunnel the ever loving fuck out of someone he was suspicious of and he hasn't done that here. I hope you post more prplhz since it's hard to read 6 posts with barely anything in them.
GM, I'm currently uncertain about. I'll be able to tell more tomorrow since if he's townie, I think I'm pretty sure I know what he's trying to do.
WBG is being...WBG. I really do think you'rte tunneling LSB right now dude; the same way you tunneled me in Zona's game. You just latch on to anything and use circular logic and twist it to try to make something not what it actually is like in this post:
First of all, you warn people not to speculate, but in the next line you speculate that there is probably an SK based on something Ver said in the OP.
Obviously the type of speculating he mentioned isn't the same as him listing out a list of roles. You need to take a step back and calm down.
Finally, L is currently semi-scummy to me. In his first post he addresses the issue of RNG lynching and then says that we need a new metric to decide on who to lynch but never delivers on it, merely saying:
"There's a bigger question here, however, which is what we're going to do with the first vote.
RNG is probably the worst possible idea; gives us next to zero information regarding how people argue and its practically an excuse for people to not post anything because there's no element of responsibility attached to it. Either way, we're going to want ideas down on the table asap."
He never provides anything "asap." I noticed this and though other people brought it up (bum I think) and he responded to it by saying that he's playing it slow at the moment, it still seems scummy due to the fact that he said ideas should be on the table "asap" and yet never gives his own, merely stating in his next post:
So, the obvious question becomes which metric SHOULD we use. This is the question that RNG ends up proposing because it runs on the assumption that a) A lynch is better than no-lynch (I agree, in general) and b) that discussion surrounding the RNG could lead to a better target. I agree with a), but think that b) implies that we focus ourselves on determining a characteristic which outperforms RNG. This is why I think the plan is stupid; because IT ISN'T ONE. I'm super exhausted, but I'll think up some criteria for a day 1 lynch tomorrow.
But the whole concept of having a metric (he talks about how the old metric was talking about lynching lurkers) is to create discussion and allow for information gathering (something RNG hindered). So why would you put off thinking up a new metric criteria till tomorrow when discussion will already have been going on and information will already have been created. It makes no sense to say I will think of something to create discussion tomorrow when by that time we'll already be discussing. It seems like he's trying to say he's got ideas for us but by the time he says he can deliver on them (tomorrow) we'll have no need for them and thus he doesn't actually have to make good on his promise. I'mma vote first and then wait for you to post more.
If you notice, most of my reads have the general note of: need more info/would like more posts. So I never said or even implied that waiting until there's more information to base a conclusion on someone is scummy. I even said so at the end of my paragraph on L.
If I could not lynch L today then I currently don't know who I would lynch since only his posts have sent up the strongest flares for me. I'd rather not policy lynch and there's still 24 hours left in the day so I'd wait and see on some of my other candidates of suspicion.
I've already thought it up.
What is it?
I even said so at the end of my paragraph on L.
I mean I said that I'm going to wait for more information before I finalize
"I'mma vote first and then wait for you to post more."
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand what you're saying.
If by metric you mean "what we should talk about", why do you need L to tell you what to talk about? By metric I assume L means "the factors by which I decide who I'm going to vote for and support a lynch of"..which is still going to be useful tomorrow; more useful tomorrow in my opinion because if he knew and shared that 'metric' today, scum could change their behavior accordingly to avoid votes over the course of today and tomorrow.
If you read his post you don't need to ASSUME what L means by metric, he lays it out in his post about RNGs:
RNG doesn't force people to make a move one way or another and provides less information regarding people's inclinations than having someone pick a metric for a day 1 play to be made. The "shoot the inactive" metric was the standard when games were substantially larger, people talked less, and the metric itself was generally not held onto, just used as a prod to get people talking. As far as I'm concerned, RNG just cedes the first day's information content unless someone with a particularly interesting role gets selected.
and then talks about the use of the metric (in this case, RNG) in regards to obtaining information
Please tell me how a random target provides more information than one who we can pick? It seems like by definition that RNG eliminates at least one layer of information: the choice. And there's no real benefit to the tradeoff in terms of preventing someone from hiding their kill attempt: If someone wants to get someone in particular put under the gun, they can fake a RNG call to make them the presumed target.
So by metric he means a baseline "statement" from which we can then use to create discussion and gather information. He argues that RNG is a bad "metric" since it gives less information than the example of "lynch lurkers" and then says that he'll be thinking up a new metric tomorrow, a time that is less then optimal to have a "metric" at.
On December 21 2011 19:11 syllogism wrote:
I thought it may have been a trap to see who would immediately jump on him but that doesn't really work when there's no follow up, which may be what chaoser was alluding to. That or triggers hurrr
well...now that you send that, there's definitely no use to me waiting for anything since if he's mafia he can be all like "yes, that's EXACTLY what I was doing but I was just waiting for more time to pass before I said I was baiting" -_-
On December 21 2011 22:34 syllogism wrote:
If there is plenty of information to go by in the thread, who else do you find scummy?
On December 21 2011 22:37 Palmar wrote:
Why do you think I decided to go after GM instead of say... Sheth, Kita, Foolishness or GGQ VE?
On December 21 2011 22:44 VisceraEyes wrote:
SLJ, Foolishness, and chaoser.
Why don't you tell me? I wouldn't want to spoil the surprise for you.
On December 21 2011 22:55 VisceraEyes wrote:
Hell, I'd be thrilled if you gave a reason why you voted for GM vs your other scum reads BC and L. Anything really.
Guys, I'd like to remind everyone that the mafia thread if NOT AIM. While sometimes all you got is one-liner questions to ask to get some clarification on a matter, please keep this type of posting to a minimum. I don't want 5 pages of back and forth of one liners that are hard as fuck to follow cause everyone is responding to everyone else and I can't correctly follow the line of discussion.
Bum has been a null tell to me so far but I'm going to get back to him after I talk about Palmer first.
On December 22 2011 03:44 Palmar wrote:
Just because I hate shit like that L
I've played 25 games I think now on this site, 10 of those had mafia lynched on day one.
That's 60% chance of a town lynch on day one, not 98%.
misses the post, and I would even say, is trying to misrepresent L's statement of:
Day 1 has something silly like a 98% town lynch rate
completely to discredit L's idea of mafia not wanting to stir up vigi trouble.
The point L was making in his post is that the threat of vigis in this game, given various facts (Ace helped make this game, the mafia have some of the blue roles, how the game has progressed so far, the actual existance of triggered/conditional vigis), is more important for the mafia to avoid than the threat of a lynch. And given the setup of the game, it is more than likely that town will have to get some shots correct to stand a decent chance of winning the game.
On December 22 2011 05:00 Palmar wrote:
Are you trolling me Foolishness?
In your text L even concludes I'm probably not mafia.
Again, what has his read on VE to do with anything?
What the fuck?
This is also an over-representation of what L said. L did not conclude that Palmer was "probably not mafia". He merely concluded that while palmer matched the metric to a T in the beginning of the game, he now no longer fits it to a T. However, L reasons, this change might be due to palmer being "singled out". L then continues by saying that palmer doesn't fit it to a T because he wouldn't have engaged VE for as long if he was mafia. This doesn't mean he concludes that Palmer is "probably not mafia", it merely concludes that the read on him is currently not as straight forwardly red as it had been previously.
I also definitely agree partially with L's post afterwardsL:
You start with a post about post quality.
You then post one liners.
You attack me for making a post partially about post quality.
On December 20 2011 08:05 Palmar wrote:
Alright people, let's make this a game worth referencing to new people if they want to see how mafia should be played.
No lazy posting, no bullshit.
which is then followed by:
On December 20 2011 17:30 Palmar wrote:
This became terrible fast.
On December 20 2011 18:35 Palmar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2011 18:33 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
It's day 1, what else would you like him to currently say?
There's plenty of things that can be prodded already in the thread.
(which he never prodded before making this critisim of RoL)
On December 20 2011 21:15 Palmar wrote:
This post is more funny if you assume WBG has a thick Indian accent.
In the middle of all his, he critisizes L with:
The best part, there's actually nothing in it that will in any way help move the game forward. I'm not familiar with L's play, and maybe he isn't aware that everyone in this game is kinda good-ish maybe.
while he himself hasn't helped move the game forward either.
All of this leads me to think he is very likely to be scum and I will be voting as such tomorrow. Will talk about the rest of the events of the day in my next post.
On December 23 2011 14:23 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
GM, you make no sense.
Also Palmar was weird. SK (Non-BP?) or traitor, or something.
RoL was protted, or GM was RBed. There are similar role-names that punish claiming. Don't counter-claim based on names.
SK's are usually bulletproof and given his scummy posting I'd say he's traitor rather than SK.
11. Mr. Wiggles
4 mafia/10 townies
6. SamuelLJackson (sandroba/curu hybrid) DEAD
7. Jackal58 DEAD
9. GMarshal DEAD
12. Palmar DEAD
17. LSB DEAD
Oh, I guess I should announce that I'm shooting RoL. I'm not having a repeat of TMM where he gets away with being busy till the endgame. If I'm wrong then on my head be it (and by that I mean I'll be horribly dead). I know there isn't strong analysis supporting it, but I just spent 3 1/2 hours writing this post/coming up with who to shoot, and I just don't have time to flesh out a fully detailed analysis on anyone before the deadline.
GM specifically said he shot RoL at exactly:
GMarshal United States. Dec 23 2011 00:00
There is no reason for him to lie at all. Why do you think he misrepresented his hit L?