EPTOn January 05 2012 05:08 Bluelightz wrote:
Next, I think the people that are not posting should be chec
Next, I think the people that are not posting should be chec
what is chec
Purgatory Mafia - Page 12
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
what is chec | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:52 Bluelightz wrote: Okay, im back guys :p Im gonna start responding to cases and make cases myself. Anyway, first I clearly said that I wouldn't be available till about now(Flight was delayed ;|) Anyway, my thoughts on lynching lurkers. It ends up lynching a townie usually one liner that makes a point that i had already acknowledged and completed disregards my wall of On January 05 2012 05:03 Zephirdd wrote: Many times people talk about policy lynches but they are rarely followed. No, I don't like policy lynches. L-A-Lurkers will most of the time target a town, because if a scum is targeted he will instantly become "useful" enough to avoid the lynch. Besides, the amount of information a lurker gives on lynch is nil. L-A-Liars may be decent, but I'm yet to see a mafia that lied "to help town". For example, Drazerk claimed a retarded role on XLVIII in order to attract mafia shots. A mafia wouldn't try that, ever; However lynching Drazerk there would be wrong, yet he would be a LALiars target. So no, I don't agree with LALiars either. general statement about policy lynching that really doesn't give me an opinion about what i actually wrote >angry smiley here< can somebody give a well thought out evaluation? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:11 layabout wrote: one liner that makes a point that i had already acknowledged and completed disregards my wall of general statement about policy lynching that really doesn't give me an opinion about what i actually wrote >angry smiley here< can somebody give a well thought out evaluation? I have a great evaluation of LALUrkers 1) town demonstrates that we will LALurkers 2) nobody lurks 3) :D Worked great in student mafia, I don't see why it wouldn't work here | ||
|
Bluelightz
Indonesia2463 Posts
| ||
|
Bluelightz
Indonesia2463 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
Such a lynch is acceptable if I've no strong reads of course. Policy lynching is bad as it takes a long time to actually produce any results in the "metagame" and it's unlikely for the policy to have affect new players. If the game has mostly older players, we can lynch them based on them posting less than they should be based on what we know about their town play rather than attributing the lynch to some policy. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:25 syllogism wrote: Yes and then someone was genuinely busy, you lynched him and he predictably flipped town. There were some actually scummy candidates available but no one but palmar was paying attention to them. Players were contributing because they wanted to, not because they were afraid of some policy. If townies all contribute and manage to establish their innocence, of course lynching someone who is lurking is a trivial decision. I commit to "maybe" lynching a lurker as lurking is a generic scum tell and I usually go after someone I know should be being more useful but isn't. I will not commit, on day 1, to lynching a person who is just lurking and nothing else points towards them being scum. I will not lynch someone to gain benefits in some future game, which is essentially what policy lynching means. Such a lynch is acceptable if I've no strong reads of course. Policy lynching is bad as it takes a long time to actually produce any results in the "metagame" and it's unlikely for the policy to have affect new players. If the game has mostly older players, we can lynch them based on them posting less than they should be based on what we know about their town play rather than attributing the lynch to some policy. This sounds reasonable to me. If I have a strong read, I will definitely pursue that instead of someone who's lurking, since, well, I have a strong read. And you agree with me then, if there are no strong reads (or even medium reads, let's say), which is to say, we can't find someone who's scummy, AND there's a lurker who's lurking, we should lynch them? | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:11 layabout wrote: one liner that makes a point that i had already acknowledged and completed disregards my wall of general statement about policy lynching that really doesn't give me an opinion about what i actually wrote >angry smiley here< can somebody give a well thought out evaluation? What do you expect? A policy lynch tends to have a general sentiment for either side of arguments, no matter what I say it will be a general statement. Don't lynch people out of policies; lynch them out of their posting. Call out lurkers, if they don't give a reasonable response then you build a case on them; if they don't respond at all they may be busy with real life stuff. On another topic, I've been thinking about the "chaos" factor. While it is usually beneficial to scum as chaos makes town a bad town, this setup is significantly different. Town can help Demons in finding Angels, and help Angels in finding Demons. So the question is: Who would prefer chaos more than the other? Demons, with their ability of controlling votes? Angels, with their ability to deny flips? Maybe neither, in order to find the opposing scum team? This question is important; I've seen disruptive towns as well as disruptive scum; however, scum play in a synchronized way with their team. Is it possible to assume that scum wouldn't try to be disruptive in order to find the opposing scum team? | ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
Right now i think both demons/angels wants to kill powerroles. Of course the roles that affect their faction. So both sides will be hunting blues and causing mislynch. Later however if only 1 demon remains, that demon will benefit from a strong town in taking down the remaining angels. My conclusion is that you can't say if the faction wants chaos or order (in town) because it depends on the situation that faction is in. We have plenty of time left day1. Over 72 hours according to zbot (still confused over that, and noone responded to my earlier post?) so no reason to lynch anyone yet as others have pointed out. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Can we agree to look at lurking as highly incriminating and scummy? In the likely event of rubbish cases on day1 can we agree to go for the lurkers? additional justification: 1)with 12 town 6 non-town and information denying cabalities information and an organised town are much more valuable than they would be in a normal game (they are crucial in a normal game with even a semi-comppetant scum) 2)in the likely event of a day1 mislynch, it would be preferable to have acheived a pro-town atmosphere rather than a safe-to-lurk atmosphere | ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
| ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:48 layabout wrote: I feel like this might not be working.., with so many not on board there is next to no chance of success. Can we agree to look at lurking as highly incriminating and scummy? In the likely event of rubbish cases on day1 can we agree to go for the lurkers? additional justification: 1)with 12 town 6 non-town and information denying cabalities information and an organised town are much more valuable than they would be in a normal game (they are crucial in a normal game with even a semi-comppetant scum) 2)in the likely event of a day1 mislynch, it would be preferable to have acheived a pro-town atmosphere rather than a safe-to-lurk atmosphere I thought the general rule was Scummy > Lurking Scummy > Lurking > Townie on lynch priority order? Of course, if by the end of the day-cycle we end up with no real case, we just lynch a lurker. But I really really wish we avoided that. This town isn't with a bad atmosphere either; discussion is rolling, things are going. I just wish a conclusion on the MrWiggles thing(is he really ingame) and that other players posted more, but I guess they are in different timezones eh. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:48 layabout wrote: I feel like this might not be working.., with so many not on board there is next to no chance of success. Can we agree to look at lurking as highly incriminating and scummy? In the likely event of rubbish cases on day1 can we agree to go for the lurkers? additional justification: 1)with 12 town 6 non-town and information denying cabalities information and an organised town are much more valuable than they would be in a normal game (they are crucial in a normal game with even a semi-comppetant scum) 2)in the likely event of a day1 mislynch, it would be preferable to have acheived a pro-town atmosphere rather than a safe-to-lurk atmosphere To be fair, not a lot of people have had a chance to weigh in on your policy proposal-- some people have responded negatively, but very few people have responded so far. I think that establishing an open, pro-town atmosphere should be a top priority for us. I think LALurkers does that. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:54 Zephirdd wrote: I thought the general rule was Scummy > Lurking Scummy > Lurking > Townie on lynch priority order? Of course, if by the end of the day-cycle we end up with no real case, we just lynch a lurker. But I really really wish we avoided that. This town isn't with a bad atmosphere either; discussion is rolling, things are going. I just wish a conclusion on the MrWiggles thing(is he really ingame) and that other players posted more, but I guess they are in different timezones eh. Again, we don't really have "lurkers" until 24 hours in. In all likelihood these people are like "asleep" then "at work" and stuff, and so for the first 24 hours I'm not gonna push to bag on lurkers just because, well, we're not actually sure they're lurking. I will verbally harass them though so that they know i want them to post. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:54 Zephirdd wrote: I thought the general rule was Scummy > Lurking Scummy > Lurking > Townie on lynch priority order? Of course, if by the end of the day-cycle we end up with no real case, we just lynch a lurker. But I really really wish we avoided that. This town isn't with a bad atmosphere either; discussion is rolling, things are going. I just wish a conclusion on the MrWiggles thing(is he really ingame) and that other players posted more, but I guess they are in different timezones eh. last post about this for now by being openly anti lurker and conceding that scummy reads on day 1 are unreliable at best (we cant all be ver), you change what is is to lurk - lurking becomes almost an act of direct opposition to town the rule (for day 1 only) would be Very scummy > scummy lurking > lurking > scummy > no lynch >town scummy would swap with lurking when we reach enough information to analyse and actually construct a good case if you know lurking will get you killed day1 why would you do it? reason i can think of: you cannot access the internet you don't care about the game you don't believe town will stick to their word somebody wrote "blow me town" in the thread | ||
|
HarbingerOfDoom
United States508 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:48 layabout wrote: I feel like this might not be working.., with so many not on board there is next to no chance of success. Can we agree to look at lurking as highly incriminating and scummy? In the likely event of rubbish cases on day1 can we agree to go for the lurkers? additional justification: 1)with 12 town 6 non-town and information denying cabalities information and an organised town are much more valuable than they would be in a normal game (they are crucial in a normal game with even a semi-comppetant scum) 2)in the likely event of a day1 mislynch, it would be preferable to have acheived a pro-town atmosphere rather than a safe-to-lurk atmosphere Why do you think it is likely that the cases after 72 hours of time will all be rubbish? Why do you think a day 1 mislynch is so likely? Even random chance gives us a 1/3 chance of hitting some form of scum, and I would like to think we can do better than random. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 06:19 HarbingerOfDoom wrote: Why do you think it is likely that the cases after 72 hours of time will all be rubbish? Why do you think a day 1 mislynch is so likely? Even random chance gives us a 1/3 chance of hitting some form of scum, and I would like to think we can do better than random. Technically, a day1 mislynch is a "likely event" if we lynch randomly since it will happen 2/3rds of the time. In any case, I think 72 hours is plenty of time to put together some solid cases on a scum player and lynch him. I just think that have LALurkers in our back pocket is a good move. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
I have yet to read day1 analysis that has actually convinced me that someone is scum that person was then lynched and then that person has flipped scum. + Show Spoiler + i have read 12-ish games statistically the chance of lynching scum day1 is fairly low. As far as i can remember vaderseven wrote that on mafiascum there is an 80% day1 town lynch rate + Show Spoiler + though whether or not that game in which he wrote "that or roughly that" exists is a mystery Most of the day1 lynches i have seen have been panicked last minute lurker lynches or stupid bandwagons that are unsupported by reasoning. The lack of information day1 makes it hard to pin scum day1. For all these reasons i think that a day1 mislynch is likely Thus our plan should be to act in a way that leaves us in a good position if a day1 mislynch does happen. + Show Spoiler + analysis coming soon | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On January 04 2012 23:40 Zephirdd wrote: hi, checking in. It's stupid to discuss angel/demon lynching, although it is better to have the AoD lynched first we can't just magically detect them. Scum is scum regardless of A/D alignment. Sage and Seer should not claim unless they have 2/3 scum nailed down that can be instantly lynched; Just make sure to hide breadcrumbs so we believe your claim should that occur. ...day1 is always boring. Just so you know, you should never believe an investigative claim because someone bread-crumbed it. There's no reason to believe it because of bread-crumbs, because there's no proof that they actually did what they bread-crumbed. Breadcrumbs are only useful when a player flips, because you know what role they actually are, and then you know that any breadcrumbs are likely to be sound. If you want a recent example of breadcrumbs killing the town, go read Mini Mafia X, where Wherebugsgo wrote jk three times in a post then claimed jailkeeper, and town believed him. The only person I think can legitimately breadcrumb and use that to support their claim in this game is the demonhunter, and only if they end up killing a complete innocent, or else it could be the acolyte. Also keep in mind that crumbs should be made before the corresponding day-post. On January 05 2012 03:02 Blazinghand wrote: Don't go lynching anyone but Bluelightz if you think he's a legit valid scum. It doesn't matter whether he's an angel or a demon or what. In fact, given that he was staggeringly bad in Student mafia (though he WAS a replacement) it might be good to kill him just because even if he is town he could be useless. I think we should lynch whoever is the scummiest. If Bluelightz feels scummy to you, put together a case on him and cast your vote like a man. If you think he's probably scummy, and that he'll contribute poorly (as he did in Student mafia), put your money where your mouth is. I can respect that. This is bad. Killing a useless townie is almost never worth it. A useless townie is still a townie, and they still provide us with a vote and count towards our win condition. It's always better to lynch scum, not lynch someone because he could be scum but it doesn't matter anyways because if he's town he's useless. In fact, I was leaning town on you at the beginning of the game, but now I think I'm going to have to re-evaluate that somewhat after your recent "case" on Bluelightz. Being bad doesn't make someone scum, so it seems weird that you'd try to attack him for being bad. There's been a lot of talk in the thread so far (though granted, most of it is based on mechanics), so who do you think is scummy? You don't make a case for why bluelightz is scum, just for why he hasn't done anything productive yet. Regarding Lynch all Lurkers: If you want to pursue this, you need to make the distinction between lurkers and inactives. Someone who hasn't posted all day cycles is not a lurker. They are an inactive. A lurker is someone who comes in, makes a useless post to appease everyone, and then leaves again, continuing this as necessary to keep pressure off themselves. So, even if you want to lynch all lurkers, you still have to put a modicum of effort into it, to try to figure out who's actually trying to lurk or not. Scum are very likely to be actively lurking if they're lurking. That is, they are reading the thread, and keeping up with new posts and developments while discussing with their scumbuddies, but aren't actually posting in the thread. These are sometimes easy to find, because when pressured, they'll show up nearly immediately to defend themselves before going back to lurking. So, for anyone who wants to lynch all lurkers, are you ready to make the distinction between lurking and being inactive? Someone already brought this up somewhat, when they asked what keeps scum from just staying slightly more active than the most inactive townie, and this is where the distinction comes in. Think about it. Regarding set-up: In this game, it feels like the town roles can be used in very versatile ways that people aren't really touching on. For example, the demon-hunter is a vigi for demons, but they can also serve as a detective for angels. There is nothing that protects from attacks besides going to purgatory, so if the demonhunter's target lives without going to purgatory, then they're an angel. Same thing with the sage. Many people are focusing on the cleansing aspect of the role, but not on the investigative powers. This ties in with the corrupted players as well. While the demons want to corrupt as many townspeople as they can, this also makes it more dangerous for them, as they essentially introduce demon detectives into the game. What I think a decent strategy would be, for as long as the sage remains alive, is to have corrupted players claim the day after being corrupted, along with their result. This means that as long as we keep the sage alive, the number of corrupted players will always remain at, or below, 1. Obviously, we shouldn't set this in stone, as we should wait until day 3 and see if the sage is still alive, along with the acolyte. From my understanding, demons can't corrupt until night 2, which means that day 3 is the earliest that we have to worry about the votes in the lynch. This means that as town, we should try to play as aggressively as we can on the first two days, when there will be the least confusion and complexity. Ideally, we will be able to kill some sort of angel, and optimally the concealer (This forces the demons to choose between corrupting or using their actions, and gets rid of a powerful anti-town ability). We also have to keep in mind that in this game, until one faction is eliminated completely, no one can be confirmed innocent. If it comes to light that you aren't a demon, or aren't an angel, and try to use that as proof that you are town, I'll be mad and think you're scum. I think that early in the game, town will be taking the brunt of the offensive abilities of the angels and demons. However, as the game goes on longer, they will be forced to fight each-other. If the angels only focus on killing the town, the demons will simply be able to lynch them once a day later on, and eliminate their KP to win. When the demons corrupt a player and it is successful, they know this player is town, and so that reduces the pool of player with the angels in it. So, the angels can't let the demons reach this stage of the game, and must use their KP on them as early as possible to reduce this threat. As well, the demons should be helping to find angels to lynch, as it reduces the possible KP against them, keeps the lynch off them, and also makes them less likely to be targeted for investigation or demon-hunter KP, as they look more "pro-town". In fact, I think the best angel strategy would be to use their acolyte to try to target demons, as that will either kill their competition, or let them know who's a townie, and thus who's dangerous. Any information disadvantages we may incur from the AoD and the Concealer also apply to the other faction, and they should be aware of this as well. Thus, they want to try to eliminate their counterpart's ability to hide information, as this will allow them to maintain perfect information in the game. This also ties into the above paragraph. About voting: Don't Hammer. While we don't have to worry about corruption until day three, we should still be careful of keeping the lynch under our control. Always check the vote-count before voting, and always vote in the thread along with your PM to ZBot, so that we can see when you voted, as well as who you voted for, before Zbot the count. No one should be hammering a lynch until later in the day if we can help it, as this will give us the most time for discussion and information gathering. Those are my thoughts so far after reading the set-up again, and through the thread once. I'm going away for a little bit, but I'll read through the thread again and be back later. TL;DR It's a wall of text that you should read, because I'm not going to spam five posts so that it looks more easy to read. That's why I divided it. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On January 05 2012 07:05 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Just so you know, you should never believe an investigative claim because someone bread-crumbed it. There's no reason to believe it because of bread-crumbs, because there's no proof that they actually did what they bread-crumbed. Breadcrumbs are only useful when a player flips, because you know what role they actually are, and then you know that any breadcrumbs are likely to be sound. If you want a recent example of breadcrumbs killing the town, go read Mini Mafia X, where Wherebugsgo wrote jk three times in a post then claimed jailkeeper, and town believed him. The only person I think can legitimately breadcrumb and use that to support their claim in this game is the demonhunter, and only if they end up killing a complete innocent, or else it could be the acolyte. Also keep in mind that crumbs should be made before the corresponding day-post. I agree with Wiggles on this. Breadcrumbs are generally worthless to support claims, and are used after a guy's dead to find out what he did. On January 05 2012 07:05 Mr. Wiggles wrote: This is bad. Killing a useless townie is almost never worth it. A useless townie is still a townie, and they still provide us with a vote and count towards our win condition. It's always better to lynch scum, not lynch someone because he could be scum but it doesn't matter anyways because if he's town he's useless. In fact, I was leaning town on you at the beginning of the game, but now I think I'm going to have to re-evaluate that somewhat after your recent "case" on Bluelightz. Being bad doesn't make someone scum, so it seems weird that you'd try to attack him for being bad. There's been a lot of talk in the thread so far (though granted, most of it is based on mechanics), so who do you think is scummy? You don't make a case for why bluelightz is scum, just for why he hasn't done anything productive yet. I don't have any very solid reads yet. The post you have quoted there is me telling a guy that if he thinks Bluelightz is scum he should make a case and cast a vote. This is a very reasonable statement. If you want to address my case against Bluelightz, go right ahead, but don't quote a totally reasonable statement and imply that it's not. On January 05 2012 07:05 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Don't Hammer. While we don't have to worry about corruption until day three, we should still be careful of keeping the lynch under our control. Always check the vote-count before voting, and always vote in the thread along with your PM to ZBot, so that we can see when you voted, as well as who you voted for, before Zbot the count. No one should be hammering a lynch until later in the day if we can help it, as this will give us the most time for discussion and information gathering. Spot on the money. I have been in-thread-voting with my pm voting, and everyone should do the same. | ||
| ||
