EPTPurgatory Mafia - Page 3
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:47 syllogism wrote: This is a completely pointless discussion, but your case definitely isn't "solid as hell"; it's not even a case. You randomly chose one worthless poster so far while ignoring a myriad of other similar posters. A new player not immediately posting something worthwhile is pretty much a null tell especially when we've never seen him play town previously. Right now it's more fruitful to concentrate on people who we know something about and those who have posted a bit but only contributed superficially. Indeed, most players have only made random comments about game mechanics, which says very little to nothing at all about them. To be fair, BL is substantially more worthless than all the other posters. I get your point, though, that many of the posts so far in this thread have been relatively value-free. His just stood out as unusually bad. Do you think I should unvote him? On January 05 2012 04:48 Zephirdd wrote: Reforcing my idea above: It's too soon to search desperately for a lynch target. And trying to desperately lynch someone day 1 benefits scum more than town, in the sense that it generates chaos and almost always ends up in a mislynch. We have a fuckload of time, take it. Oh it's definitely better to be organized than disorganized. What are your thoughts on policy-type lynches? I like the idea of lynching all lurkers. I feel like it encourages the average town and average mafia player to be more active. That being said, in the ideal world this policy would never be instituted due to fear of it because it's an inefficient allocation of town resources. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 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 Although that's certainly true in our experience, do you think the fact that such a policy exists increases the rate at which scum post and slip up? Is there any value to it, even assuming it often lynches townies (assuming, of course, that anyone would dare lurk in such an environment)? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:53 HarbingerOfDoom wrote: Lynch the person that seems scummiest, obviously. And still acquiring reads. We have plenty of time left, no need to rush the lynch. I'm not in a rush I'm just taking my time, voting people, doing my thang. You know. It looks like BL is back so let's have some fun with him :D | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
ok no srsly I want to know: do you think policy lynch for a lurker is good? What do you think of the people who have been hanging out in the thread not posting so far? who is the scummiest poster so far? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:58 layabout wrote: key thing to note: the point is to agree to commit to lynch a lurker now this should force/encourage people to be active contribute and gain information. ideally there will not be a lurker to lynch, and town will consider establishing their innocence important to make "on par" as high as possible. I am not suggesting we lynch the least active player UNless they are lurking because if they are then they will have chosen to be a lynch target. If the least active player has posted and contributed then we should not lynch them. it is not about the actual flip it is about the day1 atmosphere + the other benefits that i shall not repost I do not expect an ideal outcome but i wholeheartedly believe that we could easily agree to and take advantage of this course of action as a town. I thought of this a while ago and have yet to come up with a flaw that makes it a bad course of action. + Show Spoiler + other than townies that lurk, who should be universally despised but not killed Information is something town always lack and try to gain and in this game information is more valuable owing to the AoD and Concealer roles that can deny information. I just want to note that I am strongly in favor of a "Lynch All Lurkers" policy and am notorious for A) being a suave, good-looking gentleman and B) invoking this policy to kill people. Obviously A) is irrelevant but B) is pretty important. I will actually kill you if you lurk. I'm crazy man! I've done it before and I'll do it again. Maybe nobody will support me! I don't care I'll still try to kill you. Obviously "lynch all lurkers" is subverted by "town players who are lurking for no real reason" but then again so is "winning games of mafia" so we gotta do what we gotta do, right? No lurking plz | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
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. The purpose, though, of LALurkers isn't to lynch a lurker-- it's to be WILLING to lynch a lurker. I'm totally willing to do it. Once that is clear, all the town players and all the mafia will stop lurking. LALiars I think is situational. I spent most of Student Mafia 1 lying about asking the doctor for protection and it worked out pretty well. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:08 Bluelightz wrote: Next, I think the people that are not posting should be chec what is chec | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 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 | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 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? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 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 States25551 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. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 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. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 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. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
Bluelightz deserves the case I have against him and deserves my vote. And if he fails to contribute and there are no other scum reads, and all he's doing is stopping by every now and then to say "brb" and generally confuse our blues, then he also deserves to die. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 05 2012 07:42 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Greens can be anti-town, but if you read them as green, you don't lynch them. If they're non-contributing, then you pressure them to contribute, like you're trying to do by voting Bluelightz. Then they should be forced to do something, and give you information from which to get a better read. We're in agreement about that. However, you have to do this with multiple players, because you still have to separate the greens from whatever scum might be hiding among them. In your case, you didn't sound like you really thought that he was scum, just that he was not contributing. That might be what's throwing me off about you, as in my experience, if someone wants to pressure someone to contribute, they just vote them, and ask them to contribute, not make a case and call them maybe scum maybe town and then say we should kill them either way. I'll help pressure, but I'm not going to vote him now, as he claims he went to bed two hours ago. If he's not back and posting by tonight, I'll vote him, until he gives us something. So basically I'm all good | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:26 Grackaroni wrote: KK I'm back. I suggested the Bluelightz lynch and it looks like BH took a lot of shit because of me. No I took a lot of shit because of me. You didn't contribute to my Bluelightz idea at all, except to remind me he existed and is bad. If you like the bluelightz lynch, make a case and make your vote like a man. If you don't like it, don't do it. You make expand and defense it and you do so with vigor. Being like "hey guys should we pressure Bluelightz" and then apologizing for it doesn't help my case against him, and it doesn't help him either. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:41 Blazinghand wrote: No I took a lot of shit because of me. You didn't contribute to my Bluelightz idea at all, except to remind me he existed and is bad. If you like the bluelightz lynch, make a case and make your vote like a man. If you don't like it, don't do it. You make expand and defense it and you do so with vigor. Being like "hey guys should we pressure Bluelightz" and then apologizing for it doesn't help my case against him, and it doesn't help him either. Not to be abrasive or anything, I just don't think there's any reason to pull your punches. | ||
| ||
