|
On January 28 2012 02:59 LSB wrote:Well as promised, now I'm going to start to look at other people's posts Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 04:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
3 takes more management, but will be better in the end. I suggest Day 1 and 2 circle trading to start stability, then once the game starts intensifying and we get more information we can switch to plan 3 when everyone's ready.
Given that 1) is trading 1 vote and 2) is trading all but 1 vote, I'd have to go with 1 because if mafia somehow gets ahold of votes and don't give them away, we give them less VP to vote with and can stop them before it's too late. I don't like this post. In fact this plan is very bad. If I was mafia, I would love this plan and support it, because of an easy counterplan. First of all, look at the concept of stability. Sentinel proposes that stability is more important in the early game than in the late. This is very wrong. Stability is more important in the late game than in the early. In the early game, although it is bad if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 2, we still have time to account for it. However if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 3, it could suddenly lose the game. Day 1/2 we have the freedom to try to achieve information at the risk of loosing vote power, day 3/4+ we do not simply because there is the high chance of loss My plan accounts for that because it focuses on stabilizing the late game, after a very tumultuous night 1. Secondly, look at information. Sentinel makes the fundamental assumption that circle-jerking will provide meaningful information. It won't, but it will provide a lot of WIFORM. However vote transfers will always have lots of information because every vote transfer is known. People will need to account for their votes. Sentinel's plan achieves neither of his goals of stability. In fact, there is a very dangerous counterplan that guarantees mafia an overwhelming advantage day 3 Counterplan: Between Day 1 and Day 2, give town 1 VP, and give mafia 1 VP 1: All mafia live. N3 Mafia has 13 VP, town has 17 VP. If town gives up 2 VP. If one townies mistransfers, mafia wins2. 1 Mafia is lynched. N3 Mafia has 10 VP, town has 20 VP. If town gives up 5 VP, mafia wins. More likely, 1-2 townies will mistransfer leading to Mafia entering with 12-14 VP, and town having 15-16 VP. This sets up lylo as the town has to be unanimous in order to unseat mafia. I believe this flaw is intentional and therefore I have a Red read on Sentinel Conclusion: I should read the thread before posting. And ##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
If I'm understanding you correctly, your logic on why my plan is bad VP-wise is based on the fact that if we give mafia power Day 1, then by giving them more power Day 2 it's lylo Day 3.
On January 28 2012 02:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Anyways, I think more people are for circlejerk, at least the first night when we have no info to use, than against. It's far from dead at any rate.
On January 28 2012 02:47 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I say anyone that wants to circlejerk for the first night, put your intentions down, maybe close to deadline we'll get a list of people agreeing to it here, and then the rest of the people can do whatever they feel like doing, voting for who they think is town or whatnot.
Maybe having to pick between two by Day 2 we can draw some conclusions about who the scumteam is?
I'm going to post these because when people brought up Day 3 lylo scenarios over the 5 pages of text in this thread since I made the accusing post (that was page 13, now we're on 18) I changed it to one day only. And in your own words,
if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 2, we still have time to account for it.
And to that extent, my original plan was this.
On January 26 2012 12:24 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Alright, let's keep it simple and trade one vote each night to the person below us on the list, and last person gives one VP to the top person? That way we all stay at 3 and everything's fair.
Everyone posting their thoughts on the plan agreed up until Palmar's post, then the debates on what to do began. I'm not saying that first plan was flawless, and it's bad for the exact reasons you've said - after two nights, mafia has too much of an advantage.
I'm still keeping my opinion the same, circlejerk night one.
|
EDIT: Didn't see the post LSD made after he voted for me. Is it assigned, like (X with 5 votes is going to vote for Y with 1 vote, Z with 7 for W with 1, etc.) or is it just the person with 1 vote that you trust the most as town?
|
On January 28 2012 03:30 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 03:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: EDIT: Didn't see the post LSD made after he voted for me. Is it assigned, like (X with 5 votes is going to vote for Y with 1 vote, Z with 7 for W with 1, etc.) or is it just the person with 1 vote that you trust the most as town? Person with 1 vote who you most trust as town. So if N2 it is A: 3 B: 3 C: 3 D: 1 E: 1 F: 1 G: 7 H: 5 I: 1 J: 1 K 3 L: 3 A, B, C, K, L will transfer 2 votes to one of A,B,C,K,L,D,E,F,I,J G will transfer 4 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J H will transfer 2 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J '
Alright then, sounds good. In that case, one more question. This is probably the last thing that's keeping me attached to circlejerking.
If mafia are acting pro-town and get votes (say G and H are mafia, other two could exchange votes), couldn't they possibly have a lylo day 3?
Say A B G and H are all mafia. Day 3, 43 VP left in the game. Day 2 mafia had 18 VP, if either B or C receives votes (and G and H circulate to B and C as well), it would be 20 mafia and 23 town.
On January 28 2012 03:33 LSB wrote:
Let me simply it
Your first plan is the obvious plan. It is really obvious. It doesn't say anything about your alignment
Your second plan circlejerking night 1 and night 2 but free for all night 3 is deceptive and has a very effective counterplan. That's why I think you are mafia
Your third plan is like your second plan, but the counterplan isn't as easy. It is still worse than my plan
I was concerned more about how many votes to circle (1 or 2), and again I said first 2 nights before everyone started talking about day 3 lynch or lose scenarios.
The third plan... answer my question and I'll agree with that statement.
|
On January 28 2012 04:45 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On January 28 2012 03:30 LSB wrote:On January 28 2012 03:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: EDIT: Didn't see the post LSD made after he voted for me. Is it assigned, like (X with 5 votes is going to vote for Y with 1 vote, Z with 7 for W with 1, etc.) or is it just the person with 1 vote that you trust the most as town? Person with 1 vote who you most trust as town. So if N2 it is A: 3 B: 3 C: 3 D: 1 E: 1 F: 1 G: 7 H: 5 I: 1 J: 1 K 3 L: 3 A, B, C, K, L will transfer 2 votes to one of A,B,C,K,L,D,E,F,I,J G will transfer 4 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J H will transfer 2 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J ' Alright then, sounds good. In that case, one more question. This is probably the last thing that's keeping me attached to circlejerking. If mafia are acting pro-town and get votes (say G and H are mafia, other two could exchange votes), couldn't they possibly have a lylo day 3? Say A B G and H are all mafia. Day 3, 43 VP left in the game. Day 2 mafia had 18 VP, if either B or C receives votes (and G and H circulate to B and C as well), it would be 20 mafia and 23 town. I'd be perfectly happy with that. G, H deviated from plan, obviously mafia. B/C is revealed to be mafia. 3/4 mafia are found. Town wins. Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 03:33 LSB wrote:
Let me simply it
Your first plan is the obvious plan. It is really obvious. It doesn't say anything about your alignment
Your second plan circlejerking night 1 and night 2 but free for all night 3 is deceptive and has a very effective counterplan. That's why I think you are mafia
Your third plan is like your second plan, but the counterplan isn't as easy. It is still worse than my plan I was concerned more about how many votes to circle (1 or 2), and again I said first 2 nights before everyone started talking about day 3 lynch or lose scenarios. The third plan... answer my question and I'll agree with that statement. The thing is this, although there is a possibility of lylo Day 4, it is a small possibility and relies on all mafia surviving and gaining multiple votes. Remember, mafia cannot pass the votes to each other all the time or else it would be very obvious who they are, even after just two rounds. It is much more likely that they won't control enough votes. If they attempt lylo, it makes our job very easy.
Well, that's virtually everything. I'm on board with this plan.
|
On January 28 2012 10:05 Paperscraps wrote:
I'll leave my vote on you until you give some valid benefits to free trade over circle trading N1.
LSB gave a full plan, it convinced me/answered all my questions at any rate, and involves free trade N1 and stabilization N2. Easier to find and detect mafia than just circle trading and working from there.
Also, bugs why the vote?
|
On January 28 2012 10:51 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 10:24 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On January 28 2012 10:05 Paperscraps wrote:
I'll leave my vote on you until you give some valid benefits to free trade over circle trading N1. LSB gave a full plan, it convinced me/answered all my questions at any rate, and involves free trade N1 and stabilization N2. Easier to find and detect mafia than just circle trading and working from there. Also, bugs why the vote? First off I don't agree fully with LSB's plan. Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: 2. If a player has more than 5 votes, then he must attempt to give away enough to put him at 5 or less votes.
^ This is the built-in stabilization mechanic ^ I just came to a realization. LSB's stabilization works against the free trade plan. The whole idea of free trade is trading to whomever you want, to get meaningful justifications and scum-tells. If we force players with more than 5 votes to give votes to players with 1 vote, then it defeats the purpose of plan. N1 we get meaningful justifications and N2 players just claim that they traded to some player x because he had 1 vote and was told to do so. Do you see how this is counter-productive the overall goal of free trade? There can't be any in between. All or nothing imo. I am for a full fledged free trade plan, but still believe that circle-trading N1 has more merit.
But they can trade to any 1-vote player. Like right now I'm not trusted (question about this later), so if I don't get my vote back right away the intention is that people will be more hard-pressed to give me my VP back. It's not like we start with 3-3-3-3-3, D2 it's 5-1-1-5-3 for example, and then D3 back to the 3-3-3-3-3. More likely it'll be something like 5-1-3-3-3, where the guy with the 1 has the FoS on him. The circulation is just to reveal people's voting patterns and make people justify their votes.
TL;DR - It's free trade but it keeps votes away from mafia while still favoring people the town trusts.
Question about that by the way - I don't see the player votes coming up for me. Is there something wrong?
|
On January 28 2012 11:47 Paperscraps wrote: Why try and balance at all though, if you are supposed to be trading votes based upon your reads. All the players that have 1 vote should be weaker townies and suspected mafia. Why would you want to give votes back to those players? I understand that LSB doesn't think the votes will go back to perfect balance. What if players with 5+ votes don't want to trade to any of the 1 vote players?
D1 we are 3-3-3-3-3-3-3 Then D2 we could be 1-5-3-1-3-3-5 or more probably 1-7-1-1-1-3-7 (due to town usually have a generally unison perception of pro-townies)
Alright so the people above with 1 vote should be weaker townies and suspected mafia. Why would we want to give votes back to them again? I know the players with 7 have to trade 2 votes no matter what, but why wouldn't the 7's trade with each other being, both pro-town to keep the advantage with town?
Am I not seeing things clearly? Also I didn't take into account the fact that one of those players will die, screwing up the votes. Possibly leaving potential 1's with 3 votes still if they traded to a 7 that was killed.
I just need more clarification on why balancing is a good thing in a free trade plan, when we could just use circle trading, which insures a much greater balance. The two plans obviously have different goals and contradict each other.
I am not going to talk about plans anymore though. My position at this point is: If we don't have unanimous agreement on circle trading N1, then we will obviously all just free trade and post justifications tomorrow. Either way the whole town is working together which is far more important than the plan itself.
That's just anti-mafia, at first I don't think we'd want anyone, townie or not, to have 7 VP, even if it means losing influence. Just less risky that way, it's more to examine voting patterns. Who knows, maybe you're right.
|
On January 28 2012 11:51 wherebugsgo wrote: Alright, if we go with the "trade to whoever you want" strategy, IMO one of two things happen:
1. The majority of the votes shift toward "more townie" townies, with "less townie" townies getting less votes. Mafia votes either go down by a couple or stay the same.
2. Mafia gains like 5 votes due to one of their members looking town.
Neither is something that is particularly great, although obviously #1 has its advantages. Is it very useful? IMO not really, since in a no-flip setup we can't tell the difference between 1 and 2.
#2 also requires the mafia to give up some of their votes, because if they just circlejerk each other then we find our scum and lynch to victory.
|
On January 28 2012 12:03 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 12:00 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On January 28 2012 11:51 wherebugsgo wrote: Alright, if we go with the "trade to whoever you want" strategy, IMO one of two things happen:
1. The majority of the votes shift toward "more townie" townies, with "less townie" townies getting less votes. Mafia votes either go down by a couple or stay the same.
2. Mafia gains like 5 votes due to one of their members looking town.
Neither is something that is particularly great, although obviously #1 has its advantages. Is it very useful? IMO not really, since in a no-flip setup we can't tell the difference between 1 and 2. #2 also requires the mafia to give up some of their votes, because if they just circlejerk each other then we find our scum and lynch to victory. I really don't think that it'll be that easy. Also, the fact that you actually think that it'll be that easy means I still want to lynch you.
I'm not saying it's easy to find them, I'm saying any advantage they gain, they have to give up at least in part to appear pro-town. If they're not circlejerking, they're circulating. And then they have to justify. And more VP to the town.
|
On January 28 2012 12:34 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 11:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On January 28 2012 11:47 Paperscraps wrote: Why try and balance at all though, if you are supposed to be trading votes based upon your reads. All the players that have 1 vote should be weaker townies and suspected mafia. Why would you want to give votes back to those players? I understand that LSB doesn't think the votes will go back to perfect balance. What if players with 5+ votes don't want to trade to any of the 1 vote players?
D1 we are 3-3-3-3-3-3-3 Then D2 we could be 1-5-3-1-3-3-5 or more probably 1-7-1-1-1-3-7 (due to town usually have a generally unison perception of pro-townies)
Alright so the people above with 1 vote should be weaker townies and suspected mafia. Why would we want to give votes back to them again? I know the players with 7 have to trade 2 votes no matter what, but why wouldn't the 7's trade with each other being, both pro-town to keep the advantage with town?
Am I not seeing things clearly? Also I didn't take into account the fact that one of those players will die, screwing up the votes. Possibly leaving potential 1's with 3 votes still if they traded to a 7 that was killed.
I just need more clarification on why balancing is a good thing in a free trade plan, when we could just use circle trading, which insures a much greater balance. The two plans obviously have different goals and contradict each other.
I am not going to talk about plans anymore though. My position at this point is: If we don't have unanimous agreement on circle trading N1, then we will obviously all just free trade and post justifications tomorrow. Either way the whole town is working together which is far more important than the plan itself. That's just anti-mafia, at first I don't think we'd want anyone, townie or not, to have 7 VP, even if it means losing influence. Just less risky that way, it's more to examine voting patterns. Who knows, maybe you're right. I am confused, do you want a plan based around balance or a plan based around gut instinct/perception?
Balance would leak to mafia though, they'd just kill off the people that are before them so they can pool their votes. I'd rather do perception so that townies can take advantage of VP.
|
On January 28 2012 13:06 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 12:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: That's just anti-mafia, at first I don't think we'd want anyone, townie or not, to have 7 VP, even if it means losing influence. Just less risky that way, it's more to examine voting patterns. Who knows, maybe you're right.
Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 12:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Balance would leak to mafia though, they'd just kill off the people that are before them so they can pool their votes. I'd rather do perception so that townies can take advantage of VP.
1.First you are saying that no one should have more VP than others. You are saying that players with high VP should trade it away because having high VP is risky and not worth the information gained from justifications. (Implying balance is good) 2.Then you are saying that balance would lead to mafia to pool their votes. (Implying balance is bad) In case 1 you doubt peoples perceptions. In case 2 you support peoples perceptions.
I want evened out voting power after two nights, N1 to mix it up and then N2 to stabilize so mafia can't have too many votes. I'm saying that by redistributing the votes instead of circlejerk method which mafia can collect votes by killing the chump in front of him. By doing it on merit system, mafia can't pool their votes that easily because everyone votes by free will N1, and then votes by semi-free will N2 (you still have diff options)
|
I didn't actually look up Palmar, I was going off of what others were saying about these two. And since people were talking about Palmar being like this all the time in this thread, he went off my radar.
At the time of voting I didn't actually read ANYONE's past history. Bad error on my part, but I don't get how this correlates to me being mafia.
The reason I unvoted was because I thought risk.nuke was throwing up arguments to try and get around answering the question of mafia collecting all the votes and not giving them back. His logic seemed circuitous to me at the time, and I thought he was just pissing people off as a scum player, not as risk.nuke.
And everyone keeps bring up that post - you realize that plan was BEFORE everyone started offering up logic to perfect the circlejerk and then abolish it altogether?
|
|
On January 29 2012 02:01 Jackal58 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 01:32 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I didn't actually look up Palmar, I was going off of what others were saying about these two. And since people were talking about Palmar being like this all the time in this thread, he went off my radar.
At the time of voting I didn't actually read ANYONE's past history. Bad error on my part, but I don't get how this correlates to me being mafia.
The reason I unvoted was because I thought risk.nuke was throwing up arguments to try and get around answering the question of mafia collecting all the votes and not giving them back. His logic seemed circuitous to me at the time, and I thought he was just pissing people off as a scum player, not as risk.nuke.
And everyone keeps bring up that post - you realize that plan was BEFORE everyone started offering up logic to perfect the circlejerk and then abolish it altogether? What does that have to do with voting and unvoting risk? Do you think Palmar is scummy? Do you think risk would only piss people off as town? What has risk done to piss people off?
I'll do this line by line, maybe for once I can finally explain my reasoning in an understandable way.
Do you think Palmar is scummy?
I thought Palmar was scummy too but lots of people were making posts like "This is what Palmar does, it's not scummy it's just Palmar being Palmar" and after a lot of posts like that I'm thinking "If this is what he's usually like, nothing out of the ordinary."
What does that have to do with voting and unvoting risk? What has risk done to piss people off?
Risk on the other hand, nobody really backed up in this thread. So I can't make that kind of assumption about risk -> he still looked scummy to me. I thought risk was just screwing with the circlejerk plan because at the time, everyone was like, "let's do some form of circlejerking 1 vote/2 vote etc. etc.)" and I thought he was just doing it to fuck with us, and maybe screw up the plan to create general disorder for mafia to hide in.
My justification of the disorder was that when I asked him about mafia holding on to votes, he seemed to avoid the question, and argue everything else except that point. I thought this was circuitous logic and he couldn't answer it, which looked a bit scummy to me. The answer he finally gave seemed logical enough to unvote him, in that best-case scenario he's just an aggressive townie like Palmar.
Do you think risk would only piss people off as town?
Could you explain this question?
|
Question If I die do I still get a goodbye post?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 29 2012 05:21 prplhz wrote:You are player A and below you is player B. You think that player C is more likely to be town than player B. How would town benefit from you giving player B your vote and hiding behind a silly plan? Would town not benefit more from you giving your vote to player C along with an explanation that would convince everybody else that player C is more likely to be town than player B? You are player A. It is day1 you can give away 1 or 2 votes. Why would town benefit more from you giving away 2 votes than 1? Unless you expect that you're going to die that makes no sense. We have to play mafia and mafia includes a lot of forcing people to generate content to see how they behave. The plan "wing it and keep us posted" accomplishes exactly that. We can't sit around and be too afraid to do anything, that wont ever win us the game and it might just lose it for us. We can't let ourselves be distracted by huge plans that require everybody to be Mafia might look townie but only if they act townie. If they act townie then we're gonna win anyway 'cause they'll need to surrender after having bussed all of their teammates. I'm going to hold everybody responsible for whoever they give their votes to, I don't care if they're below you on the list or not, if you give your vote to someone then you better have a really good reason for this.
Anyway, wherebugsgo is scum. wherebugsgo's town play can be characterized as very active and aggressive, he's a good scum hunter and decent at getting town to listen to him, he very certain and concious of his own ability, and he doesn't take shit from anybody. He always keeps his eyes on the ball and never makes a single post that doesn't have a purpose and that doesn't make sense. As scum he is still very active, but he doesn't make sense with everything he says. He is more lazy, less constructive, and more of a dick. I don't see town wherebugsgo. I see scum wherebugsgo. His vote against risk.nuke was terrible and he should know this, yet he votes him. First of all, risk.nuke is making sense in what he is saying, the trade circle (can we please refer to it as trade circle 'cause the other moniker is fucking terrible) is a bad idea. Second of all, anybody who is that vocal in their opposition to any plan is rarely scum. Third, wherebugsgo is voting risk.nuke because "he [risk.nuke] can't see this common sense" (about the trade-circle), but Palmar is opposing it too. Why does he hold risk.nuke to a higher standard than Palmar when Palmar is one of the best players in this game while risk.nuke is known to be semi-obstructive and hard to work with? Town wherebugsgo would have gone for Palmar because he has absolutely no excuse for what wherebugsgo says is bad logic, instead he avoids to do that. The vote was terrible and he retracts it without further reasoning. wherebugsgo votes for a lot of reasons, but this vote had no purpose other than him attempting to show his standard aggressive play but fails because he has no arguments. wherebugsgo ALWAYS has arguments, like this, this, and this. Contrast those posts to "he can't see the logic of a bad plan". His support of the trade-circle is also weird, wherebugsgo is fear mongering. The most obvious plan is that townies trade based on their reads, this will force people to contribute and will give us more very relevant to analyse. The trading is like a vote every night for who people think is more townie. wherebugsgo should think that this is awesome because he is town, but instead he thinks it's terribly because he's scum. Look at this post. "Giving votes to who you think is town is terrible because scum will look more town, THAN TOWNIES". What the fuck kind of logic is this? How are we every going to catch scum then, is he setting us up to lynch the people who look most town because they're likely scum? Second paragraph is hilarious. If we can't trust people to semi-reliably pick out who is townie, then how can we trust them to semi-reliably pick out who is scum? If we can't trust them to do that then what the hell can we do, just sit here and be so afraid to make mistakes that we will give the game away to scum? Single VP from town to mafia doesn't matter much because the mafia players who will end up with the most VP will be the most active and they will be figured out, the mafia players with fewer votes wont be as important to figure out right away. wherebugsgo should be fucking hooked on the free-trade plan, I don't remember a time when he was killed by town when he was town, but he's been figured out the last two times he was scum. That means that when he is town people usually know this, while when he's scum people will usually know this too. Then why doesn't he support the plan of trading VP to people who are town? Free-trading is a plan that allows everybody to ensure that their ability will be converted to votes, I think it massively favors town as long as we don't screw up massively which I am not going to assume. In this game we don't get a mod confirmed alignment of people who die. We need an analysis to confirm their alignment to ourselves. wherebugsgo provides absolutely no analysis for risk.nuke other than "he doesn't support the plan". Look at this. This is what wherebugsgo is capable of, that analysis was done a lot later in that game but wherebugsgo has uncharacteristically provided nothing at all this game. Now he is ready to kill me and [UoN]Sentinel at Paperscraps with absolutely no analysis given, even though wherebugsgo always provides some reason and analysis is even more important in this game than in any other. Only scum would benefit from a lynch we're unsure of because they would be able to spin it in any direction favorable to them. That said, I don't think [UoN]Sentinel or Paperscraps looks like they're likely scum. There's a lot of behavior from wherebugsgo that seems off but it's quite hard to write it down in a way that would make sense to a person who doesn't have several games with wherebugsgo. wherebugsgo is absolutely the best lynch we can get day1, I briefly considered other people and no-lynching but I'm pretty sure about this. I came to the conclusion that wherebugsgo was scum in Mini Mafia X and Responsibility Mafia! and I'm confident that he's scum in this game too even considering that it's pretty early in the game (caught on to him early on in Mini Mafia X too though) I know I voted earlier but it just looks good at the end of an analysis: ##Vote: wherebugsgo
About the votes on me so far; they're all god damn stupid. If you really want me to defend myself I'll do that because I have more time now, but I don't think that if any of you read any of the few arguments that's been put forward so far, that you could tell me why they make it more likely that I am scum over town. I don't claim to be the towniest person but I am neither scummy and nor the scummiest so there's absolutely no reason to lynch me. Also, so funny with people voting for me for not immediately providing analysis, when they don't care about the analysis that free-trading would force out of everybody. Voting to force analysis out of me, but won't adopt a voting plan that forces analysis out of everybody.
I think this is the soundest lynch logic I've heard thus far.
+ Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 19:31 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 19:22 Paperscraps wrote:
After Night 1 I am all for doing something else. We will have more information, due to the possibility of power roles. Power roles will be able to be 100% percent sure on things and lead town to lynches and pro-town reads. After Night 1 your plan is sound. This. I don't get why people are convinced they'd have to circlejerk until the end of the universe if we go with the plan. I just want a one or two night circlejerk, get information out, and then start voting appropriately.
This is one of the posts I made between my two-day circle trade idea (that's getting me lynched) and my one-day circle trade idea that shows I was changing my mind, not just sporadically suggesting plans to fuck everyone over. I'm a noob who felt good when his first post got received so warmly. Get over it. People poked holes in my initial circle trade, I came up with 2-day circle trade. People poked holes in that, I came up with 1-day circle trade. People poked holes in that, oh well, shitty plan, let's try something different. Now I like LSB's vote trading plan, and that hasn't had enough holes poked into it to change my mind again.
I'm done vouching my defense for now.
Bugs never justified his vote on me. Well he did, but when I asked him about it, Paperscraps just took over and I never got a reply from bugs. Reading his earlier threads (especially that long justification he did) makes me suspicious of this action.
On January 28 2012 10:19 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 10:05 Paperscraps wrote:On January 28 2012 09:36 layabout wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Paperscraps last post] +On January 28 2012 09:24 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 05:13 Jackal58 wrote: Scum can gain voting power by killing the people they trade votes with.
And don't vote for the cowboy. Palmar is town.
Any reasons to why you think Palmar is town? The way the game is evolving right now, Palmar seems to be gaining a lot of town support, thus more likely to get votes on N1 if we do the free trade system. Am I the only one wary of this? There is no possible way to know whether or not he is town or mafia on D1. This is a game of wits and Palmar is a smart fellow, just saying. Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 05:05 Palmar wrote:On January 28 2012 04:24 Paperscraps wrote:On January 27 2012 22:57 Palmar wrote: The difference between finding mafia to lynch and finding townie to pass your vote to is night and day. Remember, if you just randomize it, you still have 70% chance of hitting a townie. Add in even a tiny bit of thinking and that percentage goes up.
When you're trying to lynch scum it's the opposite, and you will be influenced by outside factors (it's harder to get wagons started on scum). However, this is your decision and your decision alone, so you have complete control over the outcome.
There is no such thing as safe play in mafia. It's not safe to do the circle of trust because we don't know what abilities the mafia has, and we cannot possibly gain an advantage through that method. With no advantage we don't know how the game is balanced. "I just chose at random" This justification completely negates what your plan is trying to do, which is to get scumtells from peoples justification on their trades. Another contradiction By your logic and probability, townies should trade their votes at random N1, ~70% chance to trade to another townie. So, which one is it Palmar? Free trade + justifications or randomized trading. On January 27 2012 19:57 Palmar wrote: whatever, I don't have the energy to argue with dumb.
I will not be following whatever plan you guys cook up. I will be following my own plan. This is so anti-town. Solidarity is crucial, not dissidence. You are forcing the town to do one of two things, follow you or lynch you. Seems like a scummy power play to me. ##Vote: Palmar You're not helping anyone with that. You're just being dumb. Seeing as you're probably town you're working directly against your win condition. I didn't suggest anyone randomized, I was just pointing out what a great starting point we had even if we simply randomed. Don't try to see things that aren't there. Palmar, why the lack of open-mindedness? The benefit of circle trading N1 is much safer than free trading to people based of some perception we got during D1. I don't disagree with a free trade + justification plan after N1, but N1 circle trading seems the best options, until we get some solid reads during D2. I'll leave my vote on you until you give some valid benefits to free trade over circle trading N1.
Does anyone think no lynching is an option D1? The mafia have a set KP, thus we only lose 1 townie and D2 we have a ton more information to work with. Odds are we will lynch a townie today. I am fine with lynching this guy. What's this i am gonna leave my vote on you crap? He is also hinting at a no-lynch on the basis that we will likely hit a townie, which is just plain bad If you think I am guilty, why not vote me up then? I am leaving my vote on Palmar, because he is being unreasonable. Hopefully he will post something more constructive, instead of just calling people "dumb". I on the other hand am open to suggestions and willing to change if people post logical arguments. 4/15 chance to hit mafia, 11/15 chance to hit townie. You are willing to lynch me right now and that would be very bad for town. Why the sudden change from purple and viscera to me? Why is a no-lynch so frowned upon? I understand that we can only kill mafia by lynching, but D1 odds are against us. Because the odds are against us all days, not just D1. Do you think scum are going to withhold their NK because they haven't figured out who's blue yet? More information would be nice, but a slightly lessened chance of killing scum (lynching D1) is better than zero chance of killing scum (NL D1). If you want to see the No-Lynch in action, go check out XLVIII. + Show Spoiler +Scum Victory - not really because of the No-Lynches, but please note the chaos that surrounds EVERY lynch. NL is hardly ever the answer. I'm going back to do a reread and a couple filters, so in the meantime... ##Unvote: PaperscrapsI don't think I'll be able to get the support I'd need, and I'm starting to doubt you're red myself. Not many scum would suggest no-lynch like that...especially since it's so frowned upon in most towns. I'll be back later tonight with my vote.
So the only real argument he's made all game he rescinds.
I'd say VE is fluffing the thread, but bugs has more holes in his story/justification. Thus:
##Vote: wherebugsgo
|
On January 29 2012 06:44 Jackal58 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 02:19 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Do you think risk would only piss people off as town? Could you explain this question? What I meant was pissing people off seems to be a scum tell for you. Palmar almost always pisses me off but it has nothing to do with his alignment. Scummy Palmar and townie Palmar both piss me off. Same with WBG. I was wondering if you thought that was a scum tell. I also wondered what risk did to piss you off?
At the time, I did think it was a scum tell (again, didn't know his history at that point). Like, people yelling just shuts you off to their ideas, and so I just kinda got pissed off at him.
|
On January 29 2012 07:11 LSB wrote:We have about 3 hours to get a lynch in and I will spend this time to push forth what I think is the best lynch, [UoN]Sentinel. I can see similarities between my mafia play in previous games and his play here. One of effective plays a mafia can do is to blatantly play for the mafia side. Sometimes town doesn’t notice, and sometimes a few people do notice but they don’t do anything till it’s too lateIn addition, this play is very effective for this setup, even if you are exposed, you could simply transfer 2 of your votes away to your team, minimizing a loss of a sacrifice. As I have stated here, the plans that [UoN]Sentinel proposes all have effective mafia counterplans: -Circlejerk is obvious, but mafia friendly -His wait 2 nights and then free trade is disastrous, and results in either a D2 or D3 lylo. -His wait 1 night is almost as bad, and put on shaky reasoning To say that I am ‘giving him too much credit’ or ‘he can’t possibly scheme that for ahead’, would be an unfair underestimation. His posts demonstrate he is capable of thinking ahead and the ability to formulate intricate counterplans. Although he had a change of heart in the later stages, this only happened after I called him out on his plan, and it is standard play to drop any obvious mafia tactics as soon as possible. Because of his blatant attempts to mislead the town, to me he is the most obvious mafia
Hate to break it to you, but this is my first game (newbie mafia hadn't started yet, this was the only free game at the time). I couldn't counterplan for shit when I posted, I doubt I can still think that far ahead even with all I've learned.
|
Did we miss the deadline?
|
EDIT: Sorry, thing didn't update, I didn't see all those posts.
|
|
|
|