|
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.
This is one of the worst example of logic I've ever read. If I was day vig I'd kill you for trying to make a case out of this.
|
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 late
In 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
|
I really don't like meta-calls. There are a variety of reasons why someone can change their meta. Maybe they want to try something new, maybe they are getting bored of mafia.
Hey, I just got lynched (as town) because I went on a ski trip and was afk for 20 hours, and a giant lynch was started because I was 'too inactive'
|
On January 29 2012 07:48 jaybrundage wrote:
##Vote WhereBugsGo
Your vote didn't register, could you please reformat it?
On January 29 2012 07:44 prplhz wrote:
@LSB
The [UoN]Sentinel lynch is bad. This isn't the first time a newbie has confused "abrasive" or "seemingly wrong" with "scum". [UoN]Sentinel has been out there all game and he hasn't been afraid to speak his mind at all. He didn't cave in face of opposition, but he has realized that he was wrong. This isn't a scum tell at all, you'd acknowledge that you are wrong if you are wrong no matter your alignment wouldn't you?
[UoN]Sentinel is likely just a newbie who really wants to play this game, we'll see about his alignment later but are you really willing to lynch him on that reasonable you have in a 4v11 no-flip game?
Meta is absolutely useful for any lynch, so is behavioral analysis. Less so people pushing scum agenda, day1 is always hard to play, just because some new guy didn't think something fully through doesn't mean that he's scum at all. Scum generally will be much more wary of blatantly pushing scum agenda.
I'd rather overestimate someone than underestimate someone, and [UoN]Sentinel does not seem like a clueless Noob to me. The thing with mafia is that anyone can make a meaningful contribution, even if it is only their first game. In addition, his posting style disproves of this notion, he is capable of critical analysis of plans and formulation of counterplans.
Your defense of him is essentially "he is too noob" and "lynching people is bad because he won't flip". Shoddy reasoning to me. In addition, I don't believe you have a complete understanding of his argument. I agree with you, people often mistake bad with scum. However, that isn't my argument, my argument is that this is an obvious scum play and must be treated as such.
|
If the [UoN]Sentinel lynch doesn't happen, I'd be willing to lynch WBG is there is enough people. Town KP is always better than mafia KP
|
Well I'd rather have a lynch rather than a No lynch, and WBG has been hard core lurking, all of his posts are about the setup.
##Unvote [UoN]Sentinel
##Vote Wherebugsgo
+ Show Spoiler +If more people start voting for [UoN]Sentinel I'll probably switch back
|
On January 29 2012 09:26 Palmar wrote:
why the reservation LSB? Do you not think Bugs will flip le scum?
I don't like bugs, but I feel that Sentinel is the safer lynch. My order of preference.
Sentinel
WBG
Someone else
No Lynch
Someone I have a town read on
|
On January 29 2012 09:41 Palmar wrote:
seriously, this lynch is on me, if you don't hammer node, I swear to god I will get you killed this game.
Now now threats aren't that nice palmar ^^
|
Night 1: Free Trade![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/NAFTA_logo.png)
Tonight is free trade! Please give your votes to anyone who you think is town. DO NOT announce your votes in thread. Wait until daybreak after all of the votes have been transferred. Once day two come, everyone must post how many votes they gave away and to whom they gave votes away to.
Please give away two of your votes. This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2.
|
On January 29 2012 10:02 MeatlessTaco wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Night 1: Free Trade Tonight is free trade! Please give your votes to anyone who you think is town. DO NOT announce your votes in thread. Wait until daybreak after all of the votes have been transferred. Once day two come, everyone must post how many votes they gave away and to whom they gave votes away to. Please give away two of your votes. + Show Spoiler +This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2. Am I taking crazy pills or is this a really bad idea?
Why would you say that?
|
On January 30 2012 06:23 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched.
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities? I'll play devil's advocate here, since you like that WIFOM. Lets assume WBG was mafia for a minute. Why would mafia speak out in defense for him? It would only draw suspicion onto them. WBG didn't even defend himself. As risk.nuke mentioned above people do weird stuff when under the gun, which is great because this is when scum make mistakes. Any self-respecting townie would at least try to defend themselves, role claim, anything other than lurk! or at least I would hope a townie would. Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Also bussing is valid tactic for mafia. That is a scummy thing to say. It is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan, when they have a QT to discuss something delicate like a bus, before hand.
In a no flip game town has to assume the worst until PRs can give us something concrete, thus we will of course keep an open mind that 4 mafia could still remain.
This is an interesting argument. For the sake of the argument lets assume that WBG was mafia (and try to disprove it)
If WBG was mafia, mafia would attempt to defend him. Why? Because it is no flip and it is less risky defend players. In addition, there is less incentive to bus players because town will not be certain that the mafia you bused was actually mafia.
Therefore the No-flip sets up incentives for more straightforward-town scum play.
Now, to straight out say that there was no defense of WBG would ignore two things. Counterlynches.
At the end of the day there were three important lynches. And a valid tactic would be to try to attract attention to another lynch.
VisceraEyes- Lead by Palmar and Node
[UoN]Sentinal- Proposed by Me, supported by a few other people.
A few things, first of all the WBG counterlynch happened extreamly fast, he went from a few votes to magic majority in about 4 hours. By this time a few of the other lynches were abandoned, both me and Palmar switched to WBG.
The only person who put up a soft 'defence' of WBG was Node as Node was reluctant to lynch WBG. Currently I have a green read of Node.
From here I conclude that it is unlikely there was a mafia defense of WBG, even though there were very solid counterlynches. This could be explained because twoards the end it was less about persuasion, and more about trying to shove a lynch before the deadline. However a last minute push for one of the other two canidates is not impossible in that situation.
Because of this we should treat WBG as a green townie.
|
I sent 2 votes to layabout
I did this for a variety of reasons
1) I wanted to send my vote to someone I did not consider a vet/prominent in this game, I expected that they were more likely to receive votes, and by sending it to a new person might help with keeping things more balanced (Turns out I was wrong)
2) layabout's critique of my plans and his concerns about it in the rudimentary stages show genuine concern about the fate of the town. He has taken more controversial stances on positions so I have a green read on him.
|
On January 30 2012 11:54 chaoser wrote:
Back from running. The shot on palmar pretty much confirms him for me.i gave my vote to him but it didnt go through
Do you know for certain if your vote didn't go through? It is possible that you gave a vote to Palmar and someone gave a vote to you.
|
On January 30 2012 19:45 MeatlessTaco wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 09:32 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm actually going to be busy for about 3.5 hours, so I'll be back to answer major concerns then. Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Tonight is free trade! Please give your votes to anyone who you think is town. DO NOT announce your votes in thread. Wait until daybreak after all of the votes have been transferred. Once day two come, everyone must post how many votes they gave away and to whom they gave votes away to.
Please give away two of your votes. + Show Spoiler + This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2. Why the change of heart? ##Vote LSB
It was quiet obviously a typo. The post before I put forth the pass two votes plan http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303505¤tpage=15#287
|
Here are the final vote transfers
Palmar 2 -> Paperscraps
Jackal58 1 -> Palmar
chaoser -> No vote
LSB 2 -> layabout
prplhz 1 -> Palmar
wherebugsgo
Dirkzor 1 -> Jackal58
risk.nuke 1 -> Palmar
[UoN]Sentinel 2 -> prplhz
Paperscraps 1 -> Prplhz
jaybrundage 1 -> prplhz
MeatlessTaco 1 -> Layabout
Node 1 -> [UoN]Sentinel
VisceraEyes 1 -> LSB
layabout 1 -> risk.nuke
I'm interested in two things. First why is there a bandwagon on me, and second why layabout gave a vote to risk.nuke
|
Analysis of vote patterns
How would mafia keep votes inside of the circle?
1) Attempting to transfer votes to the person getting killed and 'failing'. Palmar was hit. There has been no counterclaim so there would be no reason to doubt this premise. Now lets take a look at the people who transferred a vote to Palmar.
Jackal58
prplhz
risk.nuke
chaoser (attempted)
It wouldn't be a stretch to say that there is a mafia located somewhere in those 4 names. However, at the same time just giving a vote to Palmar isn't sufficient for suspicion as mafia. Palmar played pretty pro town day 1 so I would expect people to support him.
2) Transferring votes to team members. You would typically want to transfer votes to the person you think is 'most townie' on your team. The simplest way to do this is to list off everyone who received votes.
Paperscraps
Palmar
layabout
Jackal58
prplhz
[UoN]Sentinel
LSB
risk.nuke
We can be absolutely certain that there exists multiple mafia in this list, it would be very foolish for mafia to not transfer votes to one another. Another thing to note is that everyone in the first list is in the second list (except for Chaoser, who no one would transfer a vote to for obvious reasons)
However there is little this analysis can provide in the way of actual scum reads. We can continue on night two to see if any patterns develop.
|
On January 30 2012 20:00 Palmar wrote:
I'm starting to think WBG may have been town, mainly due to LSB being willing to kill him.
Of the three candidates that were up for death yesterday, he was ok with killing sentinel and bugs, not visceraeyes, who i think is scum.
Correction, I wanted to kill Sentinel. I didn't want a no-lynch. I didn't bother posting an opinion on VE yesterday because I preferred the Sentinel lynch and I didn't want to distract from it.
With LSB having "green reads" on me and node, I find his decision to give layabout (someone I've repeatedly called out) very questionable. Since he has a green read on me,
Of course I had a green read on you, however most of the town had a green read on you so I expected you to get lots of votes. Giving you more votes would just cause a larger vote imbalance, which I was trying to prevent. I also expected that node would have people sending votes to him, however I was incorrect about that,
I find it very strange he does not give my reads any respect at all, and straight up gives votes to the player I find most scummy in the game.
Just saying... last game I played with you, you lynched me while I was townie cause I was afk for a day. Besides that mislynch I don't have much experience with you.
|
On January 30 2012 20:13 Palmar wrote:
Which part is a typo LSB?
Meh, it's late and I'm not remembering things clearly.
Okay, here's the point.
I was talking about vote circles. Here is my reasoning for why passing 2 votes in vote circles is bad.
3. It is better than passing 2 votes. Passing 2 votes is very pro-mafia. There is no reason to pass two votes if you only have 3. Remember, you can only pass votes to one person, so just passing one vote neutralizes any other vote passing actions you have. The only reason why you would want to pass two votes would be to make a two vote swing for the mafia. (in-addition passing two votes eliminates a self-correcting mechanism)
Re-balancing requires passing 1 vote. And we can all agree that passing two votes in a vote circle is a bad idea.
However this is not the case in free trade.
|
On January 30 2012 20:19 Palmar wrote:
Which game was that?
Responsibility Mafia!
|
On January 30 2012 20:21 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 20:21 LSB wrote:On January 30 2012 20:19 Palmar wrote:
Which game was that? Responsibility Mafia! I was traitor in that game...
Oh, you told me you were town via PM after the game after I ask you if you were scum. I didn't bother to check the thread afterwards to see whether or not you were lying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
