|
On January 28 2012 22:55 risk.nuke wrote:
@Palmar: unless you mind, could you summarise your case on layabout?
@Layabout, you said you thought some stuff I wrote was anti-town. what stuff?
i can summarise his case on me:
On January 27 2012 05:11 layabout wrote:
Stop bickering and lets come to an agreement about the plans that are floating around
On January 27 2012 05:22 Palmar wrote:
let's lynch layabout for trying to play gandhi
Anti-town stuff:
I suppose it comes down to the way you were discussing the plans, you were advocating a free vote system when other posters had agree upon a "circle jerk" system and your reasons did not hold much weight. Because of this i felt that you were trying to stop town from agreeing to a beneficial plan.
+ Show Spoiler +Hold on a second Palmar didn't agree! On January 27 2012 01:06 Palmar wrote:
I have no issues with a planned vote-trading system, I'm just not going to follow it. conclusions: Palmar might be a dick Maybe we should ignore him
On January 27 2012 06:05 risk.nuke wrote:
I'm back.
I'll do exacly as palmar. I'll give my ONE obligatory vote to the person I think is town the most.
The vote system seems to me like a very pro-town mechanic. Having a vote circle completly nullfies that.
Conclusion: Votecircles are dumb
FoS: VE, did you seriously just attempt to lynch palmar day 1.
My problem with this is that simple vote-trading by itself is very pro-mafia as town have more votes and every vote they trade can potentially end up in mafia hands and mafia know which team their votes are going to.
It is only a beneficial system if we can hold people accountable for their actions. From your posting i didn't feel that you were telling people why it was beneficial and when you are trying to convince them to see your perspective you really should be explaining why you think what you think.
On January 27 2012 06:49 risk.nuke wrote:
Maybe you only thought about it for ten seconds or I wasn't clear enough. I will not tolerate vote-circles. Votes are a pressure-mechanic. Everyone gives votes to who we think are town. Mafia can't lurk which is reason enough not to have any dumb vote circles. But also we get more information on eachother. We can see who gives votes to who, track it and look for suspicious patterns. This will force the mafia to act like they play pro-town or suffer loss of votepower since it would be pretty damn obvious if 4 players are trading are always giving votes to eachother they will be forced to give their votes to townies and try and aqquire votes from townies. The very good thing about having a system where everyone can send votes to whoever they want is we can judge people by who they give their vote to.
Having changed my perspective since LSB proposed his plan i think i can see what you mean here. But at the time it was not clear to me how we would know what people had done, or whether players would be open about their actions, so we cannot make decisions based around knowing who did what.
On January 27 2012 09:26 risk.nuke wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 09:04 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 27 2012 08:53 risk.nuke wrote:
I'm not beein thick you are. I said why don't they do it anyway and ment THIS GAME, regardless of votecircles or not.
You say that if we lett everyone give thier votes to whoever they want then scum will try to look the most town and that's why it is a bad idea. What you say doesn't even make sense. uhh of course it does. You say, let's give our votes to whoever looks most town.
Scum then simply get votes for doing what would be optimal for them anyway! No doubt scum are going to try to look town. By saying we are going to give the people who look town the votes, we're basically going to reward scum for their play with votes. What YOU are saying doesn't make sense, because you completely overlook this. The most useless players in the game are generally all townies, and so you're basically going to shift votes away from them onto scum and active townies. It will almost always benefit scum because the vote proportion will change just by the fact that the lazy townies won't receive votes while everyone else will. No. I say I will give my votes to whoever I think is town, town isn't goin to hold a moot about it and have everyone send their vote to 1 or 3 people. And tell me how is scum going to act to look pro-town. All we can do to find scum in this game is look for inconsistencies and scummy behavior. Free vote-trading just gives us more to look for and help us get better reads on people. And scum will have to activly post to get votes or have their votes reduced. Which will prevent first of all lurker-scum but also more room to slip and make an error. Also you're going by the assumption that there will be three scum who will look mega town. along with 3-4 townies who will try to play and get killed first while the rest of the town is useless. Thats dumb. Yeah there are a few people in this game that shouldn't be. But you are just either fearfull or purposly fearmongering. Assume the majority of the townies will be regular townies. Not useless lurkers. Please, This was supposed to be a game free of beginers just because of that. There will likely be 1 or 2 useless townies anyway who slinked in. They will have 1 votepower and wont hurt us as much as they could with 3 votes. Consider them as a lurker-bane shot them.You have provided no reasoning for why votecircles are better then free voting other then. Scum will try to look town and get all our votes which is incorrect and dumb-townie at best. Scumplay at worst.I'm off, we'll continue this tomorrow.
I think that WBG made better points during this exchange.
The italicised seemed anti-town because we are likely to have at least a few townies that are lurking or not making themselves look town. At this moment in time this is the case.
Underlined WBG had provided reasoning, here:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 08:02 wherebugsgo wrote:
I think a uniform trading plan actually has a lot of merit, if we are very very strict about it.
I.e. Anyone who doesn't follow it gets lynched. Why? Well, as a townie you have very little information, if any, about where your vote is going. Mafia knows all the alignments, so they know everything already. Thus, the vote trading mechanic is clearly scum favored, because they know who are getting their votes and why. They can split up the votes, they can pile them up, they can put them on scum, they can put them on town.
The no-flip mechanic means we'll never find out the alignment of the players involved. This can spell some problems for us. Ofc, every night we can expect 1 KP that will most likely hit town.
So if you think about it, as townies we're essentially gambling by giving out our votes to our "best town reads". I can guarantee you that as scum I'd jump on this faster than you could say WIFOM.
Why? Well, it's simple. This game is no flip, so the possibilities are almost limitless for scum manipulation with respect to a mechanic that relies on relatively unreliable player reads. Look at day 1 of L; like 15 townies (some of the best in this forum) thought BM was town, and almost fucked us over. Reads, particularly early game reads, are often too unreliable for this kind of mechanic.
For that reason, I think we should play normally, and send the votes in an orderly fashion so that we know where they are at all times. When votes appear where they shouldn't be, we take a look at why that happened, and we can lynch the people responsible (since the receiver will correspond to another player)
In other words, if the vote circle is messed up, the solution is to kill the sender.
Bolded is his comparison with a free vote system.
All of that said i do now agree with independent vote-trading but not for the reasons you had said, and only if everyone explains why they did what they did. If there are no explanations then we would simply be gambling town votes for no gain.
On another note no more plan talk , we have a lynch to decide.
We can discus plans during the night but because people might not be online for the whole night an agreement would have to be reached well before the end of night.
(this might seem like plan talk and it is but only because it relates to previous discussion and the majority of that was plan talk)
|
Sorry I have been a bit busy. Around 6:30pm EST tonight I will send out vote trading and power commands for the night cycle. Everything runs through Zbot.
|
choaser, would you mind posting anytime soon?
prplhz, where are you? why did you vote?
Node, seriously wtf?
I had hoped to come back to a thread that was engaged in a serious discussion with candidates and cases and accusations and such. I am very disappointed.
Least green players in the thread:
Meatless Taco
Sentinel
Since sentinel has written much more and still managed to not be helpful i will be putting my vote on Sentinel.
+ Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 04:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 02:57 Dirkzor wrote:
@Lay
I don't know if you misunderstood the mechanic or I misunderstood your post.
It IS possible to have more then 5 votes during the daytime. If everyone give their votes to palmar he could potentially have 31 votes day 2. Come night 2 he would have to give away atleast 24 votes to one person.
I think that paperscraps have a point that we need to agree on a method to control the votes.
1) and 2) are only viable for a short amount of time (as lay pointed out) but can be good in the start to keep votes spread out.
3) is the best way to continuosly keep track of where people put their votes. 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. early game stability into late game instability is better for mafia than town On January 27 2012 10:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I'm going to do this:
##Vote: risk.nuke
because I feel that risk is stirring up dissent, and also he hasn't made a rebuttal on the fact that if mafia gets votes they will not give them away, they'll just trade to each other. It's common sense. Also sometimes I don't think he's actually doing anything except provoking players, so either he's just really BM or he's mafia. Either way I don't have a good feeling about him. + Show Spoiler +*i have had to fix the formatting in his post because it messed mine up Votes risk nuke for "stirring up dissent. I the later part of this post indicates to me that sentinel has not bothered to read any of risk's past games, because if he had he would know that this behaviour is consistent with risk.nuke past. (who bleeds green) On January 27 2012 12:09 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I'd say risk. Palmar from what I gather is generally like this, risk is a more shady character. he seems to have bothered to learn about Palmar's usual play but not bothered to check on risk's even though he is voting for risk, i do not like this On January 28 2012 02:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 00:03 prplhz wrote:
Since circle trading is effectively dead, can we talk about how stupid the risk.nuke lynch is? First off, ##Unvote risk.nuke He answered my question, even if I don't like his answer I thought he was avoiding it among others.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. Why would sentinel bother to vote for a player only to unvote because they gave an answer to a question, an answer that sentinel didn't like! At best it means that Sentinel was just throwing his vote around for the sake of it. This is the point at which i reach what can only be described as barely a conclusion. The primary reason for voting for him is that he looks less green to me than anyone else. I am not going to explain why everyone else looks greener because that would not be beneficial to town.
|
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?
|
|
|
shit.
##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
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?
|
I won't be able to get back to the thread before lynch. I had hoped to see Prp's response on my vote but he haven't.
If I had to consolidate now the only valid target is Sentinel. I just don't really feel that Sentinel is more scummy then Prp at this moment so I'll leave my vote on Prp.
|
Question If I die do I still get a goodbye post?
|
##Unvote: Palmar
##Vote: Prplhz
Two reasons for my change here.
1. My read on Palmar is neutral, by voting him up earlier I was hoping to get him to be more constructive and reasonable. This doesn't look likely now. I don't know all the meta everyone else knows about Palmar, but I think this can be a good thing. I can be more objective about my reads on him in the future.
2. Prplhz voted up wherebugsgo and then just left. No reason at all.
On January 28 2012 01:06 prplhz wrote:
I need to go shopping now but I'll write something when I get back.
##Vote: wherebugsgo
If you say you are going to do something, then follow through. Accountability!
|
Also here are my thoughts on the "likely" lynch target, Sentinel.
Sentinel is inconsistent is his posts, having conflicting views and what not. I would say that Sentinel is more scummy than the majority of the players here, but nothing too outrageous.
Prplhz has provided no justification at all for his vote. This makes Prplhz scummier than Sentinel imo.
|
Ok so we obviously are not going to follow the circle vote plan.
So that leaves us with the Pick your Vote and justify it the next day plan. Thats fine. I do see some of Palmar's points more choices mafia have to make. I still think that the mafia might have a really good scum player who may appear town. But that just a risk we are going to have to take. Also i would prefer to give 1 vote rather then 2 just because there's less risk involved but giving away what number of votes is up to the players discretion.
About who to lynch yet im honestly not sure yet I dont support the Sentinel lynch tho. I think his first plan of circle trading was fine and pro town. Gonna go read thru some filters
|
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.
|
On January 29 2012 05:16 jaybrundage wrote:
Ok so we obviously are not going to follow the circle vote plan.
So that leaves us with the Pick your Vote and justify it the next day plan. Thats fine. I do see some of Palmar's points more choices mafia have to make. I still think that the mafia might have a really good scum player who may appear town. But that just a risk we are going to have to take. Also i would prefer to give 1 vote rather then 2 just because there's less risk involved but giving away what number of votes is up to the players discretion.
About who to lynch yet im honestly not sure yet I dont support the Sentinel lynch tho. I think his first plan of circle trading was fine and pro town. Gonna go read thru some filters
I agree.
Although we were somewhat forced into the free trade + justification plan, it is better we all do plan together than a bunch of different plans.
Enough people haven't voted yet, so the hammer can fall on either Sentinel or Prplhz, both of which I am ok with.
I am leaving for work now and won't be back until after the lynch. My vote stays on Prplhz for my reasons above.
|
Hey Paperscraps, move your vote it's stupid.
Being busy for a while doesn't make me more scum, I am always active as either alignment unless I'm actually busy. If you want to force analysis out of people then why did you support the trade-circle?
You voted for me because I didn't provide analysis. Look up there. Now remove your vote. This is a no-flip game, you don't lynch people for no reason.
|
|
|
Yea I'm pretty sure it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
