|
On February 01 2012 13:26 prplhz wrote:
You haven't been very impressive so
On January 26 2012 18:28 prplhz wrote:
Everybody should give away as many votes as they can every day. This is a good idea because it will prevent scum from eliminating voting power through night kills, and voting power will only get eliminated through the lynch which is more likely to hit scum than night kills.
On January 30 2012 17:28 prplhz wrote:
LSB did huge work on all of the plans and spearheaded [UoN]Sentinel lynch.
On January 31 2012 06:00 prplhz wrote:
VisceraEyes clearly dies today and we have at 36 hours until next lynch which is plenty so stop using that as an excuse. Vote him now so we can get on with the game.
I haven't been impressive compared to who? If you hadn't vote-loaded Palmar we would be in a no lose situation.
|
prplhz said we should give away as many votes as wecan every day. He was a supporter of LSB, the only confirmed red, he cautions restraint in the layabout lynch, when he wanted to hammer bugs.
Why are we stalling again, prp?
|
apologies, I missed one prp accusation, he vote-loaded Palmar when he knew he would die in order to look town
|
Here's me saying "I was wrong, Palmar is right"
On January 27 2012 22:47 MeatlessTaco wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 18:50 Palmar wrote:
Also, are you guys seriously stupid enough to not see the problem with the circle-jerk plan? If this is the way you guys think, I don't have much faith we'll succeed much at all this game. For example, Node should probably die very fast because there's no way he's this dumb. In fact, all townies who lack the critical thinking to see the problem, should die.
Mafia is about making choices. Much more than you can deduce from reading someone's posts and checking if they're doing scummy stuff, you can hold them accountable for their actions. You need to understand the reasoning behind why people do what they do.
What this plan does is remove responsibility. Instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote, everyone simply gives their vote to whoever they have a town read on. You should keep who you vote for to yourself until the next day, at which point everyone should claim to whom they gave the vote, and why.
Giving votes has the potential to give us information. If a player gives his vote to someone on weak reasoning, or if the player receiving the vote is very likely to be mafia (or at some point flips mafia), we have a reason to investigate that player, based on his actions.
Suggesting we remove the tool of analyzing how and why people give their votes away is terrible. It's anti-town and it should not happen.
If we follow a circle-jerk plan, we remove this aspect of the game, we give mafia a free pass, and a guarantee that they will not lose any voting power. I would hate to be in a situation as scum if I had two options: a) Lose some voting power. b) Make a case as to why I think a scumbuddy is town. That's seriously scary if you're mafia. I mean, good mafia players will have no problem cooking up a good case, but good mafia players are hard to catch anyway.
Apply some brain power, reap rewards.
It's very likely the most town looking people will be protected by medics, providing an even further deterrence for mafia from shooting them. Remember, mafia has to give 4 votes away tonight. It takes 4 townies having the strongest read on scum as town, to balance that out, or otherwise the mafia has to make cases as to why they think their scumbuddies are town. That's hard to do.
do you actually think we're so bad that we can't handle this? I guess the fact that the circle jerk plan got any support at all answers my question though. I read through the thread to verify how correct I was and saw this again. The original thought I had was that I didn't think we could make an informed decision before N1 on who to give our vote to. I think this was a reasonable assumption at the time, and the first 6 posts were 6 people signing up for the Circle of Trust. The other mistake was I assumed mafia would have vote-rigging, ballot-stuffing, chad-hanging abilities. No one else has had this concern so I was likely wrong.emphasis added So, do we think we can make a better than random guess during Night 1 on who to give our votes to? The Circle of Trust was never supposed to be for all game, just to limit the damage to town until we had enough information in a no-flip, closed game. My only reservation is that since mafia only has 1 KP, we might get too aggressive too quick with vigs and such blowing our loads too early.
Here's my vote on Sentinel, this is when I had a choice between WBG and Sentinel
On January 29 2012 07:54 MeatlessTaco wrote:If Sentinel is actually really clever, this scares me Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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 whole idea behind the Circle of Trust was not to lose as town by avoiding worst-case scenarios on the first night. Suggesting trading 2 votes a night in a mafia-exploitable way is horrible. Obviously, he backs away as soon as he is called on it. This could be just bad logic, but if others think he is actually pretty clever, then this is really scummy. ##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
And here is where I decide I don't like LSB
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![[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. + 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?
Here's where I realize giving a vote to layabout was stupid
On January 30 2012 13:54 MeatlessTaco wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 10:36 LSB wrote:
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. I sent 1 vote to layabout. I had a read of LSB and layabout on different teams/sides so all of this shows that pretty much all my reads were way off.
in defense of my Sentinel vote, prp gives props to LSB for it
On January 30 2012 17:28 prplhz wrote:
LSB did huge work on all of the plans and spearheaded [UoN]Sentinel lynch.
And then Palmar starts the LSB train which eventually switches to VE.
On January 31 2012 05:34 MeatlessTaco wrote:
##Vote VisceraEyes
VE's defense of LSB's "logic" made me throw up a little bit.
The only thing mildly useful I've done all game is to argue against really risky 2 vote swing plans and try to kill people who pushed it. Since then I've been impatient/drunk trying to kill LSB and Layabout ASAP. I have no votes to give away so I'm willing to lurk until tomorrow.
tldr: I'll have 1 vote and zero influence. It's a waste of a lynch at this point.
|
On February 02 2012 23:52 Dirkzor wrote:Since you are here, mind elaborating on these two posts aswell? With references if possible... Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 13:57 MeatlessTaco wrote:
prplhz said we should give away as many votes as wecan every day. He was a supporter of LSB, the only confirmed red, he cautions restraint in the layabout lynch, when he wanted to hammer bugs.
Why are we stalling again, prp? Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 13:59 MeatlessTaco wrote:
apologies, I missed one prp accusation, he vote-loaded Palmar when he knew he would die in order to look town
prp harped on me for pushing for a lynch, he wanted to "run the numbers", I though we could run the numbers later anyway so just get a lynch in. In that post prp called me "less than impressive" and "deliberately obtuse", which, since I was drunk, I spent 2 minutes unearthing his less than impressive play, which included the last defense anyone gave of LSB, vote loading Palmar to give mafia a chance and advocating giving away as many votes as possible which is the reason we can't be 100% sure of a victory because we had to lynch 10 votes yesterday. I also found it odd that he was asking for restraint when he was pushing for the bug's hammer quickly.
When I sobered up, I realized prp is unlikely scum since the proper play for him would have been to give 1 vote to Palmar, not 5, in case they didn't get a majority right there.
|
I'm going to simplify my defense. This is my first mafia game.
I was too gung-ho on the circle trade, but admitted it, and attempted to convince other people Palmar was right.
+ Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 22:47 MeatlessTaco wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 18:50 Palmar wrote:
Also, are you guys seriously stupid enough to not see the problem with the circle-jerk plan? If this is the way you guys think, I don't have much faith we'll succeed much at all this game. For example, Node should probably die very fast because there's no way he's this dumb. In fact, all townies who lack the critical thinking to see the problem, should die.
Mafia is about making choices. Much more than you can deduce from reading someone's posts and checking if they're doing scummy stuff, you can hold them accountable for their actions. You need to understand the reasoning behind why people do what they do.
What this plan does is remove responsibility. Instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote, everyone simply gives their vote to whoever they have a town read on. You should keep who you vote for to yourself until the next day, at which point everyone should claim to whom they gave the vote, and why.
Giving votes has the potential to give us information. If a player gives his vote to someone on weak reasoning, or if the player receiving the vote is very likely to be mafia (or at some point flips mafia), we have a reason to investigate that player, based on his actions.
Suggesting we remove the tool of analyzing how and why people give their votes away is terrible. It's anti-town and it should not happen.
If we follow a circle-jerk plan, we remove this aspect of the game, we give mafia a free pass, and a guarantee that they will not lose any voting power. I would hate to be in a situation as scum if I had two options: a) Lose some voting power. b) Make a case as to why I think a scumbuddy is town. That's seriously scary if you're mafia. I mean, good mafia players will have no problem cooking up a good case, but good mafia players are hard to catch anyway.
Apply some brain power, reap rewards.
It's very likely the most town looking people will be protected by medics, providing an even further deterrence for mafia from shooting them. Remember, mafia has to give 4 votes away tonight. It takes 4 townies having the strongest read on scum as town, to balance that out, or otherwise the mafia has to make cases as to why they think their scumbuddies are town. That's hard to do.
do you actually think we're so bad that we can't handle this? I guess the fact that the circle jerk plan got any support at all answers my question though. I read through the thread to verify how correct I was and saw this again. The original thought I had was that I didn't think we could make an informed decision before N1 on who to give our vote to. I think this was a reasonable assumption at the time, and the first 6 posts were 6 people signing up for the Circle of Trust. The other mistake was I assumed mafia would have vote-rigging, ballot-stuffing, chad-hanging abilities. No one else has had this concern so I was likely wrong. So, do we think we can make a better than random guess during Night 1 on who to give our votes to? The Circle of Trust was never supposed to be for all game, just to limit the damage to town until we had enough information in a no-flip, closed game. My only reservation is that since mafia only has 1 KP, we might get too aggressive too quick with vigs and such blowing our loads too early.
I defended VE at one point when people criticized this analysis as a reason to lynch. No one ever responded to my concerns.
+ Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:I vote D1 we circle jerk and see what happens. Just saying "oh you know, there will be people who don't want to follow the plan" the way LSB did excuses that kind of behavior - the plan doesn't work unless we all agree to it. If we can't come to a consensus, then we're all going to just have to do whatever the fuck, and I already know where my votes are going in the event that happens. Now, the lynch. ##Vote: PaperscrapsShow nested quote +On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:@ Palmar When you get done with your whole "I'm a badass" routine, can we hear some reasoning behind why you are against the circle trade system? or anything that is actually constructive at all? + Show Spoiler +I understand you are being crazy right now to tests people reactions and stir up a bit of commotion. This set off alarm bells. My main problem is that he doesn't sound like someone with a town read on Palmar. He sounds like someone who already knows Palmar's alignment is town. I'm going to be honest - I'm also starting to think Palmar is town, but it's not based on a belief that I think he's acting scummy to test reactions. It could be, but that's not why. I think Palmar is town based almost exclusively on the fact that scummy players like Paperscraps are defending the way he's playing. Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:
@Everyone I have another idea for trading votes. I want to bounce it off you guys to see what you think. The main idea behind the circle trading system is to keep an even spread of votes across all players. They way we have it setup, the mafia will get to pick and choose who they want to give more vote(s), either townie or fellow mafia. One way to kind of keep the mafia on their toes is to split up everyone into 5 groups of 3. Then during the night you choose at random who you would like to give vote(s) too.
My thinking behind this is that it gives mafia less information as to where votes in particular are going. Randomness though is a double edged sword. This can either hurt town or hurt mafia.
So, it seems almost everyone is on board with the 1 vote circle trade system. I think this is the best way to minimize mafia tampering and vote gaining. If anything it severely stifles their ability to accrue a mass amount of votes over the course of one night, which is a possibility if some mafia seems particularly pro-town to the majority of people.
In the first paragraph he outlines a needlessly convoluted plan with the main goal of "keeping the mafia on their toes" by "randomly choosing" who votes go to within smaller groups of townies. But in the second paragraph, he makes sure to agree with the circlejerk plan. Why? If you support the circle-voting plan then why are you coming up with more options? The day is half over bro, it's time to start thinkin about that LYNCH. Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:
My FoS is on MeatlessTaco right now. But not your vote. Why? Whether we've come to a consensus on how to deal with the votes or not, we still have to lynch someone today. That starts with votes. Now, I agree that MeatlessTaco doesn't look great with his lack of reasoning for his votes and blatant sheeping, but lynch? Not to mention the fact that you're in favor of this circlejerk plan...but... Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:10 MeatlessTaco wrote:
Townies, we need a plan. The vote system could cause us problems if we don't stick together. We'll need to ascertain what vote-rigging abilities the scum have, to do this we need a circle of trust. We'll all trade votes in a circle instead of doing it haphazardly. Any vote manipulation by the scum will result in merciless lynching. It was MeatlessTaco's idea! He was the first to suggest it! If it's "the best option", then why are you the most interested in lynching the person who brought it up first? My guess? He doesn't even realize that MT brought it up first. He's just looking for the easiest target, and right now that's someone who suspects Palmar and voted risk.nuke for no reason. Paperscraps is scum Paperscraps' convoluted mini-group thing was never going to work and just impeded any kind of actual plan. He gives an inane analysis in the role of randomness in the game and then leaves an himself an out.
That analysis seemed legit to the time to me. If someone wants to defend Paperscraps' post here, I would love to hear it.
I was the first to say something against LSB's "everyone please trade two votes" plan
+ Show Spoiler +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?
No one responded there so I waited until the night was over. Everything since then has been me trying to kill LSB and layabout due to his association with LSB.
+ Show Spoiler +On January 30 2012 13:54 MeatlessTaco wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 10:36 LSB wrote:
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. I sent 1 vote to layabout. I had a read of LSB and layabout on different teams/sides so all of this shows that pretty much all my reads were way off. 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
My play may have been less than impressive, but I am not obtuse. Don't lynch me over a row with prp, who decided it was a good idea to shift 5 votes to the most likely mafia target.
Disclaimer: I don't plan on being sober until after my days off, like 3 days from now. So, please read this entire post before wasting a lynch on me.
|
On February 03 2012 05:51 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 03 2012 02:19 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 19:40 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I have a funny feeling about Taco, he cast his vote for me without explanation D1, maybe part of the same bandwagon that bugs, layabout and LSB were on.
Chaoser right now to me is orange. If we had to vote right now, I wouldn't cast my vote for him, but I'd still be pretty suspicious. Grouping bugs, layabout and LSB is interesting. Care to expand on this? Also why wouldn't you cast your vote right now? It's mostly layabout and LSB as the two "knowns" of the mafia. + Show Spoiler +Bugs might have just bandwagoned on because he truly felt like I was the mafia, but he didn't give any sort of reasoning when I asked him for it. Meatless Taco just parroted LSB's concern and then actually said "If he's voting for Sentinel for that reason, then I'll vote for him too." At least bugs tried to come up with something.
As for chaoser, I'm just not 100% convinced that he's scum. Like I see where you guys are going with your logic, but I need to read through a bit more.
Isn't VE confirmed scum?
|
On February 03 2012 05:51 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
...Meatless Taco just parroted LSB's concern and then actually said "If he's voting for Sentinel for that reason, then I'll vote for him too."...
On January 29 2012 07:54 MeatlessTaco wrote:If Sentinel is actually really clever, this scares me Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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 whole idea behind the Circle of Trust was not to lose as town by avoiding worst-case scenarios on the first night. Suggesting trading 2 votes a night in a mafia-exploitable way is horrible. Obviously, he backs away as soon as he is called on it. This could be just bad logic, but if others think he is actually pretty clever, then this is really scummy. ##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
I stand by my Day 1 read that Sentinel was a better lynch than WBG. This is the only coherent point I've made all game: Passing too many votes haphazardly puts town at risk.
|
On February 03 2012 10:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Townie as well 
Same, no vote to send
|
layabout had to be scum? So VE ( and bugs ) were green?
|
On February 03 2012 06:39 MeatlessTaco wrote:I'm going to simplify my defense. This is my first mafia game. I was too gung-ho on the circle trade, but admitted it, and attempted to convince other people Palmar was right. + Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 22:47 MeatlessTaco wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 18:50 Palmar wrote:
Also, are you guys seriously stupid enough to not see the problem with the circle-jerk plan? If this is the way you guys think, I don't have much faith we'll succeed much at all this game. For example, Node should probably die very fast because there's no way he's this dumb. In fact, all townies who lack the critical thinking to see the problem, should die.
Mafia is about making choices. Much more than you can deduce from reading someone's posts and checking if they're doing scummy stuff, you can hold them accountable for their actions. You need to understand the reasoning behind why people do what they do.
What this plan does is remove responsibility. Instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote, everyone simply gives their vote to whoever they have a town read on. You should keep who you vote for to yourself until the next day, at which point everyone should claim to whom they gave the vote, and why.
Giving votes has the potential to give us information. If a player gives his vote to someone on weak reasoning, or if the player receiving the vote is very likely to be mafia (or at some point flips mafia), we have a reason to investigate that player, based on his actions.
Suggesting we remove the tool of analyzing how and why people give their votes away is terrible. It's anti-town and it should not happen.
If we follow a circle-jerk plan, we remove this aspect of the game, we give mafia a free pass, and a guarantee that they will not lose any voting power. I would hate to be in a situation as scum if I had two options: a) Lose some voting power. b) Make a case as to why I think a scumbuddy is town. That's seriously scary if you're mafia. I mean, good mafia players will have no problem cooking up a good case, but good mafia players are hard to catch anyway.
Apply some brain power, reap rewards.
It's very likely the most town looking people will be protected by medics, providing an even further deterrence for mafia from shooting them. Remember, mafia has to give 4 votes away tonight. It takes 4 townies having the strongest read on scum as town, to balance that out, or otherwise the mafia has to make cases as to why they think their scumbuddies are town. That's hard to do.
do you actually think we're so bad that we can't handle this? I guess the fact that the circle jerk plan got any support at all answers my question though. I read through the thread to verify how correct I was and saw this again. The original thought I had was that I didn't think we could make an informed decision before N1 on who to give our vote to. I think this was a reasonable assumption at the time, and the first 6 posts were 6 people signing up for the Circle of Trust. The other mistake was I assumed mafia would have vote-rigging, ballot-stuffing, chad-hanging abilities. No one else has had this concern so I was likely wrong. So, do we think we can make a better than random guess during Night 1 on who to give our votes to? The Circle of Trust was never supposed to be for all game, just to limit the damage to town until we had enough information in a no-flip, closed game. My only reservation is that since mafia only has 1 KP, we might get too aggressive too quick with vigs and such blowing our loads too early. I defended VE at one point when people criticized this analysis as a reason to lynch. No one ever responded to my concerns. + Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:I vote D1 we circle jerk and see what happens. Just saying "oh you know, there will be people who don't want to follow the plan" the way LSB did excuses that kind of behavior - the plan doesn't work unless we all agree to it. If we can't come to a consensus, then we're all going to just have to do whatever the fuck, and I already know where my votes are going in the event that happens. Now, the lynch. ##Vote: PaperscrapsShow nested quote +On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:@ Palmar When you get done with your whole "I'm a badass" routine, can we hear some reasoning behind why you are against the circle trade system? or anything that is actually constructive at all? + Show Spoiler +I understand you are being crazy right now to tests people reactions and stir up a bit of commotion. This set off alarm bells. My main problem is that he doesn't sound like someone with a town read on Palmar. He sounds like someone who already knows Palmar's alignment is town. I'm going to be honest - I'm also starting to think Palmar is town, but it's not based on a belief that I think he's acting scummy to test reactions. It could be, but that's not why. I think Palmar is town based almost exclusively on the fact that scummy players like Paperscraps are defending the way he's playing. Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:
@Everyone I have another idea for trading votes. I want to bounce it off you guys to see what you think. The main idea behind the circle trading system is to keep an even spread of votes across all players. They way we have it setup, the mafia will get to pick and choose who they want to give more vote(s), either townie or fellow mafia. One way to kind of keep the mafia on their toes is to split up everyone into 5 groups of 3. Then during the night you choose at random who you would like to give vote(s) too.
My thinking behind this is that it gives mafia less information as to where votes in particular are going. Randomness though is a double edged sword. This can either hurt town or hurt mafia.
So, it seems almost everyone is on board with the 1 vote circle trade system. I think this is the best way to minimize mafia tampering and vote gaining. If anything it severely stifles their ability to accrue a mass amount of votes over the course of one night, which is a possibility if some mafia seems particularly pro-town to the majority of people.
In the first paragraph he outlines a needlessly convoluted plan with the main goal of "keeping the mafia on their toes" by "randomly choosing" who votes go to within smaller groups of townies. But in the second paragraph, he makes sure to agree with the circlejerk plan. Why? If you support the circle-voting plan then why are you coming up with more options? The day is half over bro, it's time to start thinkin about that LYNCH. Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:
My FoS is on MeatlessTaco right now. But not your vote. Why? Whether we've come to a consensus on how to deal with the votes or not, we still have to lynch someone today. That starts with votes. Now, I agree that MeatlessTaco doesn't look great with his lack of reasoning for his votes and blatant sheeping, but lynch? Not to mention the fact that you're in favor of this circlejerk plan...but... Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:10 MeatlessTaco wrote:
Townies, we need a plan. The vote system could cause us problems if we don't stick together. We'll need to ascertain what vote-rigging abilities the scum have, to do this we need a circle of trust. We'll all trade votes in a circle instead of doing it haphazardly. Any vote manipulation by the scum will result in merciless lynching. It was MeatlessTaco's idea! He was the first to suggest it! If it's "the best option", then why are you the most interested in lynching the person who brought it up first? My guess? He doesn't even realize that MT brought it up first. He's just looking for the easiest target, and right now that's someone who suspects Palmar and voted risk.nuke for no reason. Paperscraps is scum Paperscraps' convoluted mini-group thing was never going to work and just impeded any kind of actual plan. He gives an inane analysis in the role of randomness in the game and then leaves an himself an out. That analysis seemed legit to the time to me. If someone wants to defend Paperscraps' post here, I would love to hear it. I was the first to say something against LSB's "everyone please trade two votes" plan + Show Spoiler +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? No one responded there so I waited until the night was over. Everything since then has been me trying to kill LSB and layabout due to his association with LSB. + Show Spoiler +On January 30 2012 13:54 MeatlessTaco wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 10:36 LSB wrote:
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. I sent 1 vote to layabout. I had a read of LSB and layabout on different teams/sides so all of this shows that pretty much all my reads were way off. 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 My play may have been less than impressive, but I am not obtuse. Don't lynch me over a row with prp, who decided it was a good idea to shift 5 votes to the most likely mafia target. Disclaimer: I don't plan on being sober until after my days off, like 3 days from now. So, please read this entire post before wasting a lynch on me.
I don't think I can do better than this post. Do the following make you think fearless/unimpressive newbie townie, or scum?
LSB's plee to trade two votes, I make the crazy comment
I keep bringing up the fact that it's silly to trade multiple votes away
The first post of the game I advocate circle trading
If I rolled scum in my first game I would have waited to talk to them to decide a strategy instead of making the first post in the game.
|
On February 05 2012 10:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
people called me dumb for supporting the fucking vote circle.
Everyone was on board ( including scum ) until this
On January 26 2012 17:42 Palmar wrote:
I think everyone should give all their votes to me. Additionally, I think we should hang everyone who opposed having PMs in the game because that's why I originally wanted to play it.
this
On January 26 2012 18:28 prplhz wrote:
Everybody should give away as many votes as they can every day. This is a good idea because it will prevent scum from eliminating voting power through night kills, and voting power will only get eliminated through the lynch which is more likely to hit scum than night kills.
and this
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.
There was no way it could work after that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
