EPTCurrent votes:
layabout (14):
Not voting:
Node (1), Jackal58 (3), jaybrundage (3), risk.nuke (4), Dirkzor (1), layabout (10),
We need 5 more votes to hammer.
Hammer Mini Mafia - Page 5
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
Current votes: layabout (14): Not voting: Node (1), Jackal58 (3), jaybrundage (3), risk.nuke (4), Dirkzor (1), layabout (10), We need 5 more votes to hammer. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On February 01 2012 11:01 jaybrundage wrote: Paperscraps my biggest concern is who the remaining mafia is. I mean obviously we have to kill layabout. But im not sure if a instant hammer would be the best option (OR would it?) My biggest question is who is layabout going to try to kill. My other question is how did chaoser get so many votes. It seems odd that he does speak much and gets that high number of votes. We should of expected this mechanic btw. And been more proactive with spreading our votes out. Like we did the first day. Instead of piling them on palmar. But hindsind is 20/20  ##Vote: Layabout oh really On January 31 2012 07:21 Paperscraps wrote: Well to get the night discussion going i have a few thoughts. Based on last night's actions palmar is likely to live again. Given that he is town, palmar will likely receive a lot of votes. Which is a concern for me. After day three palmar will have to give away a bunch of votes to someone else. Since nobody else is confirmed town yet, this presents a problem. Granted more information is sure to be revealed tomorrow, will another confirmed townie be revealed? Right now we need to decide if we want palmar to have enough votes to hammer by himself tomorrow or keep vp spread out a bit. Enabling one player to hammer is bad idea, now that i think of it. Essentially this nullifies any thoughts the rest of the town has and the town's influence as a whole, which is bad. No one person should be in control of the game, even the cowboy palmar. Of course I was wrong about the whole Palmar still being alive again today thing, but hmm seems like I suggested we think about the spreading of votes already. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On February 01 2012 11:08 jaybrundage wrote: Well note i didnt trade with palmar either day. But paperscraps who do you figure as the last mafia and why? Well your sudden FOS on me is suspicious, but I want to hear what others have to say and analyze who traded with who before I announce anything. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On February 01 2012 11:01 jaybrundage wrote: Paperscraps my biggest concern is who the remaining mafia is. That should be sufficient. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
Day 3 there is 36 total votes. 6 votes were lost. 2 From LSB?? 4 From Palmar?? †LSB -> 1 -> †Palmar †Palmar -> 1 -> prplhz chaoser -> 1 -> †Palmar [UoN]Sentinel -> 1 -> Paperscraps Paperscraps -> 2 -> risk.nuke Node -> 1 -> [UoN]Sentinel prphlz -> 5 -> †Palmar MeatlessTaco -> 1 -> jaybrundage layabout -> 4 -> ???(chaoser maybe?) risk.nuke -> 1 -> Palmar dirkzor -> 1 -> ???(jackal?) Chaoser gained 4 votes from Day 2 dirkzor is minus 1 vote from Day 2 Hmm, i am bit confused here. did layabout give 4 votes to Chaoser? | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
Yeah I want to figure this out. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
Palmar 2 -> Paperscraps Jackal58 1 -> Palmar chaoser -> No vote LSB 2 -> layabout prplhz 1 -> Palmar 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 Final Tally Palmar (4) Jackal58 (3) chaoser (3) LSB (2) prplhz (6) Dirkzor (2) risk.nuke (3) [UoN]Sentinel (2) Paperscraps (4) jaybrundage (2) MeatlessTaco (2) Node (2) VisceraEyes (2) layabout (5) 42 votes total This is the trade from D3 Palmar 1 -> prplhz Jackal58 1 -> ??? Chaoser 1 -> Palmar LSB 1 -> Palmar Prplhz 5 -> Palmar Dirkzor 1 -> ??? risk.nuke 1 -> Palmar [UoN]Sentinel 1 -> Paperscraps PaperScraps 2 -> risk.nuke jaybrundage 1 -> ??? MeatlessTaco 1 -> Jaybrundage how did MeatlessTaco give away a vote? bug with zbot? Node 1 -> [UoN]Sentinel LayAbout 4 -> ???Chaoser Final Tally Node (1) -1 from D2 Jackal58 (3) same as D2 chaoser (6) +3 from D2 prplhz (2) -4 from D2 jaybrundage (3) +1 from D2 risk.nuke (4) +1 from D2 [UoN]Sentinel (2) same as D2 MeatlessTaco (1) same as D2 Paperscraps (3) -1 from D2 Dirkzor (1) -1 from D2 layabout (10) +5 from D2 36 votes total As prplhz just pointed out we only lost 4 votes during the night. That was a mistake on my part. -2 from LSB because he traded votes to a dead player, so it wouldn't go through. -1 from Palmar assuming the siphon drained all the votes. That leaves 1 missing vote unaccounted. LOL I am still so confused. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
(3) Jackal58 -1 to Palmar + 1 = 3 (3) Chaoser 1 to Palmar + 4 = 6 (2) LSB -1 to Palmar = 2 = 1 if LSB is lying it is (6) Prplhz -5 to Palmar + 1 = 2 (2) Dirkzor -1 to Jaybrundage = 1 (3) risk.nuke -1 to Palmar + 2 = 4 (2) [UoN]Sentinel -1 to Paperscraps + 1 = 2 (4) PaperScraps -2 to risk.nuke + 1 = 3 (2) jaybrundage -1 to Jackal58 + 1 + 1 = 3 (2) MeatlessTaco -1 to Jaybrundage = 1 (2) Node -1 to [UoN]Sentinel = 1 (5) LayAbout -4 to Chaoser = 1 + 9??? or (2 + 8??? if LSB is lying) = 10 I see your problem prplhz. The siphon doesn't make sense. Unless... My guess is that the mafia ability can't steal votes a player already has, but can redirect incoming votes. By the assumption that LSB is lying we subtract 3 votes from 11 to get 8. Which makes everything work. Node (1) Jackal58 (3) chaoser (6) prplhz (2) jaybrundage (3) risk.nuke (4) [UoN]Sentinel (2) MeatlessTaco (1) Paperscraps (3) Dirkzor (1) layabout (10) 45 - 3(WBG) = 42 - 2(VE) = 40 - 4?? = 36 We know at least 1 vote is lost from Palmar and LSB By the assumption that the mafia ability can't steal votes: We lose 3 votes from Palmar and 1 vote from LSB. 45 - 3(WBG) = 42 - 2(VE) = 40 - 3(Palmar) -1(LSB) = 36 I think this is correct. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
So we all good on me hammering now? | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
boom goes the dynamite! | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
I was rb'ed so hmmm. What do you all think? | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On February 01 2012 10:39 chaoser wrote: Obviously layabout needs to tell us who he gave votes to but right now it looks like to me, that Palmer was probably right about his reads. Might have been a last ditch ploy (obviously there was some way/probably mafia action that allowed layabout to get to 10 votes, there's no way people actually gave him that many...right?) to get enough votes to gain majority outright and win the game. Thank god Node killed LSB or who knows what might have happened. On February 01 2012 10:46 chaoser wrote: ##vote layabout I probably won't be changing my vote. Unless layabout gives some amazing explanation. Looks like you will need to do some amazing explaining. On February 01 2012 05:15 chaoser wrote: But palmar's only real argument against LSB is that he gave his vote to layabout. When compared to what layabout has done and posted, I don't think it's the same condemning thing at all. Seems LSB had a pretty important PR. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On February 02 2012 01:26 Jackal58 wrote: Now that I am sober and on the better end of a hangover I think I am able to make a bit of sense out of this. The vote siphon role doesn't make sense unless it's a one off ability or we would have seen it already I think. What does make sense is scum has a bus driver. Good call Jackal. Mafia self-targets layabout, then scum driver switches Palmar and layabout. Thus medic is really on layabout, not Palmar. Even if medic did WIFOM, it wouldn't have mattered. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On February 02 2012 01:26 chaoser wrote: This gets rid of not only however many votes [layabout] would be stealing but also get rid of however votes I would end up having. @ChaoserThis should be a non-factor, because if you are town you will be giving all your votes away tonight to your most pro-town read. Also Chaoser you have to agree it looks suspicious that you received votes from layabout. The WIFOM behind it is just that, WIFOM. Dirkzor is suspicious as well, because he only has 1 vote. Both Chaoser and Dirkzor have questionable posts in their respective filters. On January 30 2012 11:00 chaoser wrote: 4) I think paperscapes and LSB give me tonie vibes. paperscapes posts have been informative while also have shown that he is trying to create a positive town environment. Especially here, a good post to keep people on topic and recenter the debate about vote trading: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303505¤tpage=12#229 LSB, as well, put forth a good vote plan though I disagree with it (I like the free-trade idea better) This post is interesting to say the least. LSB seems "tonie" to Chaoser. Chaoser supports free trade. Good and bad here. On February 01 2012 03:51 chaoser wrote: Secondly, Townies in my head: Palmar - Stop being a dick, I've PMed the mods about it. There's aggressive play and then there's dickish play. You're doing the latter. Paperscape LSB Scums in my head: Dirkzor Layabout ??? LSB is still town, Dirkzor and Layabout are scum.(Chaoser's perspective) More good and bad. On February 01 2012 03:59 chaoser wrote: Actually, I take back my townie read on LSB. Re-reading through his filter has made me downgrade him to a neutral. I will need to think again about his alignment. I still stand by my assessment of layabout. Then Chaoser downgrades LSB to neutral, probably due to Palmar calling Chaoser out on the read. On February 01 2012 05:15 chaoser wrote: But palmar's only real argument against LSB is that he gave his vote to layabout. When compared to what layabout has done and posted, I don't think it's the same condemning thing at all. Interesting?? On February 01 2012 10:39 chaoser wrote: Obviously layabout needs to tell us who he gave votes to but right now it looks like to me, that Palmer was probably right about his reads. Might have been a last ditch ploy (obviously there was some way/probably mafia action that allowed layabout to get to 10 votes, there's no way people actually gave him that many...right?) to get enough votes to gain majority outright and win the game. Thank god Node killed LSB or who knows what might have happened. Something doesn't feel right about this. Could be a slip or deduction, I am leaning towards the former. On January 30 2012 16:19 Dirkzor wrote: I wanted to give palmar or LSB my vote - in that order. But figured that they would get a lot of votes anyway. Then i started to look for a less obvious townie. I gave him 1 vote because i think he is town. I was just playing with him Purgatory (he was scum) where he played differently then what he does now. LSB is obvious townie to Dirkzor?? On January 29 2012 21:25 Dirkzor wrote: I will only give away 1 vote. No matter what plan or what trick I won't give away more then 1 vote. This post by Dirkzor doesn't sit well with me. On January 31 2012 04:39 Dirkzor wrote: I agree that either Palmar or VE have to die. Or both due to No flip. I would vote VE now, but I don't want to hammer (my vote won't be the hammer i know) until everyone have had a chance to claim the hit on either one. If no one claims it could still be a scum nightvig. How likely do you find that mafia have a nightvig? If no one claims the hit I think the jailer should claim. Because if no one claims the hit or the jail we would have lynch both to be sure. Ruse to get jailer to reveal or townie mistake? Probably townie mistake, since I was RB'ed last night, I don't think we have a jailer. Dirkzor and Chaoser have against each other for awhile now. On February 01 2012 04:03 chaoser wrote: Huh? Who is they? layabout and dirkzor? Or do you mean LSB and layabout? I don't think the latter if that's what you're saying Interesting redirection from LSB to Dirkzor. On February 01 2012 04:09 chaoser wrote: I have respect for players who I think are good but that doesn't mean if they don't agree with me or see things my way that they are immediately scummy. There have been many times that I have disagreed with other good townie players and is to be expected. In my opinion, Layabout on day 1 was less scummy than dirkzor or VE. It was only his posting on day two that pushed him into extremely scummy. So I can understand LSB's justification for giving him a vote. Another defense tactic for LSB. On February 01 2012 04:20 chaoser wrote: His[Dirkzor] forced vote on prplhz reminds me of VE's forced votes and posts on both you and paperscapes. His defense of his vote was, in my opinion, lacking. He added nothing of substance to the VE lynch posting: in which he discredits his OWN reason for not voting VE: "but I don't want to hammer (my vote won't be the hammer i know)" and then adds in a weird suggestion about how the jailer should claim. He then continues to criticize VE with: when he himself has been equally noncommital: I see some hypocrisy in this post. On February 01 2012 04:23 chaoser wrote: The only post that I like so far is his[Dirkzor] post on LSB and that one I am currently checking with LSB's posts in context. Aside from that though, he gives off scummy reads to me. This post below by Dirkzor is the one Chaoser likes, which is interesting. On January 31 2012 02:38 Dirkzor wrote: Just because palmar is almost certainly town does not mean his reads are correct. But how can you question his towness? I can't think of a scenario where scum would have the guts to not shoot, only so Palmar could claim to get jailed. About LSB, who Palmar wants dead, and 2 more sheeped (wtf?): He have been very vocal and active so he must be town - or what Prplhz? (joking) What bothers me about his filter is that he have constantly been pushing his plans. Plan 1 (click) was basicly the same idea that was already in the thread + the self correction mechanism. Rough layout of Plan 2 (click) Then he sees the light (click) as an explanition to why he changed from his plan 1 to plan 2. Is the same post he calls Sentinel scum for essentially supporting what was his Plan 1 (see spoiler below) + Show Spoiler + 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 wins 2. 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 Why is it that Sentinels logic is scummy when LSB himself had the same logic to begin with? In his 2nd case/post on sentinel he is even calling him scummy even though he changed his mind later on - the same way LSB saw the light and changed his mind when paperscraps called him out on it. Its a double standard at its finest. + Show Spoiler + 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 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 would not oppose a LSB lynch at this moment. This accusation is way more reserved than Dirkzor's on prplhz. Where did his fire go? On February 01 2012 04:21 Dirkzor wrote: What I find weird is that multiple people have called me scum with no reasoning at all. Chaoser, node and Prp (he gave a little, but bad, reasoning)... We know Chaoser is on Dirkzor's radar. On February 01 2012 18:51 Dirkzor wrote: Why the fuck would layabout give 4 votes to chaoser? Assume Chaoser is scum for now. Before night 2 Layabout, LSB and Chaoser had: chaoser (3) LSB (2) layabout (5) 8 votes in total. We know Layabout somehow got vote he shouldn't. We know it fits the amount of votes (8/9 doesnt matter who LSB sent his vote to it would end up at Layabout either way) sent to palmar. We can assume that scum syphoned the votes traded to Palmar in order to gain the majority of the votes. Trades night 2: Sent: chaoser (3) -> 1 vote to palmar/layabout = 2 votes left LSB (2) -> 1 vote to palmar/layabout = 1 vote left layabout (5) -> 4 votes to chaoser = 1 vote left Received: chaoser (3) + 4 votes from Layabout = 6 total LSB (2) + 0 votes = 1 total (0 as he died) layabout (5) + 9 votes (intercepted from palmar) = 10 votes Had layabout only given away 1 vote or given his votes to palmar (thus giving to himself) layabout would have been on 14 or 15. 1) Why did he not send his votes to palmar - which meant himself? 2) Why did he not send to LSB? 3) Why did layabout not keep as many votes for himself as possible? 1) If Layabout was shot during night the votes would have probably ended at Palmar. Not a good situation for scum. 2) The pressure was on LSB and Layabout. If layabout had send votes to LSB it would just further incriminate the 2 as scumbuddies. Would not have been a problem had mafia gained majority but if they didn't the votes would be better on the last remaining scum. 3) Same as 1 and 2. If layabout was shot the votes would have been lost. It was the best of 2 worlds for scum to send the votes to chaoser. If they had gained majority it didn't matter where the votes where. If they didn't the remaining votes would be on the last scum who we hadn't caught on to yet (chaoser). If scum were to use the most insanely overpowered powerrole in this game it would be insanely stupid of them to give AWAY votes. Which is why chaoser is the last scum. Personally I like this post by Dirkzor. Dirkzor has been stepping up his game as of late, but I think him having 1 vote is also curious to say the least. With that said Chaoser is still my FoS. WIFOM + Show Spoiler + Is mafia trying to play two townies against each other? Chaoser and Dirkzor obviously think each other are scum. Let us speculate.1 townie dies tonight, we lynch Chaoser tomorrow. Game doesn't end. Another townies dies, we lynch Dirkzor. Game doesn't end. Then another townie die. That is 5 townies down. Now we are on D6 and have to lynch with 5 players remaining and 1 being mafia. We still aren't on mylo. If we ML on D6 then D7 we have an epic three-way and lylo. Seems more likely that mafia went for a power play, hoping more people would give votes to Palmar. That would mean Chaoser and layabout would have the majority. Chaoser needs to die. I don't see any downside to it. This is where we currently stand. Node (1) Jackal58 (3) chaoser (6) prplhz (2) jaybrundage (3) risk.nuke (4) [UoN]Sentinel (2) MeatlessTaco (1) Paperscraps (3) Dirkzor (1) 45 - 3(WBG) = 42 - 2(VE) = 40 - 3(Palmar) -1(LSB) = 36 - 10(layabout) = 26 votes remaining. | ||
| ||
