Hammer Mini Mafia

On January 24 2012 20:16 Dirkzor wrote:
2 things...

1) You can have a greater voting power then 5 during the day period? If 3 people traded you 3 votes each during the night you could be at 10? Correct?

2) Whenever you vote do you use all your voting power or can you choose to use less then your maximum voting power?

On January 26 2012 16:14 Paperscraps wrote:
How do we know mafia have any abilities at all?

On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote:

@MeatlessTaco What is your reason for voting up risk.nuke? Also why do you think Palmar is scum? Voting people up with no reasoning is not good.

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.

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: Paperscraps



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.



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.



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...



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

On January 28 2012 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
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.

On January 29 2012 07:48 prplhz wrote:
@MeatlessTaco

Pot, kettle, black, your vote is STILL on risk.nuke. Am I calling for your lynch because you are terribly wrong about him? It's not necessarily scummy to be wrong. What happened to your "I thought it was logical so I don't need to give reasonable, everybody can figure it out" and why are you suddenly all "Is it just me or <drep>"?

What is your opinion on wherebugsgo and VisceraEyes?

On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
Please give away two of your votes. + Show Spoiler +

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.

On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:

+ Show Spoiler +

Please give away two of your votes.+ Show Spoiler +

On January 30 2012 19:48 LSB wrote:

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&currentpage=15#287

"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)"

"

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 30 2012 23:55 layabout wrote:

---

LSB:
I think that lynching LSB would be very stupid. He has made more sense than most of the rest of you combined. If you read his posts it's clear that he felt that transfering 2 votes would help with re-balancing, so him supporting and then doing that is not scummy at all, unless of course you believe the entire plan was just to get town to give votes to scum but if you thought that you had many opportunities to say it, since we we so late starting lynch discussion.

On January 31 2012 05:13 layabout wrote:
Scumteam:
1) Palmar or ViceraEyes
2) jaybrundage
3) Meatless taco
4) sentinel
5) jackal58

4 from that, in any order.
Either Palmar or Vicera is scum due to claims. (them both being town and claiming hits with no NK and 1 scum KP is extremely unlikely)
None of these players has looked very town to me.

On February 01 2012 06:24 layabout wrote:

If you agree with this please say so. Soon.

On February 01 2012 07:16 layabout wrote:
wouldn't you prefer to see my flip?

On February 01 2012 08:27 layabout wrote:
Every player is potential scum.

Not providing reasoning, not establishing your innocence, deliberately misleading or misinterpreting to kill other players is not pro-town and it's what you have all been doing.

On February 01 2012 09:37 Paperscraps wrote:
I have a feeling I am going to die tonight.

Popcorn time!

On February 01 2012 10:30 prplhz wrote:
I gave 5 votes to Palmar because he was town.

On February 01 2012 10:46 Paperscraps wrote:


My only reservation is that the mafia knows we will see right through this power play.

WIFOM
Is mafia setting up layabout or is layabout in on it?

On February 01 2012 10:57 Paperscraps wrote:
Palmar was killed last night proving his innocence. Mafia knew people would be trading a lot of votes to him.

On February 01 2012 13:26 prplhz wrote:
MeatlessTaco are you being deliberately obtuse? Don't you see what me and Paperscraps are saying? There is something up and there's a lot of data here, layabout never claimed scum like VisceraEyes did. You haven't been very impressive so calm down and let us do some numbers, surely you can wait a little?

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.

On January 27 2012 22:47 MeatlessTaco wrote:


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.

On January 29 2012 07:54 MeatlessTaco wrote:
If Sentinel is actually really clever, this scares me



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

On January 29 2012 10:02 MeatlessTaco wrote:


Am I taking crazy pills or is this a really bad idea?

On January 30 2012 13:54 MeatlessTaco wrote:


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 17:28 prplhz wrote:
LSB did huge work on all of the plans and spearheaded [UoN]Sentinel lynch.

On January 31 2012 05:34 MeatlessTaco wrote:
##Vote VisceraEyes

VE's defense of LSB's "logic" made me throw up a little bit.

On February 02 2012 23:52 Dirkzor wrote:
Since you are here, mind elaborating on these two posts aswell? With references if possible...

On February 03 2012 05:51 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
It's mostly layabout and LSB as the two "knowns" of the mafia. + Show Spoiler +

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



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

On February 03 2012 10:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Townie as well

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 +

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 +

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 +

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 ++ Show Spoiler +

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 05 2012 10:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
people called me dumb for supporting the fucking vote circle.

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.

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 27 2012 01:06 Palmar wrote:
I have no issues with a planned vote-trading system, I'm just not going to follow it.