|
On January 27 2012 13:56 LSB wrote: Preliminary Observations All circlejerk/circle group/announce who you are transferring systems are fundamentally the same. Because they allow the mafia to generate VP advantage because they are guaranteed to receive ½ votes from a townie.
For announcing plans, transferring 1 vote is preferred, because transferring two votes creates a D3 LYLO. Assuming Mafia would be able to build (at least) +2 Vote power per night simply because they can stop (with a bullet) whoever they will transfer votes too, if we miss on day 1+2, day 3 would be 11 total people, Mafia-16 Vote power, Town-21 vote power. If town messes up, mafia will gain +5 vote power and win. But that puts town at a disadvantage at best, so what about giving votes without announcement? What is the alternative plan? The best plan would transfer almost all of the votes (so less VP is lost per day), and would not guarantee mafia VP.
Proposal: Balancing Act Night 1: Give all but one vote away to who you think is the most town. Announce who you gave the votes to the next day. Because only one person died, we should be able to figure out who that person gave their votes to. The main issue is if 3/4 people attempted to transfer to the dead person. That’s where night 2 comes into play Day 2: We would account for all vote transfers, and suspicious behaviors would be checked on. Night 2+: All people with 3 votes continue to transfer votes to anyone with only 3 votes. People with 1, 5, 7+ votes will not be included. All people with 5+ votes will be assigned to transfer all but three of their votes to someone with only 1 vote. This will have a normalizing force so people who have a vote advantage one day will no longer have a vote advantage the next. Day 3: More suspicious activity should be present.
This is a very rough proposal, however this is the only option besides 1 vote circlejerking
There are many benefits and harms.
Benefit one: Encourages people to play pro town and not do stupid things, so they can get more votes and keep votes away from mafia. We’ll have a higher level game without people trying to lie or ‘fish’ which confuses the waters
Benefit two: Allows us to get soft confirmation of the top 4 vote holders at times. This is because if 4 people control over half of the vote and the game is still continuing, that means that one of the has to be town.
Neutral: Less vote power is lost per night. Only 1 or 2 vote power is lost a night.
Harm: Potential for interference. If a mafia ends up with a lot of vote, there is a potential for the mafia to enact plans. However this is limited by counter interference from smart town members and the lynch if you are suggesting that we do this then it needs further fleshing out because as it stands i am still much happier "circle jerking" night1.
When players announce their votes to what extent would they be expected to justify their decision? How do we ensure players do this?
How concerned are you about unknown roles interfering with this plan? Do you think that we can determine whether players are telling the truth about their votes and make them accountable if they lie?
If you were scum how would you react to this plan?
|
I am worried that we are putting too much faith in people playing well, but i think on balance we will need to take risks and day1 is a time that we can afford to take them. I no longer support a "circle jerk"
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 28 2012 03:14 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 02:40 layabout wrote:On January 27 2012 13:56 LSB wrote: Preliminary Observations All circlejerk/circle group/announce who you are transferring systems are fundamentally the same. Because they allow the mafia to generate VP advantage because they are guaranteed to receive ½ votes from a townie.
For announcing plans, transferring 1 vote is preferred, because transferring two votes creates a D3 LYLO. Assuming Mafia would be able to build (at least) +2 Vote power per night simply because they can stop (with a bullet) whoever they will transfer votes too, if we miss on day 1+2, day 3 would be 11 total people, Mafia-16 Vote power, Town-21 vote power. If town messes up, mafia will gain +5 vote power and win. But that puts town at a disadvantage at best, so what about giving votes without announcement? What is the alternative plan? The best plan would transfer almost all of the votes (so less VP is lost per day), and would not guarantee mafia VP.
Proposal: Balancing Act Night 1: Give all but one vote away to who you think is the most town. Announce who you gave the votes to the next day. Because only one person died, we should be able to figure out who that person gave their votes to. The main issue is if 3/4 people attempted to transfer to the dead person. That’s where night 2 comes into play Day 2: We would account for all vote transfers, and suspicious behaviors would be checked on. Night 2+: All people with 3 votes continue to transfer votes to anyone with only 3 votes. People with 1, 5, 7+ votes will not be included. All people with 5+ votes will be assigned to transfer all but three of their votes to someone with only 1 vote. This will have a normalizing force so people who have a vote advantage one day will no longer have a vote advantage the next. Day 3: More suspicious activity should be present.
This is a very rough proposal, however this is the only option besides 1 vote circlejerking
There are many benefits and harms.
Benefit one: Encourages people to play pro town and not do stupid things, so they can get more votes and keep votes away from mafia. We’ll have a higher level game without people trying to lie or ‘fish’ which confuses the waters
Benefit two: Allows us to get soft confirmation of the top 4 vote holders at times. This is because if 4 people control over half of the vote and the game is still continuing, that means that one of the has to be town.
Neutral: Less vote power is lost per night. Only 1 or 2 vote power is lost a night.
Harm: Potential for interference. If a mafia ends up with a lot of vote, there is a potential for the mafia to enact plans. However this is limited by counter interference from smart town members and the lynchif you are suggesting that we do this then it needs further fleshing out because as it stands i am still much happier "circle jerking" night1. When players announce their votes to what extent would they be expected to justify their decision? How do we ensure players do this? How concerned are you about unknown roles interfering with this plan? Do you think that we can determine whether players are telling the truth about their votes and make them accountable if they lie? If you were scum how would you react to this plan? You bring up a valid point. I will need to clearly flesh out the plan. Night 1Everyone will transfer 2 votes to anyone as they wish. Day 2Everyone wakes up and announces who they transferred their votes to and post a short justification. It should be easy to figure out all vote movements. A few things to note Votes to and from lurker A justification is crucial because no townie would randomly give votes away. We can ensure that people will follow this as this is the correct play to do. Someone who insists that they didn't follow the plan is immediately under suspicion. Unknown roles- I don't know much about this setup, but I am assuming it should be pretty standard, since one new mechanic has already been introduced. However if there are roles that directly interfere with vote trading, this would allow us to see exactly what happened and provide the town with a more accurate description of possible mafia interference. Night 2People with 5+ votes will give all but three of their votes to people with 1 vote People with 3 votes will give all but 1 of their votes to people with 1 vote or 3 votes. If there is too much imbalance in the voting and we are in danger of Day 3Repeat Day 2, and so on so forth.
The purpose of the plan is to deny mafia a good counterplan since there is so many uncertain variables Mafia counterplan: Very day focused. Attempt to gain trust of the town and play power roles and very high profile in an attempt to gain large VP swings during N3. However, this is difficult since people with 1 vote are the most likely to receive votes. During the night there is very little you can do. Mafia lurkers- Transfer votes to high profile mafia members. High profile members- Try to keep as much votes inbetween each other, however it shouldn't be an issue loosing 2 VP if to gain a little trust with the town. Problems: This may result in the bleeding of a few VP from the mafia. This is because lurkers will only have 1 vote, and active members would need to constantly rebalance any votes they received.
Why you should prefer this plan -Lurkers become less important in the game, mafia lurkers will be neutralized, town lurkers will not cause as much damage -Circle Jerk is inherently mafia supporting town has no benefit besides "can't mess up too badly". This plan inherently has town supporting elements -Re-balancing automatically brings stability over the longer term, the nights where it is most important. Does it have to be 2 votes? You are essentially suggesting that we create choas to prevent the mafia from being able to exploit our actions If we do this Every town aligned player needs to put real effort into justifying themselves. This will force mafia to post in a way that helps us to determine their alignment. If we do not then we will have created a choatic situation that mafia can take advantage of.
|
does anybody know why prplhz has voted for wherebugsgo?
|
Should we be lynching someone active that may be scummy or someone who is lurking hard like Node?
|
On January 28 2012 09:14 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 08:58 layabout wrote: Should we be lynching someone active that may be scummy or someone who is lurking hard like Node? You should be lynching someone you think is scum - if you think Node's relative inactivity is more scummy than any of the active players, then you should vote Node. If you think we've got a better shot at lynching scum in the more active players, read over the cases present or build a case on who you think it should be and vote them. Node's inactivity is pretty standard if I recall correctly, but his vote on Palmar kinda worries me. I mean, even with his cavalier attitude, Palmar is definately not the scummiest person in the thread. Who are you looking at inside the active players layabout? You and prplhz
But i don't have anything substantial enough to try to lynch you over. I also felt that some of the things risk.nuke was saying were somewhat anti-town but he still doesn't look all that red,
Therefore i think that we should maybe vote for someone who isn't putting in effort as it will either prompt them to put in effort or rid us of someone useless.
The big problem is that this would very likely rid us of a townie.
I think that the talk of plans was useful for town and i feel that we have reached a good plan (but we need people to say whether or not they support it) But at the same time i think that the plan discussion lasted longer than it should have and the thread has been near-dead for a few hours. This means that there has been very little posted with regards to the lynch. All of the votes made so far were made with minimal justification and there has been next to no effort to persuade other to get behind the lynch. I feel that most of what was said about the plans was fairly safe and not indicative of alignments.
We have about 24 hours to decide who to lynch but we don't have much to go on for now, hopefully there will be more to look at when i wake up.
|
+ Show Spoiler [Paperscraps last post] +On January 28 2012 09:24 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 05:13 Jackal58 wrote: Scum can gain voting power by killing the people they trade votes with.
And don't vote for the cowboy. Palmar is town.
Any reasons to why you think Palmar is town? The way the game is evolving right now, Palmar seems to be gaining a lot of town support, thus more likely to get votes on N1 if we do the free trade system. Am I the only one wary of this? There is no possible way to know whether or not he is town or mafia on D1. This is a game of wits and Palmar is a smart fellow, just saying. Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 05:05 Palmar wrote:On January 28 2012 04:24 Paperscraps wrote:On January 27 2012 22:57 Palmar wrote: The difference between finding mafia to lynch and finding townie to pass your vote to is night and day. Remember, if you just randomize it, you still have 70% chance of hitting a townie. Add in even a tiny bit of thinking and that percentage goes up.
When you're trying to lynch scum it's the opposite, and you will be influenced by outside factors (it's harder to get wagons started on scum). However, this is your decision and your decision alone, so you have complete control over the outcome.
There is no such thing as safe play in mafia. It's not safe to do the circle of trust because we don't know what abilities the mafia has, and we cannot possibly gain an advantage through that method. With no advantage we don't know how the game is balanced. "I just chose at random" This justification completely negates what your plan is trying to do, which is to get scumtells from peoples justification on their trades. Another contradiction By your logic and probability, townies should trade their votes at random N1, ~70% chance to trade to another townie. So, which one is it Palmar? Free trade + justifications or randomized trading. On January 27 2012 19:57 Palmar wrote: whatever, I don't have the energy to argue with dumb.
I will not be following whatever plan you guys cook up. I will be following my own plan. This is so anti-town. Solidarity is crucial, not dissidence. You are forcing the town to do one of two things, follow you or lynch you. Seems like a scummy power play to me. ##Vote: Palmar You're not helping anyone with that. You're just being dumb. Seeing as you're probably town you're working directly against your win condition. I didn't suggest anyone randomized, I was just pointing out what a great starting point we had even if we simply randomed. Don't try to see things that aren't there. Palmar, why the lack of open-mindedness? The benefit of circle trading N1 is much safer than free trading to people based of some perception we got during D1. I don't disagree with a free trade + justification plan after N1, but N1 circle trading seems the best options, until we get some solid reads during D2. I'll leave my vote on you until you give some valid benefits to free trade over circle trading N1.
Does anyone think no lynching is an option D1? The mafia have a set KP, thus we only lose 1 townie and D2 we have a ton more information to work with. Odds are we will lynch a townie today. I am fine with lynching this guy. What's this i am gonna leave my vote on you crap? He is also hinting at a no-lynch on the basis that we will likely hit a townie, which is just plain bad
|
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)
|
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.
|
|
shit. ##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
|
First thing first: What an awful lynch.
Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote. If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote.
I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler).
I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing.
this is just wrong:
On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote: 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. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best. If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read.
|
comments in italic:
On January 29 2012 22:08 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 20:50 layabout wrote: First thing first: What an awful lynch.
Please explain why you think this way. wbg never posted in his defence and i didn't have computer acess, i don't see what would be prodictive about me explaining why i think you made a bad decision.* Show nested quote + Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote. If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote.
I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler).
I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing.
This is all fluff, everything in this paragraphs has already been mentioned. Fluff my arsehole. There are still a number of player who have not yet said that they are on board. Additionally the number of votes people trade is important and is one of the only things that we can actually discuss.Show nested quote +this is just wrong: On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote: 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. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best. If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read. What? maybe you could try reading? *but i will explain it anyway, and do so by looking at one of your posts:
On January 29 2012 06:00 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 29 2012 05:21 prplhz wrote: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. I think this is the soundest lynch logic I've heard thus far. + Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 19:31 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 19:22 Paperscraps wrote:
After Night 1 I am all for doing something else. We will have more information, due to the possibility of power roles. Power roles will be able to be 100% percent sure on things and lead town to lynches and pro-town reads. After Night 1 your plan is sound. This. I don't get why people are convinced they'd have to circlejerk until the end of the universe if we go with the plan. I just want a one or two night circlejerk, get information out, and then start voting appropriately. This is one of the posts I made between my two-day circle trade idea (that's getting me lynched) and my one-day circle trade idea that shows I was changing my mind, not just sporadically suggesting plans to fuck everyone over. I'm a noob who felt good when his first post got received so warmly. Get over it. People poked holes in my initial circle trade, I came up with 2-day circle trade. People poked holes in that, I came up with 1-day circle trade. People poked holes in that, oh well, shitty plan, let's try something different. Now I like LSB's vote trading plan, and that hasn't had enough holes poked into it to change my mind again. I'm done vouching my defense for now. Bugs never justified his vote on me. Well he did, but when I asked him about it, Paperscraps just took over and I never got a reply from bugs. Reading his earlier threads (especially that long justification he did) makes me suspicious of this action. Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 10:19 VisceraEyes wrote:On January 28 2012 10:05 Paperscraps wrote:On January 28 2012 09:36 layabout wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Paperscraps last post] +On January 28 2012 09:24 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 05:13 Jackal58 wrote: Scum can gain voting power by killing the people they trade votes with.
And don't vote for the cowboy. Palmar is town.
Any reasons to why you think Palmar is town? The way the game is evolving right now, Palmar seems to be gaining a lot of town support, thus more likely to get votes on N1 if we do the free trade system. Am I the only one wary of this? There is no possible way to know whether or not he is town or mafia on D1. This is a game of wits and Palmar is a smart fellow, just saying. Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 05:05 Palmar wrote:On January 28 2012 04:24 Paperscraps wrote:On January 27 2012 22:57 Palmar wrote: The difference between finding mafia to lynch and finding townie to pass your vote to is night and day. Remember, if you just randomize it, you still have 70% chance of hitting a townie. Add in even a tiny bit of thinking and that percentage goes up.
When you're trying to lynch scum it's the opposite, and you will be influenced by outside factors (it's harder to get wagons started on scum). However, this is your decision and your decision alone, so you have complete control over the outcome.
There is no such thing as safe play in mafia. It's not safe to do the circle of trust because we don't know what abilities the mafia has, and we cannot possibly gain an advantage through that method. With no advantage we don't know how the game is balanced. "I just chose at random" This justification completely negates what your plan is trying to do, which is to get scumtells from peoples justification on their trades. Another contradiction By your logic and probability, townies should trade their votes at random N1, ~70% chance to trade to another townie. So, which one is it Palmar? Free trade + justifications or randomized trading. On January 27 2012 19:57 Palmar wrote: whatever, I don't have the energy to argue with dumb.
I will not be following whatever plan you guys cook up. I will be following my own plan. This is so anti-town. Solidarity is crucial, not dissidence. You are forcing the town to do one of two things, follow you or lynch you. Seems like a scummy power play to me. ##Vote: Palmar You're not helping anyone with that. You're just being dumb. Seeing as you're probably town you're working directly against your win condition. I didn't suggest anyone randomized, I was just pointing out what a great starting point we had even if we simply randomed. Don't try to see things that aren't there. Palmar, why the lack of open-mindedness? The benefit of circle trading N1 is much safer than free trading to people based of some perception we got during D1. I don't disagree with a free trade + justification plan after N1, but N1 circle trading seems the best options, until we get some solid reads during D2. I'll leave my vote on you until you give some valid benefits to free trade over circle trading N1.
Does anyone think no lynching is an option D1? The mafia have a set KP, thus we only lose 1 townie and D2 we have a ton more information to work with. Odds are we will lynch a townie today. I am fine with lynching this guy. What's this i am gonna leave my vote on you crap? He is also hinting at a no-lynch on the basis that we will likely hit a townie, which is just plain bad If you think I am guilty, why not vote me up then? I am leaving my vote on Palmar, because he is being unreasonable. Hopefully he will post something more constructive, instead of just calling people "dumb". I on the other hand am open to suggestions and willing to change if people post logical arguments. 4/15 chance to hit mafia, 11/15 chance to hit townie. You are willing to lynch me right now and that would be very bad for town. Why the sudden change from purple and viscera to me? Why is a no-lynch so frowned upon? I understand that we can only kill mafia by lynching, but D1 odds are against us. Because the odds are against us all days, not just D1. Do you think scum are going to withhold their NK because they haven't figured out who's blue yet? More information would be nice, but a slightly lessened chance of killing scum (lynching D1) is better than zero chance of killing scum (NL D1). If you want to see the No-Lynch in action, go check out XLVIII. + Show Spoiler +Scum Victory - not really because of the No-Lynches, but please note the chaos that surrounds EVERY lynch. NL is hardly ever the answer. I'm going back to do a reread and a couple filters, so in the meantime... ##Unvote: PaperscrapsI don't think I'll be able to get the support I'd need, and I'm starting to doubt you're red myself. Not many scum would suggest no-lynch like that...especially since it's so frowned upon in most towns. I'll be back later tonight with my vote. So the only real argument he's made all game he rescinds. I'd say VE is fluffing the thread, but bugs has more holes in his story/justification. Thus: ##Vote: wherebugsgo
so you start by sating that prphz has got some sound logic. + Show Spoiler [he hasn't] +prphz make a lot of asserions about WBG's meta. and then calls him scum based on 3 things: He voted for risk nukeHis 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. I do not have much experience of playing with WBG and whilst i have read about 4 of his games i am not sure i know his playstyle all that well. The vote of risk was kinda of dumb but i think that voting for someone because he thinks they are being stupid seems quite normal for WBG. On January 27 2012 08:11 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:09 risk.nuke wrote: Yes, wbg. that everyone understood. Assuming nobody here is full on retard they can figure that out. Wbg are you telling me you approve of vote circles? Yeah, I fully approve of them. I'm going to give Palmar some time to shape up, but if he doesn't agree with this (if he's town he should, it's completely logical) then he should probably die. Anyone who opposes the vote circle plan: please provide reasoning as to why it's bad. Palmar provided reasoning some 10 hours after WBG voted for risk.nuke, however since WBG was actively arguing with risk and Palmar had not been posting, him focusing on risk is quite understandable. He supported the trade circleLots of people supported the trade circle, and WBG gave some sound reasons as to why here (click) and he explains why he thinks just freely voting is bad here and here and here and here and herethen LSB preposes an adjusted plan he says he thinks there will be poor consequences here he disappears and gets lynched. Nearly all of wbg's posts were made before the plan we have agreed upon was mentioned. And most of his criticisms were legitimate and logical. Prplhz calls him scummy for supporting the plan that most of the players in the thread were supporting. He calls him scum for saying that Look at this post."Giving votes to who you think is town is terrible because scum will look more town, THAN TOWNIES". this is an inaccurate summary which take the original post out of context. WBG argues that mafia only need 1 member to look town in order for scum to gain a lot of votes, and says that this we be easier due to the no-flip aspect. 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? what on earth is prplhz saying here and how does it relate to WBG's alignment? 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. Prplhz then says that active scum with lots of votes (which they would get because they look townie) aren't a threat because they will be figured out. This is a horrendous criticism that is not only incorrect but does not show how WBG is behaving like scum. 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. Italic: well he wasn't hooked and he explained why very clearly, so what if you disagree now, how does that make him supporting the plan earlier scummy? Underlined: Since you have a huge amount data supporting your comment i see nothing wrong with any of this. Other than the fact that how well people usually figure out his alignment has next to no bearing on what he thinks is best for town. He hasn't provided analysis day1In 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. I don't see how a comparison between day1 play here and a case that he made much later in another game is one that we can draw conclusions from. Besides that WBG's reasoning given was at least on par with everyone else. So i don't like prplhz's case.
You then publical announce that you are new (which if you are town is fucking dumb). You then write that you have "discussed plans", then "I'm done vouching my defense for now."
Bugs never justified his vote on me. Well he did lol
Reading his earlier threads (especially that long justification he did) makes me suspicious of this action. do you mean especially the night 2 post 211 pages into a game? because that isn't really a fair comparison.
I am not sure what the comment about ViceraEyes is doing there.
I think you didn't have good reasons for voting WBG. You do not provide anything original. You do not explain why you agree with prplhz's case. I think you only voted him because you would have been lynched if WBG didn't get votes
|
On January 29 2012 23:55 risk.nuke wrote: It was a good lynch. Bugs is a good player. Both me and Palmar realised how a cirklejerk was better for scum then for town almost instantly. He claims he did not. Furthermore at the time when the majority of posting people had gotten it somehow that cirklejerks were awesome he tried to quelsh any opposition HARD. As can be seen by his argumentation with me about cirklejerks ending in him agressivly voting for me trying to both quelsh resistance to a pro-mafia strategy and simultaneously starting a bandwagon on me. His vote was straight out dumb. It was not a pressure vote because I had already taken a stance. I had taken a stance and he wanted me dead for it.
And he kept talking all the time about how easy it was for mafia to act pro-town and get all the votes with my plan which is just false because if it was that easy as to look pro-town and not be pro-town. Then scum could roll the game regardless if people give them votes or not because pro-town looking people won't get lynched anyway. It was just fearmongering trying to scare away townies from the correct path.
Lastly, when things look dire for him and he has no defense to deploy but he just disapears. whilst i could argue about the first point that would not be helpful. the fearmongering aspect is also debatable, for instance+ Show Spoiler + On January 27 2012 00:44 risk.nuke wrote: prplhz, I don't like the idea to give away 2 votes each day. Do you realise that if we mislynch day 1 and day 2, day 3 there will be. 37 votes in the game. And if mafia aren't under/over eachother in the list they can aqquire 20 votes. Leaving the town with 17. Yes it will be obvious who the scum is. But without some sort of powerrole intervention we can't do anything about it. Veto
I think I would prefer a system where you can send your votes wherever you please. Obviously you will have to tell us what you do.
Why is this a better idea then everyone gets the same amount of votes? Mafia can't lurk. Cause lurkers will likely end up on 1 vote and be useless. Mafia will be forced to provide reasoning and...BAH I gtg. See you later. that could equally be labelled fearmongering, you used likely harmful consequences to persuade people of a point. WBG did the same thing.
He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched. If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities?
Do you think that the benefits of everyone trading 2 votes make it worth doing? (please consider the lsb plan not just trading 2 votes in general) plan can be found : here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13291863 and http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13298111
|
On January 30 2012 00:26 Palmar wrote: Don't bother layabout, we're killing you tomorrow. like we were killing VE?
|
On January 30 2012 00:51 risk.nuke wrote: No please layabout. I want to hear what you think. It will help me get a read on you. So argue the first point.
Fearmongering is not debatable. Wbg spoke things that wasn't true so people would do as he wanted out of fear. Whilst I stated a fact.
Your third point you can't make anything out of. It's wifom and meta. People do all kinds of weird shit when they are about to get lynched. Personally in my opinion most exept role-claim and arguing for your actions are scum-moves. I'm not going to specculate on how many remaining scum players there is. It's irrelevant if we don't have confirmation. I will lynch my strongest scumread. The # of scum I think is left in the game doesn't affect that (much).
I'm against any limitations to vote-trading for the moment. This might change later. I totally agreed with him that circle trading was the best thing to do:
When i first saw the setup i felt that vote-trading was a way in which town could lose votes to mafia and that mafia could use to further increase their influence on the vote.
I then thought that if town were to transfer all of our votes around that we could limit the vote gain for mafia. It would also force everyone to vote for who town told them to so everyone could show that they were willing to help town.
then the game began and i saw that people had already suggested this and i supported it.
Then you made objections to it that did not make much sense. I felt that you were trying to push people to vote freely so that mafia could take advantage of that.
There was arguing
LSB came up with an improved circle trade plan that i thought was better.
Then Palmar finally explained why he disliked it and LSB proposed an alternative, that was quite simple : we should vote on our own and then explain what we had done and why the next day, we would also balance it out to prevent a small number of players from controlling the vote entirely. The difference from free trading is very small but i thought/ think that if we as town play well then mafia will be forced to post about their reads and give us information to help us to figure out their alignment.
This was how i viewed the plans and is why i think that WBG's actions made sense.
I do not think you criticised the vote circle plan itself, you basically just said that you thought vote trading was pro-town and then tried to refute what WBG had been saying because he had said that it was likely that at least one of the 4 mafia would be a vet or would look town and then gain votes. He also said that it was likely that there would be town players that would not look town and thus not get any votes thus increasing the chances that scum would gain votes. Those arguments were valid and you called him scum for them.
Psst + Show Spoiler +whenever you say lets not do "something" because if "something else" could happen which would be bad, you are fearmongering whether what you say is fact, likely or unlikely. For instance if i were to say "lets not lynch day1 or 2 because we would probably hit 2 townies, then mafia can win with nighthits every night and mislynches on day 3 and 4 " that could be described as fearmongering.
You said . "I don't like the idea to give away 2 votes each day. Do you realise that if we mislynch day 1 and day 2, day 3 there will be. 37 votes in the game. And if mafia aren't under/over eachother in the list they can aqquire 20 votes. Leaving the town with 17." which is basically "lets not give away two votes becuase if we mislynch 3 days in a row then mafia could win"
|
On January 30 2012 00:51 risk.nuke wrote: No please layabout. I want to hear what you think. It will help me get a read on you. So argue the first point.
Fearmongering is not debatable. Wbg spoke things that wasn't true so people would do as he wanted out of fear. Whilst I stated a fact.
Your third point you can't make anything out of. It's wifom and meta. People do all kinds of weird shit when they are about to get lynched. Personally in my opinion most exept role-claim and arguing for your actions are scum-moves. I'm not going to specculate on how many remaining scum players there is. It's irrelevant if we don't have confirmation. I will lynch my strongest scumread. The # of scum I think is left in the game doesn't affect that (much).
I'm against any limitations to vote-trading for the moment. This might change later. I am glad that you now think that him not being around can only result in wifom and meta because you didn't seem to think so earlier
On January 29 2012 23:55 risk.nuke wrote: -snipped-
Lastly, when things look dire for him and he has no defense to deploy but he just disapears.
|
On January 30 2012 06:23 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote: He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched. If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities? I'll play devil's advocate here, since you like that WIFOM.Lets assume WBG was mafia for a minute. Why would mafia speak out in defense for him? It would only draw suspicion onto them. WBG didn't even defend himself. As risk.nuke mentioned above people do weird stuff when under the gun, which is great because this is when scum make mistakes. Any self-respecting townie would at least try to defend themselves, role claim, anything other than lurk! or at least I would hope a townie would. Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote: If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Also bussing is valid tactic for mafia. That is a scummy thing to say. It is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan, when they have a QT to discuss something delicate like a bus, before hand.
In a no flip game town has to assume the worst until PRs can give us something concrete, thus we will of course keep an open mind that 4 mafia could still remain. fuck off with the "you like wifom shit."
I was merely pointing out that his absence is not something that we can draw conclusions from. risk had said it as if it meant he was scum so i responded by saying that i could similarly draw the opposite conclusion.
also prplhz i wanted people to post that they were in agreement/not in agreement with the balancing act proposal,. I only explained my stance on the lynch because i was asked to. If you look at the words about both topics in my first post today: + Show Spoiler +On January 29 2012 20:50 layabout wrote:First thing first: What an awful lynch. Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote. If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote. I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler). I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing. this is just wrong: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote: 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. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best. If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read. this should be evident.
Are you actually suggesting that the mafia would have bussed wbg yesterday? How is is scummy to think that that would be so stupid we should not consider it?
|
On January 30 2012 07:45 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 06:36 layabout wrote:On January 30 2012 06:23 Paperscraps wrote:On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote: He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched. If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities? I'll play devil's advocate here, since you like that WIFOM.Lets assume WBG was mafia for a minute. Why would mafia speak out in defense for him? It would only draw suspicion onto them. WBG didn't even defend himself. As risk.nuke mentioned above people do weird stuff when under the gun, which is great because this is when scum make mistakes. Any self-respecting townie would at least try to defend themselves, role claim, anything other than lurk! or at least I would hope a townie would. On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote: If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Also bussing is valid tactic for mafia. That is a scummy thing to say. It is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan, when they have a QT to discuss something delicate like a bus, before hand.
In a no flip game town has to assume the worst until PRs can give us something concrete, thus we will of course keep an open mind that 4 mafia could still remain. fuck off with the "you like wifom shit." I was merely pointing out that his absence is not something that we can draw conclusions from. risk had said it as if it meant he was scum so i responded by saying that i could similarly draw the opposite conclusion. also prplhz i wanted people to post that they were in agreement/not in agreement with the balancing act proposal,. I only explained my stance on the lynch because i was asked to. If you look at the words about both topics in my first post today: + Show Spoiler +On January 29 2012 20:50 layabout wrote:First thing first: What an awful lynch. Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote. If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote. I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler). I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing. this is just wrong: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote: 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. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best. If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read. this should be evident. Are you actually suggesting that the mafia would have bussed wbg yesterday? How is is scummy to think that that would be so stupid we should not consider it? I said it is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan. You have to take a step back and look at the big picture, see who is talking with who, examine voting patterns, look at peoples arguments for why they vote, look at justifications for the VP trade, sheeping, bandwagoning, etc... These things will find mafia, not WIFOM. can you read?
|
Vote trade: I sent 1 vote to risk.nuke because he looks greener than an accident in a blue and yellow paint factory.
Having read through all of his day1 filters he seems to be acting very typically. He explains himself about as well as he normally does and he came to an opinion and voiced it against the majority. He is aggressive and he pushes what he appears to think is in town's best interests.
WTF?:
On January 30 2012 18:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: ##Vote layabout
For reasons stated before. What reasons? The only thing you have really said about me is that i posted "fluff"
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.
I do not like that paperscraps is voting for him because i think that paperscraps's approach to the game is just bad. It seems like paperscraps is voting for him because LSB called his logic bad.
I am also not comfortable with following Palmar on who to lynch because: Palamar typically has strong day1 reads but i think he was wrong about WBG and i know he is wrong about me. VE could be scum but i would need to re-evaluate before giving an opinion i can support. I have a town read on LSB. Palmar seemed to have made up his mind about who was scum before they had really began posting + Show Spoiler [examples] +found in his filter http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303505&user=87086 On January 26 2012 18:33 Palmar wrote: @prplhz: Because I'm just that awesome.
I suggest we kill Bugs, he's good as scum and bad as town. On January 27 2012 03:36 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 03:22 VisceraEyes wrote:On January 27 2012 02:55 Palmar wrote: your plan is terrible paperscraps.
It's so scummy you're probably town. Why is Paper's plan so scummy dude? If we all circle-jerk the votes, then we can see without a doubt whether or not the scums have vote-manipulation powers and ideally how they work. What makes Paper scummy for suggesting a system under which we'll be able to glean information regarding the setup? It's ok, you're scum too. On January 27 2012 05:22 Palmar wrote: let's lynch layabout for trying to play gandhi he was also very late to justify himself against bugs. I am not calling him scum but i do not trust what he has been saying.
In light of this i see no reason to lynch LSB.
+ Show Spoiler [perhaps i am being petty] +On January 30 2012 13:40 prplhz wrote:Please correct me if I'm wrong. Bold means unaccounted for, in VP sent or VP received. + Show Spoiler +Palmar 2 -> Paperscraps Jackal58 1 -> Palmar chaoser 1 -> Palmar LSB 2 -> layabout prplhz 1 -> Palmar
wherebugsgo Dirkzor 1 -> risk.nuke 1 -> Palmar [UoN]Sentinel 2 -> prplhz Paperscraps 1 -> jaybrundage 1 -> prplhz MeatlessTaco 1 -> Node 1 -> [UoN]Sentinel VisceraEyes 1 -> LSB layabout 1 ->
Palmar 3 - 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 Jackal58 3 - 1 != 3 chaoser 3 = 3 LSB 3 - 2 + 1 = 2 prplhz 3 - 1 + 2 + 1 != 6 Dirkzor 3 - 1 = 2 risk.nuke 3 - 1 != 3 [UoN]Sentinel 3 - 2 + 1 = 2 Paperscraps 3 - 1 + 2 = 4 jaybrundage 3 - 1 = 2 MeatlessTaco 3 - 1 = 2 Node 3 - 1 = 2 VisceraEyes 3 - 1 = 2 layabout 3 - 1 + 2 != 5 Four people missing a sent VP each and four people missing a received VP each. Palmar confirmed town. I think it's likely that scum would trade Palmar since they thought he was going down. Who traded Jackal58? Whilst it's likely that Palmar is town we cannot know for certain and we should be mindful of this, even if we decide to assume that he is town.
|
|
|
|