EPTif that's okay
Hammer Mini Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
if that's okay | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
/in lets do this | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:30 Palmar wrote: screw it, I'll fill this up >childish joke here< | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 26 2012 21:21 jaybrundage wrote: I think this is a bad idea. Trading away votes like that makes it so that the scum can easily manipulate the vote and when one of there teammates can swing the lynch by putting a crap ton of there votes on a one guy. Think about it this way if all the mafia put there votes on one person then we can have about eight votes on one guy. If they all pool there votes and then that's not including any townies that might happen to put there votes on the mafia votebag. This one person has huge potential to sway the lynch and ensure that the mafia can lead the lynch to a townie with out all piling there votes and revealing themselves. The Sentinal Method gives us the ability to have each townie be accountable for his votes. Also importantly for us to know the power behind each vote. And to make sure to give us no surprises. If we are allowed to trade haphazardly then the scum can use there vote bag to hammer the vote if we get close to lynching a townie. @Palmar Putting everyone's votes on you is a terrible idea. I'm not even sure why you are mentioning it. What exactly are you saying in the italicised paragraph? + Show Spoiler [Rules] + Votetrading: 1. Every player starts the game with 3 Voting Power, VP, or Votes. During the nightphase a player must give away at least ONE of their votes to ONE other player, who gets the use of those votes in the future. A player can not give away all of their votes.PM the hosts to give away your votes. 2. If a player has more than 5 votes, then he must attempt to give away enough to put him at 5 or less votes. 3. Any votes you have when you die to a lynch are lost. 4. If the one you gave votes to died during the night, then the trade fail and you keep your votes. If you die during the night, then any final attempt to trade away your votes is still resolved. Any other votes you carry at the time of death are lost. 5. The VP of each living player, and each player who died during the night, is revealed in the Daypost. How they got their VP is not revealed. Presumably point 2 means that a player cannot have more than 5 votes. Or did the bit beneath the red text in your role PM explain how you could get more votes? If we follow the plan this should never happen anyway since we should each town player should be voting for the player below them on the list, in order for mafia to do what you suggest some of them would be unable to vote for the players below them, town could see this and get to lynch scum. I intended to suggest the vote trading but i seem to have been beaten to it. So instead i will add some of my thoughts: If there was no plan and players decided who to trade privately then.. Since the mafia know each other, they could vote-trade with each other. This means that the mafia could avoid giving votes to town completely and so can always have at least 12 votes (3 starting votes each, 4 players) and up to 20 votes (max 5 votes each 20 players). The only way for Mafia to lose votes (as far as we know) would be when one of them is lynched. The mafia could very quickly gain a large proportion of the votes and this would mean that they could protect themselves from the lynch very easily, if townies were to votes carelessly. The no-flip mechanic makes it easier for scum to push miss-lynches since town will not see the flip, it also means that mafia has much less of a reason to bus. Voting in this game becomes less risky (you cannot be as easily held accountable for killing town) and so Mafia can take better advantage of their voting power, which could very quickly become quite significant. + Show Spoiler + Consider the likely event in which a town player is lynched day1: there will be 42 votes left and 12 controlled by mafia, if players were to vote independently but mafia were to trade with each other then they would not lose any of these votes but would very likely gain from 2-6 votes from town players who would not know they were giving votes to scum. Lets assume mafia gain 4 votes, and they land a night kill Day2 begins and scum now have 16 votes out of 39-41 votes and 16/20 or 16/21 to lynch. (worst case scenario would be each scum ends up with 5 votes and 20 are needed to lynch) Because of this i feel that the vote-trading mechanic favours the mafia greatly and that we need to come up with a strategy to prevent the mafia from exploiting it. The "vote circle" should force mafia to give votes to town and is better than people deciding their votes privately. Blah blah blah wall of text: Game mechanics (that we know of) seem to favour mafia so we should act in a way to minimise this or turn the mechanics to our advantage. The best way to do this (in my opinion) is for you to give your votes to the player below you. Additionally Mafia will have a huge information advantage and the ???-flips make voting analysis much harder, this means that discussion during the day is more valuable during this game than it would e in other games. We will need use this time to the best of our abilities and we should not hammer under any circumstances. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 27 2012 02:20 Paperscraps wrote: One thing that needs to happen before this day ends, is unanimous agreement on a trading system. The 3 decent ideas so a far are: 1. Circle trade 1 vote to the person below you. 2. Circle trade all but 1 vote to the person below you. 3. Everyone posts in this thread who they will trade their vote(s) to during the night. All of these ideas have pros and cons, but the worst thing for town right now is not to be in agreement be the end of the day. If we are split or have wild cards like Palmar, then we don't have the complete transparency we need for these systems to be effective. Personally I think number 1 is the best, most town-favored option. I am always open to more discussion and more ideas. don't number 1 and 2 imply number 3? I think that players should definitely announce who they are giving their votes to. If a town player is killed during the night then.. If everyone trades 1 vote then a townie will die with 2 votes and we lose two vote from the game. If everyone trades 2 votes then a townie will die with 1 vote and we lose 1 vote from the game. The thing for me that is important is whether or not town benefit from there being more votes in the game. I personally feel that more votes is good for town. If the overwhelming majority agree and players do not go along with the plan then we lynch them. How long do you think circle trading votes will be viable? There could come a point in the game in which Mafia could not circle votes and gain control of the lynch, while this should out them it does mean that they could quite easily get 2 free kills towards the end and then win. That being said i think that circle trading day1 and 2 is sensible | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
But isn't paperscraps probably town? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
that's silly | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
nobody yet. Voting for Palmar now is dumb though, and i don't like that you have done that. The thing is, i think the plan is good but there are drawbacks and we have not fully addressed them. After a few miss-lynches the scum could exploit the "circle vote trading" and win, so if we agree to follow the strategy then we should likely decide how long we shall do it for. At the same time it seems likely that there will be roles that can significantly affect the game and so it may be best to agree on the best plan for now and then adapt it as the game grows older and we gain more information. + Show Spoiler [likely there will be power roles?] + since all of the mechanics we are aware of seem pro-scum it seems probable that there will be pro-town mechanics that we are not aware of. I think we should consider something else: A player that trades votes to a player that gets killed will have their vote refunded. This will mean that for the next night they will have an extra vote to trade or they will keep an extra vote. If there are extra votes we need to consider what players who get them should do with them because the Mafia will essentially have the power to decide who gets the extra vote(s). I support the everyone trades 1 vote to the person below plan. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 27 2012 05:45 VisceraEyes wrote: This is actually something I hadn't even considered. However, we can't "decide" what to do about it now because scum would be likely to exploit it somehow if we decide to do the vote-rotation. Actually, with this in mind it seems more like a scum-favored decision to rotate the votes predictably. ##Unvote: Palmar Suddenly the thought of just giving our vote to the most town-seeming individual has merit. I'm just gonna shut up then. 1 vote each? 2 votes each? some give vote and some rotate? which idea has merit? If say everyone gave 1 player 2 votes then that player would decide the lynch next day and would then have to give away enough votes for another player to decide the following days lynch. That seems like an extremely risky plan. If they were given 1 vote then we would have a similar but less dangerous situation. + if that player was town and was given or was about to be given lots of votes couldn't the mafia just kill them and ruin everything? If we agreed to give votes to one player we would not be able to reliable check who had given them to that player and who hadn't. Knowing who is giving votes to who is something that could be valuable and i don't think we should allow mafia to deny us that information. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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. Explain why the vote system is pro-town when mafia can effectively never lose their votes yet town can almost never avoid losing their votes. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
but can we really? With a KP and the ability to give votes in secret and announce giving votes in public, surely mafia can get around giving away their votes to town if they want to? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
what do you think the best approach to trading votes is? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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? I think he is and it would be a vote circle, with everyone in it. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 27 2012 08:27 VisceraEyes wrote: WBG, I'm iffy on the vote-circle, and here's why: we can't know who the extra votes are going to. Scum are going to kill someone, and whoever tried to give that person a vote is going to have an extra vote. Will scum design the kill to give themselves extra VP? We can't know the answer, and we won't know even if we lynch the receiver. That's the fundamental flaw in the plan: it provides the most opportunity for everyone to have the same number of votes, but it ensures that someone is going to have more than everyone else and we have no idea if we can trust that person or not. At least by giving a vote to someone who appears pro-town in-thread, we can keep who gets the extra votes within our power. RE: Palmar - Palmar's agenda right now is accruing votes from sheep - he's not going to approve of this plan regardless of his alignment unless he's trolling us. The question becomes: would scumPalmar put stick his neck out like this, bucking the only semblance of a nearly universally accepted plan just to try and gain some VP for the next cycle? I think he would, because he's likely to succeed regardless of his alignment. But town may disagree. I'm willing to kill Palmar today if he doesn't shape up, but I'm also willing to give him until tomorrow. Right now he's one of only two scum reads I have. I'll echo you and say that we need more activity. This seems like a pretty weak reservation to have. The goal of the "votecirlce" is to minimise the extent to which mafia can use the vote-trading to their advantage. This systematic approach gives us an expected outcome and allows us to hold players accountable for the their vote-trading. Being able to give 1 player a extra vote is hardly threatening at all, when there are 45 votes in all and scum will not necessarily gain the vote themselves. Please stop trying to make Palmar an issue, he never lives long anyway. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Otherwise plan well planned. Back tomorrow. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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. So circle jerking is bad because if we didn't do it then every player would have to say who they are going to give votes to before they do it and that we could analyse that? This seems like an unrealistic expectation to me, because players often vote to lynch without providing any reasoning or just repeating what others have said. Why would players have to make cases? What is there to stop players simply not explaining their actions or misleading us? If you are town then you know that you are town but you do not know the alignments of other players. Every time you give away a vote you are giving a town controlled vote to a player that could be town or scum. For this reason it does not make sense for players (of either alignment) to be trading away lots of votes. It also means that whenever you trade votes you want to be as sure as possible that you are giving them to town. As the game progresses we will get more information and should be getting more accurate reads. On day1 the majority of reads suck. This means that day1 has the most potential for mafia to gain votes. Circle-trading minimises/near-eliminates this potential and it allows players to show through their actions that they want to help town. Circle trading day1 is the safest option we have. 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? why do you think it's dead? why are you telling people that it is dead? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
I no longer support a "circle jerk" | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 28 2012 03:14 LSB wrote: You bring up a valid point. I will need to clearly flesh out the plan. Night 1 Everyone will transfer 2 votes to anyone as they wish. Day 2 Everyone 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 2 People 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 3 Repeat 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. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 28 2012 09:14 VisceraEyes wrote: 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. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 28 2012 09:24 Paperscraps wrote: 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. 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 | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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: 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) | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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: 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: 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. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
##Vote Sentinel | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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- 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. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 29 2012 22:08 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: 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.* 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. 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: 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. 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 nuke 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. 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: 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 circle Lots 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 here then 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 day1 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. 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 | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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. 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 | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 30 2012 00:26 Palmar wrote: Don't bother layabout, we're killing you tomorrow. like we were killing VE? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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" | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 30 2012 06:23 Paperscraps wrote: 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. 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: 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? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 30 2012 07:45 Paperscraps wrote: 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? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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 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 LSB 2 -> layabout prplhz 1 -> Palmar 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. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
why don't we all declare that we will ignore other people in the thread? that way we don't have to read their posts, think about or analyse them! | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 03:28 prplhz wrote: Hey risk.nuke what do you think about LSB/layabout? If they're both scum, isn't it weird that LSB traded 2 votes to layabout, when layabout was very suspicious in the thread yesterday and was a big candidate for today's lynch? That would be like throwing 2 votes away. Also, about VisceraEyes' insanity, you should check out XLVIII. The guy was insane in that game too and he was scum. I haven't seen him go this crazy in any other game. And by insane I mean, he tunneled Palmar for 3 days straight even though everybody was telling him to stop it. What do you think about Dirkzor and Jackal58? I think it's weird that Dirkzor would trade Jackal58 on such a flimsy reasonable, Jackal58's play in Purgatory doesn't fit Dirkzor's description at all and Jackal58 hasn't displayed any stellar town play in this game at all. I know that townies do stupid things but you can only give them this much room until you have to lynch them. why am i suspicious? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 03:58 Palmar wrote: hey layabout, you need to take a stance, you being scum is irrelevant atm. Do you want to lynch me or VE? I am unsure of Your alignment. Early day 1 i had a town read on you. You were calling people stupid, arguing etc ...But your play has left me less and less sure of that. Rather than explaining what you felt was best for town you simply said that you would not co operate with a plan and called people scummy for no reason. You let people waste time and then 30 hours in, you explained why you had disagreed from the start of the day.You have had reads that i consider poor, which is unusual. You decided to kill WBG very early on and you did not explain yourself until he was a good as dead (and absent), and when there was not much to lynch him over. You then tried to kill LSB who has done more to help town than any other individual. You now want to kill VE (the fact that you both claim hits make this a valid course of action now), who you had pushed before before he had acted in a way that could provide you with enough information to make a reliable judgement about him. You have made very little effort to convince or persuade people, you have labelled people scum and tried to pressure and bully people into agreeing with you. You have acted in a way that negatively impacts the town atmosphere. You have tried to kill players that would be valuable if town without providing good reasons. I feel you have acted in an anti-town fashion. But i did think you were town and people that know your play have said they think you are town. If you do not pick up your play then i think you are a better lynch. I am unsure of VE's alignment. He started supporting the plan and calling you scummyhere (clicky) . He then completely abandoned the plan and his accusations against you because "scum could gain a vote through circle trading" and therefore "circle trading" was bad and you were not scummy for opposing it, i felt that this was a weak reason, (though it turns out not supporting "circle jerking" is probably a much better stance). He then got involved in more discussion about plas and such, then presented a case against paperscraps. He points out several things paperscraps has done that are anti-town and votes for him. He claimed to have not realised how long we had left and apologises. He then unvotes paperscraps for a few reasons: 1) He doesn't think he will convince anyone 2) He thinks that Paperscraps suggesting a no-lynch would be a dumb thing for scum so he is more likely town than he had previously thought. 3) He wants to go back and read more filters.. Then he hammers WBG. He says he sent a vote to LSB. He claims to have been hit during the night. I feel like he was taking an interest in the initial plan discussion but that he added very little to it. I think his vote on Palmer served no pro-town purpose and that his quick unvoting is not in his favour. Whilst i can empathise with him wanting to kill paperscraps i feel that paperscraps is probably green, and that the case was a little forced. He has at least made an effort to explain why he thought what he did, and i think that he has contributed to a positive town atmosphere. I also agree with him that LSB is town and that we should not lynch him. I do not like that he was absent from discussion and then showed up to hammer with no explanation. I have not really arrived at a conclusion about his alignment either way. If i try i can view his actions as townie or scummy but to do so would be forcing a conclusion. It seems that one of you is lying. There will (hopefully) be a lot more information tomorrow when i get back to the thread I will take a firm stance shortly after. I will not vote until we are nearing the end of the day anyway. This is my view currently. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 04:22 Palmar wrote: This is the evidence I have. a) VE fake-claimed a hit (I know this) b) you received a vote from layabout (whom I suspect) c) you suggested we don't kill him (and use a DT check, which we don't even know we have) You are the last person to be added to the list, but do you honestly think you can give us an option that is better than killing either me or VE? Mafia only has 1 kp, so one of us is lying (any vigis would've claimed now). So yes, if you don't want to lynch VE, you must be scum. lol On January 27 2012 18:26 Palmar wrote: That's at best terrible, at worst scummy way of thinking. You cannot deduce anything about my alignment from how other people interact with me. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
That is to say that, that list is entirely from eliminating town reads or null/town reads. Since i have not refined my view on VisceraEyes and Palmar i have not made any judgements based on either of them being scum/town, instead i have looked at individual's contributions. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 05:46 VisceraEyes wrote: I'm a veteran. There was no save, I just absorbed a hit. Stop voting for me and vote for Palmar. He's manipulating you guys by bullying you into voting for me. Woah that's late. /kill discussion. Lynch now or tomorrow? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 05:47 Jackal58 wrote: Pardon my absence work has pulled me out of my office today. Visc has your brain short circuited? Or are you playing some sort of game with us? Layabout - Palmar has about as much chance of being scum as I have of being a virgin. And I got 2 kids. If you have something on him that isn't a big festering pile of OMGUS I'd sure like to see it. Hey I have an idea. Why don't you put those 5 votes of yours on VE? ##Vote: Viscera Eyes there is no space you need to vote again. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
i missed this post: On January 30 2012 11:21 VisceraEyes wrote: I sent LSB 1 vote. He's been making the most sense, and I would have given him both but I feel a VE wagon starting and I'll be God damned if I let you guys lynch me. so i thought that his claim was just after coming back to the thread and therefore reasonable. ##Vote: VisceraEyes | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
sorry dirk | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 06:29 Dirkzor wrote: I think Zbot is fucked. I just recieved confirmation for the vote trade i did last night. Should I ##Don't sendvote? Or is it reset and the confirmation PM is something I should ignore? anyone else got a PM from zbot with confirmation of last night votetrade? yes | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 06:34 Palmar wrote: ♥ Layabout should probably be next, seeing he has the most voting power of the scum. maybe you could provide a shred of reasoning as to why? So far: Palmar has called me scum from the game start for no reason. Sentinel has voted for me whithour giving any reasons. Paperscraps presented my posting as scummy after i wrote that one of his posts was suspicious. Prplhz tried to discredit me after the day1 lynch, for responding to questions. Since it is likely that some or all of you are town, i would like to say that you are all dicks. (prplhz, maybe you don't belong there, i may take back this "calling you a dick" later) chaoser wrote this: "3) Aside from them, layabout also does the "write a long post about nothing" and then later on when the vote trading topic had died down a bit, brings it up again while bringing nothing new to the discussion." I disagree with this, although i can see why he would say this since i do tend to throw walls of text at the thread. Hmm.. maybe i do write too much.. nope that's silly, you all just need to write more and explain yourselves thoroughly. and jay wrote this On January 31 2012 05:17 jaybrundage wrote: Which also calls me scum for no reason.Wait does this mean that im confirmed town then if scum is pointing fingers at me :D I was curious about meatless taco as well was fingering him as the last scum. But i guess that this disproves it : ( I think the jackal one is just odd. I have had a town read on sentinel since day one tbh and obviously palmar is town There is nothing off substance that suggests i am scum. Get your heads out of your arses. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
SOOOOOO hard. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 07:35 MeatlessTaco wrote: You called me out on Day 1. I still gave you a vote because I was worred Palmar might be playing us. You still think I'm mafia. Even ignoring myself being on it, this list doesn't make as much sense as Palmar's You are only on that list because you have not provided enough content for me to look at and conclude that you are town. That was why i mentioned you as "least green" day 1, it was still the case on day2. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 07:46 Palmar wrote: here's the deal. Layabout and LSB must give away as many votes as they can. They can pick the receiver themselves. No one can give them any votes. If they fail to give away votes, they're basically confirmed scum. They cannot give each other votes. If they actually both end up at 1 vote or so after the night, I'll consider my stance on them. What a pile of shit | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Since i am town i don't much like the thought of giving away 4 votes so i will not. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 07:57 Palmar wrote: No I mean, I'm basically confirmed town. I am willing to reconsider, and giving your votes away to someone who looks town with good reasoning will help your cause. And providing any analysis whatsoever would mean you would have a case rather than fuck all. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 08:20 risk.nuke wrote: layabout: Lets assume you're town. Why would you not want to do what's best for town? You're stance is if town makes a mistake and mislynches you then town should be further punished. Do you think you're Bill Murray or something? Do you understand the problem with your stance? Do you understand why It's bad for town in itself? Now let's expand the thoughtbubble. Lets assume Palmar isn't just bluffing to get you to trade away your votes before we kill you. What if he actually wont push you because you're now a minimal threat. This will let you to stay in the game, do you understand what that means? You can continue to offer your thoughts and try to be an asset to town and you'll be alive and you can help town avoid a mislynch 100%. Isn't that alot better then stubbornly taking a pro-scum stance and getting mislynched. Because i hate you guys. No-one has made any attempt to put together anything resembling an argument or case as to why my behaviour makes me likely to be scum. I put in quite a lot of effort and i am sickened that people who are lurking, being stupid or not providing reasoning for their calls and actions think it's okay to call me scum and not say why. It is bad play. I would rather make good decisions and lose than make bad decisions and get lucky. I think that if you bother to read my posts, and try to evaluate them fairly and in context, it should be blindingly obvious that they were written with towns best interests in mind. I do not think that i am a good lynch candidate. (it should be obvious but, if there was a case that made me look red then i would admit that i was a good candidate and argue against it, instead there is nothing and from a neutral standpoint i am a bad lynch target) As a town player i should not be giving away 4 votes to a player that i am not sure is town, or player that i think will use those votes to lynch a town player, or a player that i think will give those votes away stupidly. risk.nuke and LS are my two strongest town reads. I disagree with you on most things and Palmar is trying to paint LSB red by using the word "scum" repeatedly. What would you do in my position? What is even worse is that lynching me is stupid as there will not be a flip and you will be unable to realise the error of your ways. tldr: I am town I am a bad lynch I have votes I am keeping them You guys need to think | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 08:47 jaybrundage wrote: You right this big post about how no one has any good arguments against you. And how you are a bad lynch. But in your scum list i was the second person (after VE/Palmar) So put a case against me then against anyone. Complaining that your a bad lynch isnt helping anyone. How about you scum hunt instead of going on. Fuck you | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 09:13 Paperscraps wrote: Saying things like this is only hurting you. If you are really town you will change your attitude, start being more constructive and scum hunt. If nobody shows any signs that they are reading and thinking about the thread clearly then i will just about manage to not post my role pm. Don't assume i will do anything. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 01 2012 05:25 Paperscraps wrote: You are reaching. I did the same thing. I pulled my vote on VE because the votes on VE were nearing majority. I didn't want someone to accidentally hammer, like layabout did. Side note: When quoting it is nice to have the name at the top of the quote to see who is saying what. Possibilites for VE's actions: 1. VE sacrificed himself for LSB. 2. VE is telling the truth and was hit by a vig. Note: vig has not come forward. 3. VE is telling the truth and was hit by mafia, thus Palmar is fake-claiming a hit in some elaborate mafia scheme to become virtually confirmed town. 4. VE just decided to start trolling out of nowhere. I differ to occam's razor here. are you serious? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 31 2012 23:07 prplhz wrote: It's just that this is a no-flip closed setup, it's crazy to think of a plan and even considering to enforce it, and there could be scum trade-riggers and cowboys and nothing is gained from blindly policy lynching people who wouldn't follow the plan. Making huge plans that prevents content generation seems ludicrous to me in a no-flip setup where analysis is all that we have. I have no idea why Jackal58 thinks you're town based solely on your being against a plan, when the plan was crazy from the beginning and this worries me along with the weird VP he received from Dirkzor. I haven't read Dirkzor very heavily though. I am having a somewhat difficult time convincing myself that layabout is scum. He didn't care about the day1 lynch as much as I think he did in Student Mafia and then this post seems scummy to me. He also hides a lot of his analysis away in spoilers, he always does this but I think it's been really bad this game like he's ashamed or like he's trying to hide instead of being KICKASS and wanting everybody to listen to him like he did in Student Mafia. In Student Mafia he had a good analysis on xtfftc that he didn't hide in spoilers, in this game he hid his [UoN]Sentinel analysis in spoilers and also some stuff on me that I actually missed the first time around. In his favor is a lot of activity, but then he's always ALWAYS active. Now one's gone insane. You tend to have that effect on people. LSB seems to have kept his focus all game long, becoming a bit flustered in the face of your accusations, and in the end, with all the effort he's put into the game he hasn't done anything townie. He pushed a plan which I think was terrible and he pushed a lynch which I think was bad. LSB is supposed to be good and stuff. He could easily be scum. Maybe it's just that it seems too easy that you just out 4 scum on day2. Also, you can't extort me because you know I'm town. I'll help you with your lynches but you may need to give a little more than "VisceraEyes traded LSB traded layabout traded risk.nuke traded me, and thusly they're all scum" at some point. Mostly just to satisfy my curiosity. Final attempt at explaining my posts: When i replaced into student mafia as town, the town players had established their innocence quite clearly and xtfftc had acted in a way that strongly suggested to me that he was scum. It was easy for me to have a read and to push it with confidence. I got to skip day 1  .In Purgatory (i was scum, in a 3 team setup) it didn't particularly matter what the alignment of the players i was posting cases against were because i knew they were not on my team and i needed blues and angels to die. Because of this i provided some analysis and some forced analysis to lynch players. Despite this on day 1 i still tried to use the lynch to kill a lurker because i did not expect the lynch to be successful. This game i have been met with many townies not showing that they are town, unsupported accusations and very little behaviour to analyse. On day 1 there havd been very minimal lynch discussion when i had to leave the thread, and I had almost exclusively town and null reads. So i just got rid of the greener reads, picked someone that i felt was pushing bad ideas and that could be lynched and voted for them. This was sentinel, and my lack of confidence is why i did not push him. I still do not have much confidence in my reads, and given the lack of scumhunting, it seems to me that very few people are, if you are town you are to blame for this and you need to improve your posting. Please read my posts and look at what i am saying. Do not immediately look for reasons why i might be town or scum. Look at what i say, place it in context and then draw conclusions. When look at somebodies post's try to evaluate them without trying to force the alignment you want them to be on them, if you convince yourself that someone is scum/town that bias will ruin your ability to analyse accurately. + Show Spoiler [aren't spoilers just wonderful?] + should i post an empty looking list of reads before i go? I will not post much tomorrow as i have IRL commitments I am still only giving away 1 vote | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 01 2012 06:20 Palmar wrote: if you don't give away the votes layabout we'll be forced to lynch you tomorrow, this is because you're quite suspicious and have a lot of votes. Even if we assume both VE and Bugs were town (very unlikely) it's only 4 mafia in 13 people, so that means you have 8 people to look for as town if you somehow happen to be town. You only need to figure out one townie, and pass away your votes. But if you keep them, we're hanging you. If you agree with this please say so. Soon. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
the coroner that we know exists? Don't you think it's strange that : in this game lynched players do not flip. there was minimal lynch discussion day1 and town rushed the lynch ending in a ??? flip. there were no night kills. there were two claims + no scumhunting day2, we lynched a claimant, who flipped ???. And now there are individuals that are trying to draw conclusions about players based upon their reads of the players that are interacting with them. Speculating about the set-up and drawing links between players whose alignments we do not and may never know in order to lynch other players is very anti-town. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 01 2012 08:08 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Okay then, if you're so against the current chain of events, what's your idea? You lot start trying, thinking, reading, posting or analysing with pro-town goals. I get to stop playing without getting myself mod-killed. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
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. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
It's really bugging me. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 05 2012 02:34 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: GG guys Layabout I'm sorry for riding your ass the whole game, looks like were on the same boat after all. And honestly, I think that with space for 1-3 more townies, 16-18 player size, we'd be a lot better off, saving us from mislynching, maybe more opportunites for blue roles or something. IDK. But this game was pretty fun, lots of great twists through the thread and RoL if you host another game with a setup like this, I'll definitely come back. One question tho - what does gravedigger do? I wish you had ridden my ass because then there would have been something for me to criticise. As it was people just called me scum, didn't say why. I explained my actions and asked why i was scummy,i got no reasons, i got a bit annoyed, mafia gave me votes and i was lynched before i could post. Well played town blues. + Show Spoiler [my awful reads] + day1 Towniest: LSB risk.nuke Palmar WBG vicera eyes Dirkzor Nulliest: chaoser prplhz jackal jaybrundage node Paperscraps Scummiest: Metaless taco sentinel day 2 dead: WBG Towniest: LSB risk.nuke Dirkzor Paperscraps chaoser prplhz Nulliest: node jackal jaybrundage Metaless taco sentinel Scummiest: Palmar or vicera eyes | ||
| ||
