EPTNewbie Mini Mafia III - Page 7
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Simberto
Germany11825 Posts
| ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On January 26 2012 01:02 Simberto wrote: But that does not mean that you necessarily only talk about stuff that immidiately leads to a mafia kill. Generally speaking anything that increases the amount of information we have is a good thing. Even if that information is not really useful now, it can be worth a lot lateron. Don't get me wrong, i agree with you, i just want to prevent us from going from talking about useless stuff to not talking at all. Generally speaking, anything where there are disagreements is good, anything that just states that we are all buddies and everyone loves each other and thinks exactly the same is bad. (As long as it is related to the game) Thus, i would propose that instead of meta-meta talk we should talk about lynchings and plans. Since noone has a plan (me included), lets talk about good lynch targets for today. On my list, this would be zelblade CosmosXAM Rest of the lurkers (TheFearedBeing, DoYouHas, SacredSystem, FakePromise, balt11t) There are other people on whom we do not have a lot of information, but who at least have posted something so far. These might or might not be good targets too, but in my opinion those first two are the most suspicious from what i have seen so far, with zelblade being the most suspicious person who has posted so far, and CosmosXAM being the most suspicious person who has not yet posted. So lets talk about them. Note: I started writing this post, went to class, and came back to finish it. CosmosXAM's lack of activity is odd, but he hasn't posted elsewhere on TL since then, and his posting history seems to indicate a low rate of posting in general. Therefore, I would caution against pushing for lynching him on the basis of this alone. Of course, if he still doesn't participate after rejoining us in this thread, then that would be evidence against him. In terms of zelblade's behavior, it does strike me as a bit unsettled. His tone has been unusually reticient, with the majority of his posts so far starting with some kind of apology. Then again, zarepath's plan put him under the spotlight for no real reason, which is an awkward place to be on the first day. I'm willing to give zelblade the benefit of the doubt for now, as I have stronger suspicions towards other players. To begin, I'm very concerned with zarepath for proposing his plan, and with FakePromise for agreeing to it immediately and with little additional content. Starting with zarepath, his decision on how to retract his plan following our criticism of it reflects a few flaws in his reasoning. He claimed that anyone defending zelblade "irrationally" would have a higher chance of being mafia, but it is obvious that this trap will fail, because rational arguments (as made by almost everyone, barring FakePromise) are enough to shoot it down. His argument against RNG lynching also indicates that he hadn't thought through that proposal, but zelblade discussed that already. Other indicators include his unwillingness to pressure lurkers, low-content posters, and inactive players. He argues that this would only force mafia to post more than the least-active innocent players, but that's exactly what we want: more content from players who would be most content saying nothing. The more they say, the more they're likely to slip up and reveal access to hidden information. Regarding hidden information, I agree that the way the detective and the mafia operate are on broadly similar lines, and both try to avoid painting targets on themselves by pushing lynch targets with public and not hidden information. Assuming that both players are likely to make slips at the same rate, I presume that there are more mafia than detectives, even in this lopsided setup, so it is still valuable to identify such players. Pressuring a detective at worst generates confirmed information. Pressuring a mafia leads to more mafia mistakes. Continuing to FakePromise, I'm just going to reiterate that no innocent player should ever, after a cursory glance, support a suboptimal plan with unfavorable odds when there is still time before finalizing a lynch to press for more information. When you return, I would love to hear your reasoning in defense of this. At this point, and contingent on the other inactive players posting more, I would strongly favor lynching FakePromise. | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:02 Simberto wrote: Are there any rules regarding changing your vote, or can i do that without limits whenever i want to? You can change your vote as many times as you want to as long as the new vote is still a legal vote (remember, you can't vote for yourself or someone dead or outside the game etc.). Do not edit your old post which contained your old vote though. As a favor to us to make the votecounting easier, we would like it if you posted ##Unvote: PlayerYouAreNotVotingForNow before you post your new vote, but we can figure it out if you forget. | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:11 MidnightGladius wrote: Other indicators include his unwillingness to pressure lurkers, low-content posters, and inactive players. He argues that this would only force mafia to post more than the least-active innocent players, but that's exactly what we want: more content from players who would be most content saying nothing. The more they say, the more they're likely to slip up and reveal access to hidden information. Forcing mafia to post more is always good, granted. But if the only reason they're posting more is so that we eliminate one of our obviously inactive townies, it would be better to focus our lynch on an active, suspicious person. The inactive townies will get replaced by active players and then we'll know who was lurking and who was just inactive. So yes, let's pressure the inactives and see what happens. But I would much rather lynch an active suspicious person than someone who probably just AFK'd a couple days. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11825 Posts
Other then that, i am going to bed now, i hope for lots of juicy posts in the morning. | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
I'm not as concerned about balt and SacredSystem... I think the way they framed their accusations was more out of noobishness than it was a sign of confederacy. I'd like to hear what they both think about Fake, zen, and Cosmos. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11825 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
##vote: CosmosXAM Still looking at zellblade & zarepath but we've seen them post and zare is pretty active, zellblade may just be making nooby mistakes but he has still posted oddly. | ||
|
dreamflower
United States312 Posts
Also, please post your votes in the voting thread. You are highly encouraged to post your votes here as well, but they will only be counted if they are in the voting thread. | ||
|
balt11t
United States15 Posts
As far as what I think, I believe FakePromise was extremely fast to agree with zarepath, almost too fast. He offered almost no grounds with his post, and agreed that a 70% chance of killing an innocent man might be worth it in the long run. The fact that he jumped so quickly to this conclusin in such a short amount of time makes him look suspicious as far as I am concerned. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:39 Simberto wrote: You guys need to stop saying "Lets pressure xyz". It is not really pressure if the person in question knows that you don't really want to lynch them. So, if you say, "lets pressure xyz", you don't actually pressure them at all. If you want to pressure someone, pressure them, but don't just say that you want to pressure them, that is not pressure. Other then that, i am going to bed now, i hope for lots of juicy posts in the morning. I want to hear FakePromise defend himself, and he should certainly have the chance to do so before the lynch decision is made final, but I agree with you in principle. ##vote: FakePromise | ||
|
CosmosXAM
United States121 Posts
| ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
On January 26 2012 06:39 CosmosXAM wrote: I had yet to post because I was at school, sorry if inactivity would lead people to this conclusion. But in my opinion even pressuring someone like that will be cause of an emotional and defensive response making them see even more likely to be right to lynch. I am completely against random lynches on the first day because the odds are just too small, you wouldnt bet your life on a 1/3 chance would you? That is the same stance I am taking here even on the chance we do kill a mafia in my opinion it comes at too great of a risk and we dont need to kill a townie only to have more killed in the night, that just brings our numbers too low to fast. Right, we've moved on past random lynching. Who do you think is suspicious? | ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
On January 26 2012 06:53 zarepath wrote: Right, we've moved on past random lynching. Who do you think is suspicious? you and fakepromise you for coming up with random killing and fakepromise for agreeing with you | ||
|
CosmosXAM
United States121 Posts
On January 26 2012 06:53 zarepath wrote: Right, we've moved on past random lynching. Who do you think is suspicious? If I had to say I would probably go with fakepromise because of how he was so quick to agree. Also Chocolate seems mildly suspicious because of his quick jump to voting straight for me based on little information, but I havent found enough conclusive evidence to make a post strongly against someone. This is just my first game and I can only be active for a few hours in the day so hopefully people dont misconstrue that information. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
 | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On January 25 2012 15:48 zelblade wrote: 1) Opps my bad, didnt see that part. 2) I was simply trying to generate some discussion as it would seem that no one was talking much, and trying to emphasise that we need to use our lynches carefully. 3) I am sorry if that came off at scummy, and what i simply meant by that part was that town needs to post more. On January 26 2012 00:14 zelblade wrote: If i wasnt clear here, i apologise. What i meant to say i that we ought to lynch a lurker if we cannot find a better targert at the end of the day, and that it should be done only if there is/are no clear targert(s) at the end of day 1, instead of using RNG (or in this case, reverse-alphabetical order) to determine who is our day 1 lynch (which i believe zarepath seems to be advocating). On January 26 2012 00:37 zelblade wrote: I was trying to explain the contradiction u pointed out earlier. He has been apologizing and clarifying posts (which were already pretty clear) ever since spl0osh criticized his second post. Instead of using the spotlight to voice his own suspicions or convince us of his innocence, he has tried to move out of the spotlight as quickly and quietly as possible, while avoiding offending anyone. While his initial posts weren't particularly scummy, his responses have been nothing but suspicious. ## Vote: zelblade | ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
CosmosXAM
United States121 Posts
On January 26 2012 08:27 SacredSystem wrote: ## vote: FakePromise 1: you gotta vote in the voting thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=306091 and 2: I find it a bit odd your jump from On January 25 2012 14:55 SacredSystem wrote: to straight up voting for him, I mean sure he now has two votes going for him but you said that you wanted to wait for more information and based on him only posting once and your points about him just being copy&paste what other people had said earlier and not offering any new information or opinions I find your vote to be very bandwagon-ey. I am not trying to say that you are mafia or to go as far as that but just pointing out that simply copying what others say and blindly agreeing is very suspicious.However, despite several conclusions that we all wish to draw, we need to wait, the mafia will all expose themselves at some point in time. on a side note Fakepromise agreed with him at 30% odds -_- | ||
| ||
