EPTNewbie Mini Mafia III - Page 8
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
gumshoe
Canada3602 Posts
| ||
|
CosmosXAM
United States121 Posts
On January 26 2012 09:22 gumshoe wrote: Can I join this please? Please tell me it isn't too late to join! Way to late to join, please read the whole thread before doing something like this. | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On January 26 2012 09:22 gumshoe wrote: Can I join this please? Please tell me it isn't too late to join! Sorry, this game is full and has already started. We can put you on the replacements list if you like. | ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
On January 26 2012 09:04 CosmosXAM wrote: 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 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. i was saying that we shouldnt make wild assumuptions based on inconclusive logic traps, which many of you were doing also if you arnt saying anything, then dont say it now fakepromise made a decision which doenst make much sense from the townes perspective, now im not assuming anything in sayin that, which is why im voting for fakepromise as mafia sorry i forgot about the voting thread | ||
|
balt11t
United States15 Posts
| ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
On January 26 2012 10:59 balt11t wrote: You say we shouldn't make wild assumptions based on inconclusive traps, yet you've changed whom you would vote for in such a short amount of time, without providing much logic for doing so. what?? when did i change my mind, i just made up my mind, and is fakepromise agreeing with a 30% success rate not logic enough for you | ||
|
balt11t
United States15 Posts
| ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
accusing fakepromise seems conclusive to me even though i probably should have waited | ||
|
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
I would really like to see FakePromise get back in here. The point (I say point, because he has only one post in this game) is very valid. Things that did catch my eye is his apparent "don't care" attutude about whether the lynch is successful or not. "seems good to me." Seems good to you? I see. Get back here in defend yourself. You are already on the chopping block. On January 25 2012 15:15 MidnightGladius wrote: I'm sorry if my first post came across as unhelpful, but I want to establish first principles before getting down to the nitty-gritty. I'll try to be more clear and direct. In simpler terms, players who suggest courses of action that hurt the town's chances are suspicious, as innocents should never be making these kinds of proposals unless they have much more information than they're letting on. As it's Day 1, this is clearly impossible, so I look askance at zarepath and FakePromise, who both advocate a plan with very low expected value. The other part of my methods take a bit longer to develop, as I need to see more posts before picking up any trends. Scummy behavior is such that it betrays access to hidden information, and then does not adjust accordingly as information is made public to the town. Players who behave in this way are either not updating their beliefs properly (tunnel-vision, confirmation bias, or ignorance are common causes), or updating them according to hidden information (perhaps a blue investigative role, but overwhelmingly likely to be mafia). Does that explain my position more clearly? As for the second part of you're methods. If i'm reading it right (and I would like to think that I am, since I've read it three times now) says that players who "betray access to hidden information, and then do not adjust accordingly as information is made public to the town" is scummy behavior. So, if a Detective in this game finds someone that's Mafia, do you think he should out himself as soon as possible and tell everyone what he's found? Or should he betray the town of this information? That in combination with you're voting makes me worried: On January 25 2012 15:24 MidnightGladius wrote: With regards to your lynch proposal, I don't agree with not pressuring lurking/inactive players with the threat of a first-day lynch. Truly non-participating players can be excluded from analysis due to modkilling, and it stands to reason that more posting of positions will increase the sample size of data. Makes sense. You don't want to pressure vote on lurkers. I don't know why, but it's you're opinion. If you want the lurkers to stay lurking, that's all well and good, but it doesn't contribute anything to a town atmosphere. Yet, with you're very first vote of the game, you contradict yourself and vote on someone who has a grand total of one post, and even at that, it's one line. I would still classify that as lurking, and you vote for him. And beyond that, you even SAY that you are going to want to hear him defend himself, and he has more than enough time to defend himself. That tells me you are pretty non-committal in ACTUALLY voting to lynch him. Tell me this also - would you bet on you're life that he is mafia? | ||
|
FakePromise
United States77 Posts
| ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
As for your second accusation, you didn't parse my argument properly. Read my second quote again. It was in response to someone who didn't want to pressure an inactive player, and I said that I didn't agree with him. I understand that it's a double negative, especially if you're (as I suspect) just looking through my filter, but you can trust me to say what I mean. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
On January 26 2012 12:18 FakePromise wrote: I guess I was wrong with random lynching but from the looks of it, you guys are trying to random lynch me. Now that I think of it, if we do lose a townie, it'll be 4:8 and the next day, it can be 4:7 so town would be at a huge disadvantage. I'm kinda confused on why SacredSystem is so eager for me to die, just because I happened to be reading this forum right after zelblade posted. Actually, it's not a random lynching. You laid out that there was a 30% chance of getting a Mafia. Explain why you decided to endorse it. Trying to backtrack now is a terrible idea. Right now, you dug yourself a hole with your reasoning behind the random lynch, and now you are trying to Counter Attack Sacred for catching wind of it. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On January 26 2012 12:21 MidnightGladius wrote: A good Detective can make an excellent case on the basis of his target's public posting record, knowing that that player is guilty, but not having to reveal himself as a Detective. A Detective should never have to pre-emptively claim his role just so that his information can be put to use. As for your second accusation, you didn't parse my argument properly. Read my second quote again. It was in response to someone who didn't want to pressure an inactive player, and I said that I didn't agree with him. I understand that it's a double negative, especially if you're (as I suspect) just looking through my filter, but you can trust me to say what I mean. EBWOP: I see that I've been ninja'd again. This and the quoted posts are responses to Bromancipate. While I'm here, I'd like to ask you about your views on the other players. At this point, your somewhat mishandled aggression towards me is starting to make me suspicious of your own motives. | ||
|
CosmosXAM
United States121 Posts
| ||
|
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
On January 26 2012 12:21 Jitsu wrote: Actually, it's not a random lynching. You laid out that there was a 30% chance of getting a Mafia. Explain why you decided to endorse it. Trying to backtrack now is a terrible idea. Right now, you dug yourself a hole with your reasoning behind the random lynch, and now you are trying to Counter Attack Sacred for catching wind of it. This was me. Sorry Qatol/Dreamflower. On January 26 2012 12:25 MidnightGladius wrote: EBWOP: I see that I've been ninja'd again. This and the quoted posts are responses to Bromancipate. While I'm here, I'd like to ask you about your views on the other players. At this point, your somewhat mishandled aggression towards me is starting to make me suspicious of your own motives. So, because I've shown aggression towards you're posting, that makes you suspicious of my motives? How is it mishandled? I don't see it as mishandled at all - infact, what you are doing is generally referred to as "Oh My God U Suck," where you get upset about a player putting aggression on you and try to throw suspicion back on them. I just read you're post again. It's pretty easy to read. It doesn't matter if it's in reference to another post, you said [and I will quote it again, for clarity]: On January 25 2012 15:24 MidnightGladius wrote: With regards to your lynch proposal, I don't agree with not pressuring lurking/inactive players with the threat of a first-day lynch. Truly non-participating players can be excluded from analysis due to modkilling, and it stands to reason that more posting of positions will increase the sample size of data.. You said, "I do not agree with pressuring lurking/inactive players with the thread of a first-day lynch." You're doing it right now. You voted a person with, at the time, one post, and expected him to come in and defend himself. That is the definition of pressure voting. Than you say "it stands to reason that more posting of positions will increase the sample size of data." I agree, you want have people to post so that we can get a better understand of their motives. So you do the only logical thing, for which you are preaching in this post as well as others...and use you're vote on a guy that has a whopping sample size of one post. Either you like to contradict yourself, or you are hiding something. Also, you never answered my second question. But, in light of clarity, you ask my position on other players, presumably to get me to stop looking at you. The latter won't happen, but the former will. I think Sacred is on to something. There is definite cohesive-ness going on between FakePromise and [zarepath?]. Not sure what it is yet, as FakePromise has JUST come back, but they are two definite players to continue to spy on. FakePromise jumped on that "random lynch" thing way too fast. Also, as said prior, zelblade doesn't look too shiny. I don't like how he is constantly trying to apologize, when there is nothing to really apologize for at the moment. In my experience, people who are too flaky to piss anyone off is trying to stay neutral for a reason. Everyone else is still gray, as there is only two pages of posts thus far, and still 24 hours left in the day. That being said, you make me curious. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
I don't agree with not pressuring lurking/inactive players with the threat of a first-day lynch. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
No, I would not. I value my life pretty highly. However, I agree with Simberto that actually putting a vote on him is more likely to prompt him to post, as opposed to just voicing vaguely threatening opinions. Do I think that voting for him adds value to our discussion? Certainly! Do I think that his one strange act guarantees his being mafia? Certainly not! | ||
|
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
Ahhh, I missed the Not and read it wrong. It's worded extremely awkwardly. That also will clear up the second question I have for you. The question was based around the fact that I missed the Not, and you already answered my follow up question of "Now that he has posted, has you're opinion changed of him." He came back for a quick second, and than disappeared into the night again. He has yet to return, again. -.- I agree that voting him does add to the discussion, however, I don't necessarily agree that not posting aggressively at him is another way of doing it. I like the second way, and while pressure voting certainly has it's benefits, I think going after people in an aggressive stance is helpful as well. RE: Fake I don't like the OMGUS thing. It's just another thing to the fire. FakePromise, respond to my post, please. | ||
|
FakePromise
United States77 Posts
| ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
On January 26 2012 13:21 FakePromise wrote: What am I suppose to respond to? this On January 25 2012 13:50 FakePromise wrote: Poor Qatol, had such potential  4/13 = 30.7% chance of killing mafia so random lynch seems good for me | ||
| ||
