|
United States2095 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:37 sandroba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 14:32 Foolishness wrote:
We want as few people as possible in the majority. It needs to be as close to even as possible. If we have 10 or 11 people in the majority we can control the lynch. This is because we have more votes than there are people up for lynch. This is solid. We also have to agree on someone having the last word in round A, otherwise we can't implement what foolishness said. I'll support palmar if he agrees on pardoning max number of players. The theory behind this is the least players that are up to being lynched, the least influential mafia votes are on keeping mafia alive. If everybody is up for lynch it is pretty impossible to get whoever we deem scum lynched.
I don't like how this was said. Your end statement is that "If everybody is up for lynch it is pretty impossible to get whoever we deem scum lynched." however you are trying to get the maximum people in the majority. I liked the idealistic ideas behind the first part, but I think even if we were all lynchable like a normal game its still very possible to get whoever the majority thinks is scum, lynched.
|
On May 01 2012 01:38 sandroba wrote:
@palmar Why not 8? Don't you agree with what I've said above?
Because at 8 (vs 10) it only takes two lone-rangers/scum to not comply with the plan and suddenly all my town reads are up for lynch (as the minority becomes the majority).
I think 5-6 is a good number as it allows less chance of shit going down the drain.
Also, claim to me.
|
Yes, anyone saying Palmar can't control everything is not actually thinking about this. If someone doesn't have the last word it is impossible to control round A. That someone does not always have to be the same person. We can adapt and change it up on following rounds if need be.
I'm already thinking about round B and I think the optimal way is to claim all votes and spread them across your top 5 town reads from the pool of 10 players left. That way is the hardest for scum to save their dude and provides the most information. That's because scum can provide at max 2 votes on their teamates to make them avoid being lynched and scummy dudes will end up being lynched on average.
|
On May 01 2012 01:41 Liquid`Sheth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 01:37 sandroba wrote:On April 30 2012 14:32 Foolishness wrote:
We want as few people as possible in the majority. It needs to be as close to even as possible. If we have 10 or 11 people in the majority we can control the lynch. This is because we have more votes than there are people up for lynch. This is solid. We also have to agree on someone having the last word in round A, otherwise we can't implement what foolishness said. I'll support palmar if he agrees on pardoning max number of players. The theory behind this is the least players that are up to being lynched, the least influential mafia votes are on keeping mafia alive. If everybody is up for lynch it is pretty impossible to get whoever we deem scum lynched. I don't like how this was said. Your end statement is that "If everybody is up for lynch it is pretty impossible to get whoever we deem scum lynched." however you are trying to get the maximum people in the majority. I liked the idealistic ideas behind the first part, but I think even if we were all lynchable like a normal game its still very possible to get whoever the majority thinks is scum, lynched.
huh? It's max people in minority. The voting system in this is different, if you take some time to think about it you will realise why having the whole pool to lynch from results in more townies lynched on average.
|
United States2095 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:51 sandroba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 01:41 Liquid`Sheth wrote:On May 01 2012 01:37 sandroba wrote:On April 30 2012 14:32 Foolishness wrote:
We want as few people as possible in the majority. It needs to be as close to even as possible. If we have 10 or 11 people in the majority we can control the lynch. This is because we have more votes than there are people up for lynch. This is solid. We also have to agree on someone having the last word in round A, otherwise we can't implement what foolishness said. I'll support palmar if he agrees on pardoning max number of players. The theory behind this is the least players that are up to being lynched, the least influential mafia votes are on keeping mafia alive. If everybody is up for lynch it is pretty impossible to get whoever we deem scum lynched. I don't like how this was said. Your end statement is that "If everybody is up for lynch it is pretty impossible to get whoever we deem scum lynched." however you are trying to get the maximum people in the majority. I liked the idealistic ideas behind the first part, but I think even if we were all lynchable like a normal game its still very possible to get whoever the majority thinks is scum, lynched. huh? It's max people in minority. The voting system in this is different, if you take some time to think about it you will realise why having the whole pool to lynch from results in more townies lynched on average.
Whole pool --> 12 town, 6 mafia.
33% chance of lynching mafia.
Split into majority / Minority in a perfect situation
8 Minority -- 10 Majority.
If mafia splits up their votes it will be a 3/10 situation and this means there is less chance of lynching mafia here.
Now imagine a less perfect situation of something like 6 Minority 12 Majority
3/12 will be even less of a chance. So on average I disagree with you.
That is why I've agreed to the Palmar Plan.
|
United States2095 Posts
I realize mafia may not be able to get a perfect 3/3 split into yes and no because they are two separate team. Anyway... Team Palmar. Join us and you too can die to night kills first round!
|
That's not how it works. 18 people up for lynch, very few votes are needed to keep you alive. 10 people up for lynch, more votes are needed to keep you alive, mafia is not as influential on preventing the lynch on them.
You realize palmar plan will try to get as close to this as possible? The ideal scenario is finding 8 townies and making the lynch pool 6 mafia 4 town. We should trive to reach that ideal.
|
United States2095 Posts
On May 01 2012 02:06 sandroba wrote:
That's not how it works. 18 people up for lynch, very few votes are needed to keep you alive. 10 people up for lynch, more votes are needed to keep you alive, mafia is not as influential on preventing the lynch on them.
You realize palmar plan will try to get as close to this as possible? The ideal scenario is finding 8 townies and making the lynch pool 6 mafia 4 town. We should trive to reach that ideal.
My main point was this :
I don't like how this was said. Your end statement is that "If everybody is up for lynch it is pretty impossible to get whoever we deem scum lynched."
Anyway, yes obviously that is our ideal. I just disliked how this was said. Because even if 18 people were up for lynch, its possible to control votes as well with a different plan. Semantics I guess.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Round B is not about voting for who you think is town or who you want alive. It is about voting for who you do not not want to kill.
If we have everyone voting for who they think is town we will end up in a scenario with multiple townies dying.
What we need to do is decide on who we want to kill ahead of time before sending in the votes. This will be semi-difficult as we only have half a day since we won't know who is in the majority (any attempt to try to control who is in the majority is a waste of time the first day or two).
It is very easy to get someone killed if we can all agree they should be kill. It is not easy to "save" everyone who we perceive to be town. We need the majority to be as close to even as possible. Say there are 11 people in the majority. We want to kill one person (just assume one now for simplicity). With 90 votes to work with, we spread them out such that the 10 players have 9 votes each (relatively easy to design a system to do this). This way if one person tries to deviate and save the target they will fail (and of course we will know they tried at the end of the day).
We should be focused on who we think is mafia and who we want to die. I don't care if you think someone is town (nor should you care if I think someone is town). You should only care about who I think is mafia and who you think is mafia. The game will be over really fast if we just let people vote for their town favorite (basically a reverse case of Bang Bang mafia).
|
Since jubjubs aren't complying with the best plan for day 1, we need to reach consensus on round A voting within a few hours. I think this game would be better with 72 hour days, there is so little time to come up with plans or even contact everyone within 24 hours.
|
My old account is all good now. So PM me through this one. I think there should be organization in the votes but I don't like the whole Almighty Palmar approach. Something about Palmar "taking charge" does not tickle my fancy.
|
@foolishness There will never be a consensus on whom to kill especially if said person is mafia. It's reasonable to assume even a few townies will have a wrong read on and will end up defending scum. Also afaik only the vote tally will be available, not who voted whom. How exactly is that going to work in practice?
Only way I can think of is that we get compliance from everyone beforehand, that they will agree to follow the voting scheme if they get out-voted (we do the traditional voting to see who will be lynched). Then we propose a unique voting scheme so we can identify who didn't follow it (each player votes for a unique combination of players).
|
On May 01 2012 00:27 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +If palmar was part of a team, by the time we figure it out, it would be too late. Even more so since apparently he's asking people to claim to him. This is such a ridiculous assertion that I think I know who I will be voting to lynch today. Too late for what? Why do you assume it would take long? And if he is mafia and had given his team mates immunity on previous rounds, wouldn't we just catch them all at once? Don't you think the other team would shoot him anyway? Why is he, as mafia, putting himself in such a spotlight especially given that there is another team that can, presumably, just kill him? It seems to me your mindset is not that of a townie
Why do you assume it WON'T take long to figure out if palmar is mafia or not? YOU'RE the one saying the plan will work. YOU'RE the one that needs to argue and prove it. If he was mafia, do you really think it'd be as simple as "everyone he gave immunity to is mafia"? If we're just mislynching for like three days, does that mean palmar is mafia? What if we lynched one mafia in three days? two? None of it means shit since there's TWO FAMILIES! And if palmar isn't targetting the other family, he obviously won't get shot. Even if he does get shot, there'd be so much confusion over who he gave immunity to and whatnot that a huge WIFOM would occur. Why make it that complex?
Keep it simple. 1 immunity, everyone else goes to round 2, we all say what our votes will be before giving them in.
|
Also, something to note, and I just realized it hasn't been brought up, because Radfield said everyone should be voting "Yes" for now:
All votes are final and cannot be changed once submitted.
So, no, people shouldn't be voting right away. Not if we want to do anything similar to the Palmar plan, that is. Also, if Palmar really wants to do his plan, he should be coming out with his list of reads pretty soon, or there will be no time for people to get on and vote.
In the final vote counts, do we see who voted who, or just the final tallies?
|
On May 01 2012 02:58 syllogism wrote:
Since jubjubs aren't complying with the best plan for day 1, we need to reach consensus on round A voting within a few hours. I think this game would be better with 72 hour days, there is so little time to come up with plans or even contact everyone within 24 hours.
ad hominems sure do work well to convince others...
|
On April 30 2012 23:30 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 23:26 chaoser wrote:On April 30 2012 23:13 syllogism wrote:
I can't say I'm even slightly surprised to see you on the wrong side of a decent plan.
This is off-topic, but perhaps you should stop joining games that have non-standard setups if you have no interest in actually figuring out the setup and utilizing it in the way that best benefits the town. That's the whole point. How is it a decent plan again??? The plan is literally "let palmar control round one" Because he seems townie enough and the alternative is basically random chance or worse. We aren't going to be able to democratically determine who should be in the minority and who shouldn't in 24 hours, especially on day 1.
![[image loading]](http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/biggums.png)
|
@chaoser that is dumb. Many people up for lynch makes round B too easy to be tempered with. Palmar does not need to have the last word every round, we can switch it up any time. However we need someone we think is town to do it this round so we can be in a better spot round B.
|
On May 01 2012 03:37 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 23:30 syllogism wrote:On April 30 2012 23:26 chaoser wrote:On April 30 2012 23:13 syllogism wrote:
I can't say I'm even slightly surprised to see you on the wrong side of a decent plan.
This is off-topic, but perhaps you should stop joining games that have non-standard setups if you have no interest in actually figuring out the setup and utilizing it in the way that best benefits the town. That's the whole point. How is it a decent plan again??? The plan is literally "let palmar control round one" Because he seems townie enough and the alternative is basically random chance or worse. We aren't going to be able to democratically determine who should be in the minority and who shouldn't in 24 hours, especially on day 1.
Hello ace are you going to do anything useful at all this game?
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
And since I did say we should focus on who we want to kill. I'm going to start off by saying we should kill chaoser.
Let's look at his first post:
On April 30 2012 22:32 chaoser wrote:
I don't know if everyone voting the same answer leads to no minority and then the game going to round B...has anyone asked the hosts about this? Also, I do think that a one person minority and everyone else being in the majority is the right thing to do. Everyone goes to Round B and while yes, it's possible that many townies might be killed at 0 votes, I highly doubt it will really get that bad. The really really bad townies will obviously die this way but that's good for the town as well since it gets rid of distractions early. It's like a vigi hit that the whole town controls. It's basically multi-lynch but not everyone knows the votes. I'm sure the votes will end up sorting things out though. Invisible hand! Free Market!
I see here an apathetic attitude towards the town agenda. Notice lines like, "The really really bad townies will obviously die this way but that's good for the town as well since it gets rid of distractions early" which are clearly non-sensical since everyone in this game is good. What really irks me is when he says "It's like a vigi hit that the whole town controls. It's basically multi-lynch but not everyone knows the votes. I'm sure the votes will end up sorting things out though." Is this even helpful in any way? Why would he bother saying these things? Everyone here has read the rules and knows what is going on. It is obvious he doesn't care about what's going to happen..."I'm sure the votes will end up sorting things out..."
His attitude is "don't worry guys things will work out in the end". We all know that there is a crap ton we need to be worried about so that 5 people don't end up dying day 1.
He has taken a stance on that he wants everyone to be in the majority, but this was originally Wiggles idea. It seems his main reason for justifying the plan is that it is better than Palmar's (not going to discuss whether or not his plan is actually better as that's not what this is about). As I stated above he is okay with having everyone in the majority since he thinks things will work out, and if anyone dies it will be the "really really bad townies" of which do not exist in this game.
If you click his filter you can see a few other things that only further my case. He asks a lot of questions and does it in a way to throw doubt around. I have no problem with people asking questions but it does not seem his goal is to accomplish something for the town. Rather he is making everyone skeptical of all the plans that are presented thus far.
chaoser needs to die. If he is in the majority we should see to it that he is killed.
|
On May 01 2012 03:38 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 03:37 Ace wrote:On April 30 2012 23:30 syllogism wrote:On April 30 2012 23:26 chaoser wrote:On April 30 2012 23:13 syllogism wrote:
I can't say I'm even slightly surprised to see you on the wrong side of a decent plan.
This is off-topic, but perhaps you should stop joining games that have non-standard setups if you have no interest in actually figuring out the setup and utilizing it in the way that best benefits the town. That's the whole point. How is it a decent plan again??? The plan is literally "let palmar control round one" Because he seems townie enough and the alternative is basically random chance or worse. We aren't going to be able to democratically determine who should be in the minority and who shouldn't in 24 hours, especially on day 1. Hello ace are you going to do anything useful at all this game?
no
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
