EPTfair warning to y'all :p
(did NOT realize this was PMs loool)
Liar Game Mini Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
fair warning to y'all :p (did NOT realize this was PMs loool) | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
On April 30 2012 07:56 Erandorr wrote: /in ? no | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
On April 30 2012 11:48 Ace wrote: who's that scrub listed at spot 12 I see your "2" key is feeling spontaneous today | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
I say we scumhunt as normal, but we need to get together a system for the round B voting so that townies do not die and scum do. anyone who wants to talk can PM me but I make no guarantees. Only cookies. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
On April 30 2012 13:11 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Obviously, an optimal strategy for lynch choice would be for every person to vote the same way. Then, everyone makes it into Phase B, and no one is safe from being able to be lynched. This makes Phase B more complicated, but I think it's worth it for the choice. What do people think? Results are revealed afterwards, so we should know if someone's lying and made it into the minority. Anyone who does, we can lynch. I don't see a reason townies need to worry about being immune to lynch this early in the game. Perhaps in the later stages, where it's feasible scum rig the votes to kill them, but not now. If someone tries that now, we'll know about the ninja bandwagon, because again, the results are revealed. We should try to force scum to play by our rules. They'll be a lot more careful, because there's two scum teams, so I don't see them trying anything too ballsy. Any disadvantage going into the late-game will translate into the other scum-team having more influence than them. how do you lynch someone who lies and then ends up in the minority pool, when being in the minority pool exempts them from lynch??!?! | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
the more town there are in the minority the less likely scum are there. That means scum are less likely to be exempt from lynch. Now of course it'll be almost impossible to ensure that you're in the minority, as I imagine it'll be fairly difficult to influence the answers that people provide to the question, AND being in the minority may make players potentially less accountable, but it's just something to think about. If you're town and in the minority please don't shirk your responsibility to hunt scum. You may be exempt from lynch for the day but that doesn't mean anything beyond that. We should use the time we have in the next 24 hours to determine who we'd like to kill. We can use additional time in the B phase to continue that determination and then put a plan into action to actually kill that person. I have ideas already, as do at least a couple of you, from what I have gathered. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
If scum know barely even half of the votes that are being cast they can reliably ensure that they end up in the minority. This is particularly true if Palmar is scum, and we would never be able to find that out easily if he consistently ends up in the minority because he is being fed information about who is voting what. I'll be back a bit later, going to reread again. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
If there is no coherent plan then there is no possible abuse of the system and the assignments are less likely to have been influenced. Think about it; if one scum team finds out that everyone is being assigned to vote a certain way, all of them can vote the other way (or ensure that they are assigned to vote that way). If there was a townie in charge of assigning spots scum could buddy to that townie to improve their chances of appearing in the minority. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
In addition you should know just as well as anyone else that pushing out a list of reads this early for no particularly good reason is pretty poor play. I will, however, say that I agree with killing one person you've listed. I still want to see more posts from that one so I'm not going to name them yet. Also sandro never replied to my PMs, how do I expect to get an answer from him then? It's like PYP:I all over again. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
On May 01 2012 05:53 Palmar wrote: No, mafia cannot manipulate shit if people actually agree with doing it. Let's say that all 12 townies in the game decide "I'm going to follow Palmar's plan" irrelevant of my alignment, mafia cannot do jack shit without revealing themselves. I'm perfectly fine with passing the crown on tomorrow. The problem is there are going to be some dumb as fuck townies who think they're being clevur by breaking the plan, so it will be impossible to tell those lone-ranger-assholes apart from mafia by just this. I don't get what's so hard to understand which is exactly why your plan, Palmar (now pardon my French) is a pile of absolutely worthless shit. It takes roughly four people to disagree with your plan for it to work. Seeing as there are 6 scum, perhaps you being one ofthem, and at least one townie (me) that means that your plan can be upset by the simplest dissent. Any plan that utterly fails because of a hint of dissent is a bad plan in a game of mafia, since there will ALWAYS be dissent. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
On May 01 2012 06:02 gonzaw wrote: Okay I'm back. Just skimmed through the thread, and Palmar's plan seems to catch the gist of the plan I mentioned before. Have scummy people in the majority, and most townie ones in the minority. This seems to fulfill that, and it requires cooperation from people, so it's fine for now and we can focus on scumhunting. I don't really like that the power is on Palmar alone, that introduces quite variance. I doubt he's scum, since I've read games where he was scum and he just spams and trolls on D1. However, even if he's town, he could be easily manipulated by scum, either making him give scum information, or having Palmar make bad calls and reads because of them. That's why I don't like "1-man" plans. I don't know who said it before, but having a small "counsil" of players determining who is in the minority and who isn't is even better, since there will be more players to bounce reads on, and it will be hard for scum to manipulate them, even if one of them is scum. However, I have a better alternative (although I don't think it can be implemented this Round A): Have people Vote in the thread who they want to be in the minority Seems easy enough, people put "##Pardon: Player X" in the thread. We set a deadline (maybe 4-6 hours before Round A ends), and then all votes are taken into account. The players that received more Pardons will be put into the minority (following the same system from Palmar) This takes away the power from Palmar/syllo themselves to determine who is in the minority (which is what many people had problems with), but the core of the system (having townies in the minority, having scummy people in majority) remains the same. Anyways, I'm gonna eat something and read the thread again. Man if you're town please don't play like you did in LI, because that'll mean I'll be subconsciously ignoring all your posts. I can't believe you seriously think that we should vote for a pardon; it's such a colossal waste of time and it's incredibly easy to manipulate for scum. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
Even if I were scum, telling me that you think I am in PMs is pretty pointless and would only serve to weaken your own read if you were town. If you're town and expect to scumhunt this way don't get your hopes too high in regard to actually catching scum. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
On May 01 2012 08:19 gonzaw wrote: No, I said that the method for creating this pool should be done by the whole town with the Voting system I specified. Can you at least read my posts? Also, I want you guys opinion on chaoser and Cephiro, we need to find scum too, not just talk about plans. except the voting is secret and you have no way of holding people to their vote! Not to mention since round A ends soon this plan is absolutely worthless for today anyway. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
On May 01 2012 08:20 prplhz wrote: Try "I'm voting yes to follow the plan" and then "See how fucking awesome this plan is?" Who said anything about it being determined by 1 player? It's always been Palmar, syllogism and Radfield and I doubt anybody would complain if you wanted Foolishness in there instead or whoever really. What does "give up their individual brilliance" even mean? WHOOSH | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
If you will "save those specific townies" regardless of what side they appear on, then there's no reason at all to make an elaborate plan to try to put them in the minority in the first place. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
On May 01 2012 08:24 Radfield wrote: As I said, if everyone is in a pissing match it doesn't work. Do you agree to the premises I laid out in my post above VE? Lets imagine we WERE using the plan though, and our 5 or 6 townies were on one side, and you(and only you) decided to jump in. You have now made yourself a target for vigilantes, as well as spotlighted yourself to more intense scrutiny. I'm ok with that, especially if you are scum. Either way, we still have plenty of targets on the majority side. Lets imagine that several people decide to jump onto the minority side, such that the minority switches to the majority. Excellent! We now a pool of 5 or 6 townies, and 4 or 5 scummy ship-jumpers. Obviously the townies will get saved(easy to co-ordinate that), and we lynch into the 4 or 5 scummy ship-jumpers. I really am not seeing the downside here. EBWOP that previous post was to Radfield. Also if we try to form a minority plan for day 1 it can be abused by scum. As you yourself said, either way we'd save those particular townies. However if we don't have a minority plan then there is no way for scum to force themselves into the minority. In fact it's all just a massive waste of time because, as you said, regardless of where they appear, the scummy people will be targetted and the townish ones will not be. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10217 Posts
On May 01 2012 08:31 Radfield wrote: Of course you can hold people to their votes. If you say you are going to vote YES, and then vote NO, it's pretty easy to hold someone to their vote... not really. All someone has to do is disagree with the plan. As I said earlier it takes like 4-5 dissenters for the plan to be useless. There are far more than that in the thread already. Thus no, you can't hold people to their votes because they'll just end up voting however they want to. You can try to force them to vote a certain way but if they dissent with the plan you'll have no idea what they're voting. On May 01 2012 08:31 Radfield wrote: Lets imagine all town followed a plan of putting the most pro-town players on the minority, and everyone else on the majority. Where does that plan go wrong? It goes wrong in that it's nearly impossible for that plan to be manipulation-proof. All it takes is one scum to be in that circle and it's wrecked. You need one person to do what I did in SS mafia. | ||
| ||
