| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
I would like to know, about the setup. It says "You will know which roles may appear in the game but not the number", does it mean it is possible to have, for an extreme example: 3 godfather, 8 cops, 0 medics, 0 vet, 0 jailer, 0 vig and 1 VT? I know this is an extremely imbalanced setup but I just want to know if I can assume: a) Not all roles will be given. b) Not all roles are unique (more than 1) | ||
|
Miltonkram
United States310 Posts
Just making a bit of a joke. I was referencing our last game together, NMM XV, when I voted for sciberbia in one of my very first posts on D1. You're right though, spending too much time joking around does not promote a pro-town environment. From here on out I'm 100% serious and in scumhunting mode. ##unVote: sciberbia | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
On June 13 2012 15:59 alan133 wrote: Question. I would like to know, about the setup. It says "You will know which roles may appear in the game but not the number", does it mean it is possible to have, for an extreme example: 3 godfather, 8 cops, 0 medics, 0 vet, 0 jailer, 0 vig and 1 VT? I know this is an extremely imbalanced setup but I just want to know if I can assume: a) Not all roles will be given. b) Not all roles are unique (more than 1) You cannot assume anything. The setup has been balanced though and should leave a fair chance for either side to win and both sides to have fun. | ||
|
Miltonkram
United States310 Posts
Trackd00r has made some mildly controversial statements regarding reads and no-lynches. I'm assuming he's a fairly experienced player given the knowledge he's demonstrated of the game. If he's experienced enough he would know that making a statement to this effect, "I'd prefer a no-lynch over a lynch on someone who I'm almost sure is town," would catch him some flak. I'm reading this as town... well... town or fucking ballsy scum. I won't immediately clear him of suspicion. Attacking someone for expressing such an opinion on the other hand... Suki has been painting track's two posts as directly contradictory even though they aren't. This could be an overzealous town play but I don't think it is. What possible motivation could there be for a strong attack on someone with a controversial opinion? Firstly, there's the chance that the town might bandwagon on it. This would be the best possible scenario for suki if she is scum. She leads a bandwagon D1 and she gets a mislynch. Secondly, she gains town cred for appearing aggressive even if she doesn't get the lynch. It seems like a win/win scenario for scum unless of course someone makes the analysis I'm making now. In summary, the case on trackd00r is pure crap. Making a controversial statement is not a scumtell. I think suki is trying to cover her scumminess by appearing aggressive without making a good case. Night all! I'll be back in the morning. Leave me something to come back to. | ||
|
trackd00r
Chile284 Posts
On June 13 2012 15:40 alan133 wrote: My thoughts on suki's case: I started writing before I refresh and saw s0lstice's post. As he already pointed it out, there are no contradictions between the two statements. trackd00r merely states that NL is bad unless it is a "serious" mislynch in both highlighted sentence. If I am missing something, please correct me. Looks like you intented to write something else about me, but a single post of S0lstice made your opinion change quite quickly, very quickly IMO. | ||
|
trackd00r
Chile284 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 12:44 suki wrote: Is it just me or is trackd00r coming off as scummy already? This post screams to me that he's trying to be super cautious with his words, so that he'll have a safety net if/when he ever changes a vote or bandwagons on someone else. He throws out some 'obvious' examples of reasons of what wouldn't agree with him, and even mentions that he would follow through on a read, even if it that means a no lynch. BUT WAIT! Just ONE post previous to that he says this: ... Dude. You try to take a firm stance against something, and then you do the most scummy wishy-washy-ness thing ever the very next post. You're clearly informed about mafia as you brought up the idea of a day 1 RNG lynch, and being against a no lynch is not a difficult or complicated policy to hold. I feel that such a simple logical slip only happens if you're trying to play it safe and keep your options open. ##vote trackd00r It would have been a better read if you realized that I was answering a question. Your case really lacks a solid basis, and as other people stated above, I don't see contradiction. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
However, I would like to bring your attention to someone else that is acting quite scummy as it stands. On June 13 2012 13:05 alan133 wrote: On the inactive/lurkers lynch + Show Spoiler + I believe inactive players/lurkers are generally anti-town/bad town play in any mafia game, so lynching them isn't a bad idea (Since I believe d1 lynch is good, refer below), if there aren't better candidates of course. On the day 1 lynch/no lynch + Show Spoiler + I agree on lynching day 1 based on my experience with other mafia games (outside TL) with similar setup. By reading other games on TL I also notice the current meta game is to lynch when there are more players, as it gives townies clues. I am off to lunch, will be commenting on my thoughts later as I see some interesting posts/votes already. His first post puts him on the bandwagon with his opinion on the inactives and lurkers, and is generally a contentless post with little to no controversy. Otherwise, nothing to bring the spotlight to him at all. While this is not by any means evidence of scummy play, there comes to attention the next post he makes. On June 13 2012 15:40 alan133 wrote: My thoughts on suki's case: + Show Spoiler + Any possibility is valuable, but if there is something absurdly wrong, I'll call it, even if that means a no lynch. I won't accept a NO LYNCH unless I believe we may have a serious mislynch coming. I started writing before I refresh and saw s0lstice's post. As he already pointed it out, there are no contradictions between the two statements. trackd00r merely states that NL is bad unless it is a "serious" mislynch in both highlighted sentence. If I am missing something, please correct me. Also, Miltonkram: + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 10:35 Miltonkram wrote: Hey all, glad to see we've got a bit of activity already. In NMM XV we actually had a decent discussion about no-lynches (involving me making a fool of myself) and how they can actually be beneficial in certain setups. That being said, we don't know for certain if we'll have any modkills so we should leave no-lynches off the table until we hit the unlikely scenario that a no-lynch is beneficial for the town. Town, the best way to contribute is just to get posting. Let everyone know what your thoughts are. Did someone post something suspicious? Let us know about it. Do you think the town is making a bad move? Let us know about it. If a townie lurks he/she is letting down his/her entire team. So don't do it, K? I'm sooooooooper serious. Like sooooper, soooooooooooper serious. Hey sciberbia, remember this ##Vote: sciberbia ...heh heh heh Is it me or you are not actually + Show Spoiler + soooooooooooooooooper serious My current opinion + Show Spoiler + FMPOV, suki's case was most probably based on a misunderstanding, but (s)he could very well did it intentionally hoping for a bandwagon leading to a mislynch. Note that I am merely listing the possibilities, I do not FoS anyone yet, which can also mean that I do not trust anyone yet. This is the post that really got me wondering. How by now can you have no suspicions? There has been quite a few suspicious decisions by several people, giving you more then enough time to form a case against someone, or at least apply some pressure. His statement about trackd00r comes after s0lstice, leaving his opinion tied to a fairly influential player and just reiterating what s0lstice said with no additional evidence or opinionated comments. Again, seeming like he's contributing without actually bringing anything to the table. He throws around some suspicion towards Miltonkram, however not enough to constitute a case or apply any pressure, just enough to make people go filter milton and consider what he might have done, which yet again, leaves him out of the spotlight. The last statement he makes in this post is the most suspicious and the largest tell of his indecision and lack of real input. He restates his opinion that suki's case is a misunderstanding, again, nothing of value. He then continues to explain that he has no FoS and that he doesn't trust anyone, leaving his options open, and having no real contrary opinions. His current play is anti-town at best, as he hasn't brought any of his thoughts to the table, and has only left ambiguous and bandwagoning answers to keep attention on those with controversial opinions. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
While this is not necessarily evidence of scummy play, there comes to attention the next post he makes. Forgot to proofread as my thoughts came down.. >.< | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
Mouldy Jeb
United Kingdom37 Posts
On June 13 2012 16:25 Miltonkram wrote: @alan Just making a bit of a joke. I was referencing our last game together, NMM XV, when I voted for sciberbia in one of my very first posts on D1. You're right though, spending too much time joking around does not promote a pro-town environment. From here on out I'm 100% serious and in scumhunting mode. ##unVote: sciberbia you are suppose to be playing seriously if not then that would create the cloud of assumption that you are indeed scum random votes are related to scummy tactics so I already have my suspicions of you. also my suspicions of roflewaffles are slight but i have no further evidence that is incriminating him | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 13 2012 22:47 Mouldy Jeb wrote: you are suppose to be playing seriously if not then that would create the cloud of assumption that you are indeed scum random votes are related to scummy tactics so I already have my suspicions of you. also my suspicions of roflewaffles are slight but i have no further evidence that is incriminating him Hey mouldyjeb, glad to see you posting! Do you have any other evidence or reasons beyond miltons lighthearted attitude at the beginning? State them if you do, as well as any suspicions against me! Don't keep them to yourself! Also, what are your opinions on the cases so far, like mine against alan133 and suki's against trackd00r? I ask these because that was a fairly lackluster post when it comes to your first of the game and id like you to bring some fresh opinions to the table. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + His first post puts him on the bandwagon with his opinion on the inactives and lurkers, and is generally a contentless post with little to no controversy. Otherwise, nothing to bring the spotlight to him at all. Well, you were the one asking for my opinion on what has already posted. This is the post that really got me wondering. How by now can you have no suspicions? There has been quite a few suspicious decisions by several people, giving you more then enough time to form a case against someone, or at least apply some pressure. You can decide if I am honest about writing the post before s0lstice, which was also stated in my post. (I refreshed to see if there are new post before I "submit") I also shortened it to avoid long repeated post. I wrote the possible motivations behind suki's case. I don't see how it is "anti-town" or "just fillers", as these were exactly my thoughts on the case. FMPOV, anyone can be scum, and having no FoS does not mean I do not suspect anyone. I merely state that I have no strong scum read as of currently, and in my context, strong means pretty much confirmed. IMO those who are decisive in throwing votes based on weak or insubstantial claims were somewhat suspicious. I think it is normal for townies to hold doubts and and being decisive as they were less informed. If anything, I just tried to keep an open mind. Also, is it me or you were trying to divert the attention AWAY from suki? I don't see how keeping the attention on suki is a bad thing, as you suggested. His current play is anti-town at best, as he hasn't brought any of his thoughts to the table, and has only left ambiguous and bandwagoning answers to keep attention on those with controversial opinions. Well if you're complaining about not bringing up any of my thoughts, there you have it. I were trying to avoid throwing out suspicions with little to no proof, but if by not doing so is anti-town As a matter of fact, roflwaffles55 asked for my opinion replying to my opening post, and criticise it being a bandwagon, while forgetting he did the same. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 11:03 roflwaffles55 wrote: Sure! When it comes to lynching lurkers I would agree in that it shouldn't be the focus, and would prefer to lynch someone acting scummy day 1. As to NL, I am firmly against it and if we can't get a clear majority on scummy-acting folks then we should at least lynch a lurker, especially on D1 and 2. roflwaffles55 also mentioned that I somehow "bandwagoned" and provided little to no additional content on suki's case, which I don't think is true. Well, he also voted me on these insubstantial reasons. Of course, he also missed one or two post made by Miltonkram and austinmcc, which posted something more or less what I said. Also, if I am the only one not bringing up cases, there should be at least 11 other cases already. Of course, those were ignored and he proceed to vote me. @trackd00r + Show Spoiler + Looks like you intented to write something else about me, but a single post of S0lstice made your opinion change quite quickly, very quickly IMO. This is a weird speculation, as there is no indication nor proof I was not doing otherwise. I guess there is no way to say "I swear I was backing you up even before I read anything else!!111", but oh well. I did edit my post after I saw ss0lstice's post, mostly shortening what was already mentioned by ss0lstice, as most of my points were agreeing with him. My policy is to stay as neutral as possible, accessing all the possibilities while passively waiting/reading what other people has posted. I do believe this is not a bad-town play, as I am trying to avoid town fighting town scenario while scums lurks and look at the drama while eating pop-corns. That said, Crossfire99 is still missing while HeavOnEarth only has his opening post. I would like to see other people's thought on suki and rolfwaffles55's cases. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
 First off, id like to say im suspicious of everyone who tries to stay under the radar. I feel newer mafia players have a tendency to try and stay quiet. That said O.Golden_ne looks the most suspicious to me- On June 13 2012 09:43 O.Golden_ne wrote: agreed. NL is bad. Killing lurking is necessary. Lynching scum is great. Lets get the ball rolling and squeeze out the lurkers early so we can narrow things down later on. Looking forward to scumhunting, i'm happy with the deadline on this as its 10am for me in Aust, which means i'll be able to meet the deadlines for lynching in the mornings a little easier. I'll try my hardest this game to meet these deadlines and to contribute useful information rather than filler. Essentially i'm all for an agressive early game. I want to be able to establish some basic reads by the end of Day one, and if theres no-one who's appropriately scummy then we lynch a lurker. Golden Is there anything even remotely helpful in this post? Everyone knows NL is bad. he seems to be posting for the sake of it also, i checked his last game, (he was townie) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=337671&user=92568 u can tell his tone is completely different, and he is generally more helpful. also id like to point out crossfire is completely inactive, whereas in past games he was a pretty talkative little townie. thoughts? | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
##unvote trackd00r I thought at the very least I could rouse a response from trackd00r, however my case was too weak and I feel that no useful information can be gleamed from people simply agreeing on its flimsiness. Regarding miltonkram's vote of sciberbia, I personally think it's a joke referencing our previous game XV where he votes sciberbia within the first few posts of the game. I thought it was pretty funny myself. I feel that rofl's case on alan is not very convincing. First off, alan isn't bandwagoning on the lurker/inactive issue, at that point is split about 50/50 with half of the previous posters saying they want to focus on scumhunting and half leaning more towards a lurker lynch. Second, the game is so new that I disagree with the statement that his play is anti-town. He hasn't made any strong statements because there are few strong statements to make. My case on trackd00r was/is a flop, and up until your vote on alan no one has really pointed out anything suspicious about any other player (well, aside from those questioning my motivation to vote for trackd00r). Contributions are low but that's to be expected in the first hours of the game. I feel that there's not enough information out there yet to make an opinion on alan. | ||
|
Mouldy Jeb
United Kingdom37 Posts
| ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
I felt golden's first post seemed a bit off as well compared to last game, but I was waiting for a few more posts from him before saying anything. @alan Don't stay neutral. Neutral doesn't help town. Making strong opinions and reads helps town. Off to work, I'll be back later. | ||
|
Mouldy Jeb
United Kingdom37 Posts
I also do agree with suki on the "sketchy" behaviour of rofl but contradicting myself I feel you have raised some good points of scummy behaviour in your long post and crossfire seems to be lurking. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 13 2012 23:48 alan133 wrote: @rolfwaffles55 + Show Spoiler + His first post puts him on the bandwagon with his opinion on the inactives and lurkers, and is generally a contentless post with little to no controversy. Otherwise, nothing to bring the spotlight to him at all. Well, you were the one asking for my opinion on what has already posted. This is the post that really got me wondering. How by now can you have no suspicions? There has been quite a few suspicious decisions by several people, giving you more then enough time to form a case against someone, or at least apply some pressure. You can decide if I am honest about writing the post before s0lstice, which was also stated in my post. (I refreshed to see if there are new post before I "submit") I also shortened it to avoid long repeated post. I wrote the possible motivations behind suki's case. I don't see how it is "anti-town" or "just fillers", as these were exactly my thoughts on the case. FMPOV, anyone can be scum, and having no FoS does not mean I do not suspect anyone. I merely state that I have no strong scum read as of currently, and in my context, strong means pretty much confirmed. IMO those who are decisive in throwing votes based on weak or insubstantial claims were somewhat suspicious. I think it is normal for townies to hold doubts and and being decisive as they were less informed. If anything, I just tried to keep an open mind. Also, is it me or you were trying to divert the attention AWAY from suki? I don't see how keeping the attention on suki is a bad thing, as you suggested. His current play is anti-town at best, as he hasn't brought any of his thoughts to the table, and has only left ambiguous and bandwagoning answers to keep attention on those with controversial opinions. Well if you're complaining about not bringing up any of my thoughts, there you have it. I were trying to avoid throwing out suspicions with little to no proof, but if by not doing so is anti-town As a matter of fact, roflwaffles55 asked for my opinion replying to my opening post, and criticise it being a bandwagon, while forgetting he did the same. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 11:03 roflwaffles55 wrote: Sure! When it comes to lynching lurkers I would agree in that it shouldn't be the focus, and would prefer to lynch someone acting scummy day 1. As to NL, I am firmly against it and if we can't get a clear majority on scummy-acting folks then we should at least lynch a lurker, especially on D1 and 2. roflwaffles55 also mentioned that I somehow "bandwagoned" and provided little to no additional content on suki's case, which I don't think is true. Well, he also voted me on these insubstantial reasons. Of course, he also missed one or two post made by Miltonkram and austinmcc, which posted something more or less what I said. Also, if I am the only one not bringing up cases, there should be at least 11 other cases already. Of course, those were ignored and he proceed to vote me. @trackd00r + Show Spoiler + Looks like you intented to write something else about me, but a single post of S0lstice made your opinion change quite quickly, very quickly IMO. This is a weird speculation, as there is no indication nor proof I was not doing otherwise. I guess there is no way to say "I swear I was backing you up even before I read anything else!!111", but oh well. I did edit my post after I saw ss0lstice's post, mostly shortening what was already mentioned by ss0lstice, as most of my points were agreeing with him. My policy is to stay as neutral as possible, accessing all the possibilities while passively waiting/reading what other people has posted. I do believe this is not a bad-town play, as I am trying to avoid town fighting town scenario while scums lurks and look at the drama while eating pop-corns. That said, Crossfire99 is still missing while HeavOnEarth only has his opening post. I would like to see other people's thought on suki and rolfwaffles55's cases. While I am completely aware that my case has several holes in it, nobody can expect an ironclad case halfway through D1. The points you bring up in the first half of your response to me continue to be ambiguous, I'm glad you started to get your legitimate opinions out there, being quiet and neutral will get us nowhere. Both of our initial posts tended to agree with the majority, but as I said, that wasn't the focus of my argument, it was the post on the suki argument that got my suspicions roused. Yes, I did vote you, but you forget that votes are easily removable, and the fact that you had to write a sensationalist paragraph in red text rather then just poke through the obvious logical holes in my cases convince me that you have something to lose, whether it be scum, blue, or just poor play. As suki said, don't stay neutral, start posting your opinion on people, even if it brings attention to you. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War firebathero Dota 2 6080Jaedong  3522Sea 1541Pusan  512EffOrt 431Stork 326Rush 174ToSsGirL 77Liquid`Ret 49Movie 29[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Wardi Open
CrankTV Team League
Streamerzone vs Shopify Rebellion
TBD vs Team Vitality
Monday Night Weeklies
BSL 21
WardiTV Invitational
CrankTV Team League
BASILISK vs TBD
Team Liquid vs Team Falcon
BSL 21
Replay Cast
OSC
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
