|
On August 06 2012 10:59 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 10:54 iamperfection wrote:Sup everybody I have come around in my thinking from previous games and agree that lynching lurkers is a good policy to have. When the town is inactive or loses its active players it is very easy for the scum to start leading the town. In my first game my scum buddies were able to dominate the conversation. In my last game that son of a bitch hapa cost me my perfection and i have been in mourning ever since. Its redemption time On August 06 2012 10:12 Shady Sands wrote:
Also, why is Promethelax so quiet? In the last game I played him, he racked up 10 posts in the first six hours of the game. Alright lets not go accusing people of lurking in the first 2 or so hours into the game. We have 48 hours and while i want to see activity its important to remember this is forum mafia there will be times people can be active and not active. On August 06 2012 10:24 Lvdr wrote:
I guess I misunderstood. I thought golbat was a mafia that got lynched d1.
I'm really just trying to get some opinions going. You can easily go back and see the results of that game. takes 2 seconds and now people are going to start questioning your effort http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=353315Speaking of previous games i would like to know how yourharry is going to aproach this game. If we are going to get your logic that makes no sense where your "sure" sombody is town or mafia i say we lynch you know before your logic festers and contaminates the town. One of the reason i lynched calgar in my previous game is because he actually used your logic in his own defense. Unforgivable in my view. Your thoughts? I'm not accusing Prome of lurking, I'm just saying that his behavior this game doesn't match up with his behavior last game (when he flipped green) and his behavior in XIX (when he was scum). Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 10:28 Golbat wrote:On August 06 2012 10:12 Shady Sands wrote:On August 06 2012 09:13 Hapahauli wrote:@ Golbat: Welcome! @ Dandel Ion: I disagree to a certain extent - not all scum will suddenly become active and incriminate themselves to bandwagon a player. Many scum in newbie games are comortable staying out of the thread and never being active. I do not believe that the "sudden activity read" it is an excuse to not be concerned with "scum lurkers" early in the game, and we should smoke-'em out as early as possible. On August 06 2012 08:50 Dandel Ion wrote:... On August 06 2012 08:41 Hapahauli wrote:I do not agree with not lynching players just by merit of being active. But since it is highly unlikely that we find a big scumslip on day 1 (though one may hope), I would be fine with getting rid of a lurker day 1. I would also be okay with a no-lynch on day 1, since the chances of correctly lynching without information is 25%, so basically it's a crapshoot. But I'll understand if I find few supporters for that idea... Just putting it out there. No-lynching Day 1 is a terrible terrible idea. Even in the event of a mislynch, town gains so much information from the voting process that even a lynch with "poor odds" is beneficial. Furthermore, I believe town has a higher than 25% chance of lynching mafia if we don't bandwagon on an active/controversial poster (this is where most of the mislynches come from in the recent games I've seen). A no-lynch gives mafia a free night-kill while keeping the town in the dark. But with scum being able to coordinate themselves, I'd imagine it's very easy for them to force a bandwagon on a townie, no? I think you over-estimate the power of mafia. Mafia only have 3 votes as opposed to town's 9 votes. Furthermore, if Mafia violently forces a bandwagon, it reveals their hand and makes them easy lynches in subsequent days. I was reading through the OP and host said that we would know which roles are in the game, but not the number of roles. I'm not sure how Hapahauli knows there are only 3 scum in the game. Also, why is Promethelax so quiet? In the last game I played him, he racked up 10 posts in the first six hours of the game. Promethelax might be trying to be quieter than last game, because those 10 posts in six hours were a big part of getting him lynched, were they not? I should probably be doing the same, but posting is just so much DAMN FUN. That's exactly my point. In XIX Prome was scum and led discussions actively from D1. In XXII Prome was town and posted a ton of fluff, and posted a bunch of weak cases. In XXIII, Prome is not posting. Weird
Or its been only three hours and its sunday night and he dosent work on monday so he is getting drunk. Or like he stated before the game starts he some times works on sundays.
|
alright i just took two sleeping pills be back in the morning.
(havent been able to sleep since the last mafia game hence the sleeping pills)
|
On August 06 2012 10:54 Lvdr wrote:
Hapahauli was very eager to be suspicious of me based on my ignorance of prior events.
Could be mafia sowing confusion.
I'm suspicious of you as well, because it's pretty common to be suspicious of someone who tries to start discussion using obviously false information. Because that could also be mafia sowing confusion.
|
Alright. A bit of policy talk first:
Blindly doing anything is a poor decision. If we're going to catch the correct people, it has to be based on reasoning and not the potential threat of a lurker. By the end of D1, we should have some read on most of the posters. It's much smarter to make a comparatively informed decision regarding someone we have interacted with than a random selection from those who have said very little.
I think policy lynchings (or safeties) are a bad idea in general. It not only limits the amount of logical reasoning involved, but it gives scum the means of avoiding suspicion, hiding in the holes we've created for them. Force them to defend themselves and we'll force information out of them.
On August 06 2012 10:07 Dandel Ion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 09:55 Golbat wrote:On August 06 2012 09:45 Lvdr wrote:
Also it seems to me that if golbat was a failmafia in his last game, he probably got set as town in this one.
Discuss. What do you mean by "failmafia"? I was town in my last game, hence, "overeager townie". Reading comprehension is important, yo. Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 09:59 Hapahauli wrote:On August 06 2012 09:45 Lvdr wrote:
Also it seems to me that if golbat was a failmafia in his last game, he probably got set as town in this one.
Discuss. Erm dude, Golbat wasn't mafia in his last game. Scumslip or most obvious scumslip? Discuss.
I think it's best if we avoid short claims like this without elaboration. Is the scumslip supposed to be that they both defended Golbat when Lvdr spread incorrect information? Or is it the spreading of information that is questionable? I could see arguments for both. Though it may be my inexperience showing a bit, this post seemed vague and despite your request for discussion only led to my confusion. Why call for discussion and then not clarify your own position?
In this situation, Golbat seems to be simply defending himself from an accusation while Hapahauli was correcting misinformation. As for Lvdr, I don't think a mistake like this is enough to peg him as scum. If he makes a similarly misinformed statement later it would arouse my suspicions, but for now I'm considering him just about equal with everyone else.
|
On August 06 2012 11:19 Golbat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 10:54 Lvdr wrote:
Hapahauli was very eager to be suspicious of me based on my ignorance of prior events.
Could be mafia sowing confusion. I'm suspicious of you as well, because it's pretty common to be suspicious of someone who tries to start discussion using obviously false information. Because that could also be mafia sowing confusion.
Throw out my first statement, it was clearly misinformed and not useful.
As I am somewhat of an unknown quantity let me explain that if my accusations seem random, its because they pretty much are (at this point). It seems that d1 is the time to try to get people on record so that you can have a body of evidence to work off of in the future.
Overeager townie apologizes.
|
On August 06 2012 10:54 Lvdr wrote:
Hapahauli was very eager to be suspicious of me based on my ignorance of prior events.
Could be mafia sowing confusion.
So why shouldn't I be suspicious of you? Posting false information makes you look pretty bad.
|
EBWOP: Oh I got sniped. I'll let it rest for now Lvdr - you've been pretty willing to post, and I won't hold that against you. Let's continue on to those lurkers.
|
Yeah, the lurkers are who we want to focus on at the moment, wake up the sleeping townies and get something useful out of em =D
|
Get out your torch and pitchfork!!
|
On August 06 2012 11:30 mkfuba07 wrote:
Alright. A bit of policy talk first:
Blindly doing anything is a poor decision. If we're going to catch the correct people, it has to be based on reasoning and not the potential threat of a lurker. By the end of D1, we should have some read on most of the posters. It's much smarter to make a comparatively informed decision regarding someone we have interacted with than a random selection from those who have said very little.
I think policy lynchings (or safeties) are a bad idea in general. It not only limits the amount of logical reasoning involved, but it gives scum the means of avoiding suspicion, hiding in the holes we've created for them. Force them to defend themselves and we'll force information out of them.
While I agree that blind policy lynching in its purest form is bad (i.e. lynching someone ONLY because they're lurking), I believe policy can be a good guideline to prevent mislynch. For example, given two equally "suspicious" players (one active and one "lurky"), I would be much more inclined to lynch the lurker, on the basis that in newbie games, active mafia are a rarity. Newbie mafia are usually incredibly lurky - especially Day 1 when they are still figuring out how to post.
Also, an anti-lurker policy doesn't let mafia hide - it forces them to post and remain in the open. When mafia are forced to be active/scum-hunt, it is near impossible for them not to reveal their intentions. As a result, an anti-lurker policy can only be good for town (as long as it's not taken to logical extremes of course).
|
On August 06 2012 11:31 Lvdr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 11:19 Golbat wrote:On August 06 2012 10:54 Lvdr wrote:
Hapahauli was very eager to be suspicious of me based on my ignorance of prior events.
Could be mafia sowing confusion. I'm suspicious of you as well, because it's pretty common to be suspicious of someone who tries to start discussion using obviously false information. Because that could also be mafia sowing confusion. Throw out my first statement, it was clearly misinformed and not useful. As I am somewhat of an unknown quantity let me explain that if my accusations seem random, its because they pretty much are (at this point). It seems that d1 is the time to try to get people on record so that you can have a body of evidence to work off of in the future. Overeager townie apologizes.
Yeah, overeagerness on D1 can be pretty bad, especially in a newbie game. In XXII a confirmed townie ended up getting the Vigi lynched because the Vigi didn't know how to properly defend himself against accusations without looking even more scummy in the process.
We need everyone to at least have made a post in here before any serious hunting can begin. Otherwise we're giving up too much edge to scum, who can just lurk and wait for town to WIFOM and OMGUS each other to death.
|
And with that, I'm off to bed. See you all tomorrow during lunch.
|
On August 06 2012 14:24 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 11:31 Lvdr wrote:On August 06 2012 11:19 Golbat wrote:On August 06 2012 10:54 Lvdr wrote:
Hapahauli was very eager to be suspicious of me based on my ignorance of prior events.
Could be mafia sowing confusion. I'm suspicious of you as well, because it's pretty common to be suspicious of someone who tries to start discussion using obviously false information. Because that could also be mafia sowing confusion. Throw out my first statement, it was clearly misinformed and not useful. As I am somewhat of an unknown quantity let me explain that if my accusations seem random, its because they pretty much are (at this point). It seems that d1 is the time to try to get people on record so that you can have a body of evidence to work off of in the future. Overeager townie apologizes. Yeah, overeagerness on D1 can be pretty bad, especially in a newbie game. In XXII a confirmed townie ended up getting the Vigi lynched because the Vigi didn't know how to properly defend himself against accusations without looking even more scummy in the process. We need everyone to at least have made a post in here before any serious hunting can begin. Otherwise we're giving up too much edge to scum, who can just lurk and wait for town to WIFOM and OMGUS each other to death.
Well this I disagree with - if someone doesn't post, we can't sit around all day and not make cases. Also, the people who haven't posted need some things to talk about in addition to policy!
So I call the town's attention to the following post by Synystyr:
On August 06 2012 09:35 Synystyr wrote:LOL I believe that not lynching players simply because they are active is a good way to go about things. You could be scum using that as an excuse to cover up. While I do see the benefit in lynching a lurker versus an active player, I do not believe this should be the sole reasoning on how we lynch someone.
This post reads as very scummy to me. His first sentence is fluff-talk: don't lynch players becaue only because they're active (duh?). Synystyr then passively casts suspicion on me without committing to a stance. He then finishes his post with fluffy, obvious, and non-controversial viewpoint on policy.
FOS Synystyr
|
On August 06 2012 14:43 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 14:24 Shady Sands wrote:On August 06 2012 11:31 Lvdr wrote:On August 06 2012 11:19 Golbat wrote:On August 06 2012 10:54 Lvdr wrote:
Hapahauli was very eager to be suspicious of me based on my ignorance of prior events.
Could be mafia sowing confusion. I'm suspicious of you as well, because it's pretty common to be suspicious of someone who tries to start discussion using obviously false information. Because that could also be mafia sowing confusion. Throw out my first statement, it was clearly misinformed and not useful. As I am somewhat of an unknown quantity let me explain that if my accusations seem random, its because they pretty much are (at this point). It seems that d1 is the time to try to get people on record so that you can have a body of evidence to work off of in the future. Overeager townie apologizes. Yeah, overeagerness on D1 can be pretty bad, especially in a newbie game. In XXII a confirmed townie ended up getting the Vigi lynched because the Vigi didn't know how to properly defend himself against accusations without looking even more scummy in the process. We need everyone to at least have made a post in here before any serious hunting can begin. Otherwise we're giving up too much edge to scum, who can just lurk and wait for town to WIFOM and OMGUS each other to death. Well this I disagree with - if someone doesn't post, we can't sit around all day and not make cases. Also, the people who haven't posted need some things to talk about in addition to policy! So I call the town's attention to the following post by Synystyr: Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 09:35 Synystyr wrote:On August 06 2012 05:22 Blazinghand wrote: ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/d/d3/Banshee.png/180px-Banshee.png) LOL I believe that not lynching players simply because they are active is a good way to go about things. You could be scum using that as an excuse to cover up. While I do see the benefit in lynching a lurker versus an active player, I do not believe this should be the sole reasoning on how we lynch someone. This post reads as very scummy to me. His first sentence is fluff-talk: don't lynch players becaue only because they're active (duh?). Synystyr then passively casts suspicion on me without committing to a stance. He then finishes his post with fluffy, obvious, and non-controversial viewpoint on policy. FOS Synystyr
I think you mis-understand the intent behind the bold part, but it's hard to tell when he worded it so confusingly. I think he's saying you could use activity as an excuse to not get lynched day1 if you were a scum. But honestly, I don't know. The more I read it, the more my head hurts, but I don't know about it being scummy anything could sound scummy at this point in the game.
I'm going to bed. Night all, I hope to see the people who haven't posted post by the time I wake up.
|
Bedtime, I'm with golbat on waiting to see more posts before deciding who's acting scummy.
|
Lynching a player based on inactivity is good on multiple grounds.
1. It encourages discussion, whether or not the player is scum. Discussion should be good for town.
2. Scums tend to lurk. Case in point: XIX
3. Having an inactive town around is a potential mod-kill that could mean losing the game, e.g. in LYLO.
|
I know this is a semi-open set up, but were the power roles selected with game balance in mind? Or is it more or less random?
|
Hapha
Thanks for schooling me last game. Although I did point out that you didn't start the game with one of your long ass analysis on why someone is scum, until I pointed this out. And even for the rest of the game, the frequency of your long ass analysis was significantly lacking compared to the first game we played together.
This time, I have my eyes on you.
|
[QUOTE]On August 06 2012 11:30 mkfuba07 wrote:
Alright. A bit of policy talk first:
Blindly doing anything is a poor decision. If we're going to catch the correct people, it has to be based on reasoning and not the potential threat of a lurker. By the end of D1, we should have some read on most of the posters. It's much smarter to make a comparatively informed decision regarding someone we have interacted with than a random selection from those who have said very little.
Policy lynching is not blind. It is a tested method to encourage discussion and is generally a pro-town strategy. This is different from lynching anyone who forgets to post one day.
Further, if we allow lurking - and by allowing them to live, we are allowing them to lurk - there cannot be much "reasoning" to basis your "catching the correct people" on.
[quote]
I think policy lynchings (or safeties) are a bad idea in general. It not only limits the amount of logical reasoning involved, but it gives scum the means of avoiding suspicion, hiding in the holes we've created for them. Force them to defend themselves and we'll force information out of them.[/quote]
On the contrary, policy lynching forces people to post. And with posts, there can be discussions and logical reasoning. With lurking, these things come by scarcely. Policy lynching is not a mean to an end. It is a strategy to enrich resources that townies can use. And I experienced first hand that the experienced player(s) support policy lynching lurkers.
In the long run, it can be argued that this is also beneficial to the TL mafia community as a whole. Steer the TL mafia culture, where players are expected to actively participate.
[quote]
I think it's best if we avoid short claims like this without elaboration. Is the scumslip supposed to be that they both defended Golbat when Lvdr spread incorrect information? Or is it the spreading of information that is questionable? I could see arguments for both. Though it may be my inexperience showing a bit, this post seemed vague and despite your request for discussion only led to my confusion. Why call for discussion and then not clarify your own position?
In this situation, Golbat seems to be simply defending himself from an accusation while Hapahauli was correcting misinformation. As for Lvdr, I don't think a mistake like this is enough to peg him as scum. If he makes a similarly misinformed statement later it would arouse my suspicions, but for now I'm considering him just about equal with everyone else.[/QUOTE]
Your rest of the posts... there are way too many conditionals and wishy washy stuff. You see arguments for boht. You think your inexperience may be what's causing you to be wrong in your judgment. All to end in a wishy washy conclusiong - Lvdr is just as scummy as everyone else.
Vote mkfuba
[/b]
|
Shit LOL messed up the quotes. Oh well, more work for you guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
