EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
| ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
| ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
My buttox are firmly held. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
| ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
Much to my delight, I’ve rolled Vanilla Townie this game – I hope strength in numbers shall prevail this game! I ended up rolling mafia-goon in the last newbie game I played (Newbie Mafia XXI), and two members of my scumteam got away with blatant-lurking for days because of poor D1 discussion and a disorganized town. Our scumteam ended up winning that game in large part to this lack of productive discussion. So to get things moving in a good direction, howabout some policy talk? I propose the following:
| ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
Townies are the most important players in the game! You have no reason to fear death and you can post without inhibitions! Be thoughtful, be unafraid, and have fun! Don't be bored/dissapointed that you don't have a power role; posting is what makes this game fun, and that's what a vanilla townie does best! ...and don't forget to post post post! | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
A couple of things regarding your post: On August 06 2012 08:28 Dandel Ion wrote: Policy talk: Blindly lynching lurkers is probably just as bad as blindly lynching active people. If scum divides roles properly they will try to have ~2 posting actively and maybe 1 trying to lay low. Also, it's a huge tell if a lurker starts getting really active later in the game, so scum lurkers are not my primary concern right now. I don't consider sudden activty later in the game a "huge-tell" - can you explain this to me? 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. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
Welcome Dandel Ion! Good to see you in the thread so soon =) yaaaaay typos. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
@ 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: ... 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. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
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. Well of course it won't be the only reason we lynch someone. Doing something like lynching the lowest postcount D1 would be absurd. However, I hope you do agree that we should be putting our suspicion (atleast on D1) on less active players. 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. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=355874¤tpage=6#108 Day 1 post dude. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
On August 06 2012 10:07 Dandel Ion wrote: Scumslip or most obvious scumslip? Discuss. Scumslip or not, I want to hear an answer for how Lvdr managed to post false-information that he could have verified in a 10-second search of Golbat's posting history... FOS Lvdr | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
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. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
| ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
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). | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
On August 06 2012 14:24 Shady Sands wrote: 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 | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
@ mkfuba07 - On August 06 2012 18:19 mkfuba07 wrote: If they're both equally scummy, then wouldn't there be an equal chance of each being mafia? In that case wouldn't we gain more information from the flip of an active player than an inactive one? I argue that new players are naturally inclined to see active players (especially those that can't defend themselves but are willing to post) as scummy instead of helpless townies. As a result, with two even scum reads (one active and one lurking), it's better to pick the one who's posted less, because they have a greater chance of being scummy given mafia general tendency. Anywho, this is all semantics, but I hope you atleast agree that we should be focusing on less-active players Day 1. Looking through the last few games of Newbie Mafia's, I haven't seen a single situation where an active D1 poster getting lynched ended up flipping red. @ Promethelax: Welcome to the thread! I found one of your posts fairly interesting in regards to the policy discussion: On August 06 2012 18:54 Promethelax wrote: 1. True! 2. Did you read that game? I had town by the nose by virtue of not lurking. 3. No! Bad YourHarry, lynching a townie is always bad. Lynching a bad townie hurts town because we lose a townie. It's worth saying that while I'm pushing the anti-lurker policy, I was also a very active mafia in Newbie XXI. However, I believe it is near impossible to reliably lynch active-maifa with on D1 with no information. It's a much better idea to go after easy targets, and then use the flips to determine allignments among active players. Even in Newbie XXI, I had no visible "scumslips" and my game in the early days was consistent, but it was still possible to infer that I was Mafia in the later days based on my attitudes towards players as well as my lynch actions taken as a whole. Also, the great thing about policy is that it can always be changed on a whim! If everyone posts actively, we can quickly scrap this and have a productive base to start the scum-hunt! @ YourHarry: On August 06 2012 16:31 YourHarry wrote: 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. <3 You bring up an interesting point regarding analysis, and one of the things I learned last game was how ineffective my Wall-O-Texts were at getting people lynched. As townie in XX, I had difficulty pushing my cases because people didn't have the patience to read my posts! (Plus they took HOURS to write T_T) I had much more success pushing my "suspicions" as Mafia in XIX when I pointed them out in smaller posts that people actually had the patience to read. You will see the occasional Wall-O-Text from me, but expect the word-for-word length of my analysis to be shorter this game. However, I assure you my analysis will not be lacking in content! | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
On August 07 2012 01:21 Synystyr wrote: @Hapa Don't be so quick to vote me after one post  I was merely implying that activity is not indicative of alignment and shouldn't be taken into account in a case, yet.@Dandel My read on Golbat is that he's neutral leaning scum. Scum like to cause discord amongst the town, and there's really no need for attacks on reading comprehension without a good reason. He's just trying to stir shit up. He wants to lynch lurkers as well, which may be the start of a defense to as why he shouldn't be lynched d1. I didn't vote you yet Synystyr, just an FOS is all. But what's with the passive finger-pointing? In the first post, you mention that "I could be active scum" trying to clear myself - what's the townie motive behind that? Secondly, that reasoning on Golbat is terribad: he's trying to stir shit up and focus on lurkers (good townie behavior), and therefore he's setting up to defend himself and therefore he's scum?! Yeah ok buddy. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
| ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
On August 07 2012 01:41 Dandel Ion wrote: Well you could be scum. I don't think it's bad to point out that, just because something looks towny, it can't be scum-motivated too. He did not actually attack you, or even imply to direct his post towards you. It seemed to me like he was talking more in general. Yet you're getting pretty defensive, pretty fast. Synystyr, now that you're here, post some more plox. I agree, from your perspective I could be mafia. However, I'm calling attention as to how Synyster decides to cast suspicion. His post literally says nothing, and it reads as a passive fingerpoint to me. As for my "defensiveness," I don't make any effort to defend myself - I'm simply pointing out scummy behavior, and this one just so happens to involve my name. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/d/d3/Banshee.png/180px-Banshee.png)
