EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
Yeah the stress during that last game had been building up for about 3 days now and I didn't know if I would want to play again. Now that I'm lynched I honestly do not care one bit about it, honestly it's a huge relief. At least now I won't have to continue being as levelheaded as possible in a thread where people weren't trying hard at all. I'm SO glad that my part in that game is over and for all I care town can go suck a big one. lol | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On August 20 2012 18:42 Shady Sands wrote: /in hi shady glhf..... i'm looking forward to playing with you as well as anyone else i've played with | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On August 23 2012 22:52 mkfuba07 wrote: Already making excuses for scum-like activity! Tsk tsk. FoS Dandel lon what a poor case to base an FOS on fos mkfuba | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
the facts: - marvellosity and ghost have already had suspicion cast on them, despite not being in the game - mkfuba votes for Dandel Ion based on pre game banter - mkfuba later tries to provide an out for himself by saying he was just trying to "stimulate discussion" - Dandel Ion for some unexplained reason is willing to accept this response? - meanwhile the host of the game votes mkfuba Conclusion: I think it is safe to assume that the game likely hasn't started yet. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
Ways to pressure lurkers: - call them out for lurking - ask them for their top scum reads - ask them for their read on the most popular case - give them a reasonable time to respond to you and keep calling them out - if you can't get a sufficient response from them then a ##FOS Lurker is in order - do not stop scumhunting in order to push your lurker vote candidate It is absolutely vital to town morale that everyone is contributing. The more lurkers there are, the more everyone will doubt the legitimacy of their scum reads. Everyone needs to do their part to keep everyone else active. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On August 24 2012 07:22 Dandel Ion wrote: But if somebody active seems scummy, and a lurker seems equally scummy, I would probably prefer to lynch the lurker. Note that this is probably only applicable for day 1, since from day 2 onwards, scumreads should usually be strong enough to push through with them. I don't agree with this. I don't see how a lurker could seem equally scummy as someone who is actively scummy. If someone is lurking then by definition of lurking we have less posts from them to analyze. Are you saying that you want to vote for a lurker D1 even if there is a strong scum candidate? There needs to be some sort of threat to get lurkers to post but I think the process of calling them out over and over again, each time with stronger words and eventually a FOS will get them to post. If not, then their behavior will be remembered for the rest of the game. I stand by my strict no-lurking rule but I favor a scumhunting case over an absolute D1 lurker-lynch policy. I'd just like a little clarification on your position concerning favoring a lurker vote or a scum vote. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On August 24 2012 07:31 kushm4sta wrote: Hey this is my first game. I dont wana lurk but I got nothing to say TT. Hey what's up and glhf. You could give your thoughts on what everyone else is talking about. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On August 24 2012 08:34 Spaghetticus wrote: However, I agree with Dandel Ion in that lurking should contribute to your scum reading, and that lurkers should be prioritised over active scum-like players, as it is the lurking scum that is more dangerous than the active. Once again I'd like to express my disagreement with the bolded part. If there is absolutely no agreement within the town on who to vote for once the deadline approaches then a lurker would be my next choice. But I don't see how we would be able to more accurately pick out a lurker scum than an active scum. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:03 Lvdr wrote: Shady this is like the third game I've played with you in the last few days. If you don't know my lurker policy you must be thick as a brick. Policy: LYNCH LURKERS. Hopefully there are no lurkers and we can vote scumreads. If it comes down to voting for a strong scumread and one of several lurkers, I'd rather go with the scumread. Being too focused on lurkers caused me to play poorly in my last game. If I make a strong case against a player I am definitely going to vote for them. Excluding that, lynching a lurker is the backup plan. Your experience of how mafia players lurk during newbie games is something I don't have so I don't share your commitment to a flat out "only lynch a lurker during D1" plan. On August 24 2012 08:55 Spaghetticus wrote: @Thrawn If the worst outcome of lurking is to not get lynched, I don't see how town can possibly eventuate victorious. Lurking is an aspect of scum behaviour, or of poor play, and should be treated as such. You seem to propose it as some sort of tie breaking mechanism, but I believe this to be an over-simplification. In day 1, there will be extremely little information to go by. Lurking will almost certainly be the biggest tell as to the value/alignment of a player. I don't think that "worst outcome of lurking is to not get lynched" but I don't think that D1 is the time to do it. Of course there are always exceptions...such as the player who has 4 posts at the end of D1, he's sheeping the popular cases, and never offers any original reasoning for his votes. But yeah, hopefully lurking won't be an issue. I expect all this talk about lurker policy will help achieve that. And this disagreement isn't that big of an issue to me, because if I have a case worth lynching someone over then it should be a strong enough case to convince everyone else. On August 24 2012 09:27 Shady Sands wrote: I think so. Right now I'm concerned about Kush. His post at the very best is completely useless to town. That post also caught my eye and I suggested that he comment on the current discussion but so far there's been nothing. Kush it's not too big a deal this early on but the longer you wait the worse it's going to look. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:33 kushm4sta wrote: So everyone wants to lynch me because I didn't share my thoughts about if lurkers are really bad or just kind of bad? Everyone's posts so far have been useless IMO. I have a lot of free time so yeah I will read this thread pretty much constantly and carefully. And as soon as I suspect someone or have something to say I will say it. But at this point it's impossible to know anything about anyone so dont point fingers at me because Im new. Nobody said they wanted to lynch you, and nobody is pointing fingers at you because you're new. We just want everyone to be involved in the discussion. | ||
| ||
