EPTYour Clothes, Give them to me. [mafia] - Page 6
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
| ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
On October 18 2012 08:09 Alex Hesse wrote: But Harry Tasker Voting for John Matrix isn't going to give us anything. He is legitimately away or he would have posted, absolutely no doubt about that. You are policy lynching someone who is probably going to get modkilled (or replaced since Palmar apparently had more signups than spots). Not only is this a lynch in the dark, it's very likely not going to give us anything. Why does this have to be the case, at all, given the scenario I described? | ||
|
Jack Slater
46 Posts
| ||
|
Douglas Quaid
92 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374903¤tpage=4#70 | ||
|
Ben Richards
11 Posts
On October 17 2012 07:55 Alex Hesse wrote: Day1 scum hunting is mostly going to be similar to other games. Scum will have an interest in posting less and not reveal their natural posting style. On day2 we can scumhunt in a way unique to this game; by figuring out whose posting style looks more like the dead scum and less like his own day1 content. It's an open setup, there are no roles and no meta. The only thing we can do is to post and read. On October 18 2012 08:09 Alex Hesse wrote: But Harry Tasker Voting for John Matrix isn't going to give us anything. He is legitimately away or he would have posted, absolutely no doubt about that. You are policy lynching someone who is probably going to get modkilled (or replaced since Palmar apparently had more signups than spots). Not only is this a lynch in the dark, it's very likely not going to give us anything. While I would generally agree with his sentiment regarding voting someone who hasn't posted, A) this is a small setup where by definition there's little excuse for having not posted by now and B) the act of defending John Matrix is in direct conflict with his stated assessment of how scum would act in this setup. Added to other stuff previously mentioned, and I'm most interested in lynching Alex today. ##Vote: Alex Hesse | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
On October 18 2012 08:16 Harry Tasker wrote: Why does this have to be the case, at all, given the scenario I described? Because I have never seen scum deliberately not post. They show up, see the thread, make a dumb small post because you have to post, it's kind of in the rules (not really but do you really think that Palmar will tolerate abusive shit like that?). Right now his lack of posting is a sign of him not being here, not a sign of him being scum. On October 18 2012 02:46 Douglas Quaid wrote: While we have 72 hours, it's worth talking about the instant-lynch mechanic in a previous game (GSL Mini II) in regards to the deadline length. The 72 hour day made people really complacent about contributing early (and leading to last-minute deadline scrambles), which should be avoided at all costs this game. We have time, but don't be afraid to contribute early and often. @ Ben Richards That thing by Alex Hesse you pointed out is really off. It's a "too scummy to be scum" read, and is questionable logic at best.1 The entire post is just strange - he seems to be half-accusing you of being scum and then overall disagreeing with the scumread on you.2 Read the red/bolded line then read his conclusion. It makes no sense for him to include that in his analysis.3 In addition, the whole post is just incredibly over-justified for this point in the game.4 1: That's not at all what I said or meant. Townies push scum agendas all the time. Did you seriously never make a case on someone where you described all the scummy shit he was doing only to have him flip town? He was pushing what I consider to be a scum agenda but he was doing it in a townie way. 2: I am not agreeing with the scum read. I am acquitting him of the bad things while pointing out the good thing. He is probably my biggest town read right now. 3: I don't see why it makes no sense to include my opinion in my analysis. 4: And how exactly is this? I am commenting on the stuff he has posted, why couldn't I do that at that point in the game? On October 18 2012 13:29 Ben Richards wrote: While I would generally agree with his sentiment regarding voting someone who hasn't posted, A) this is a small setup where by definition there's little excuse for having not posted by now and B) the act of defending John Matrix is in direct conflict with his stated assessment of how scum would act in this setup.1 Added to other stuff previously mentioned2, and I'm most interested in lynching Alex today. ##Vote: Alex Hesse 1: No it isn't. Scum will try to lurk and post little but they will still be here because everybody who plays this game is here. You are kidding yourself if you think that scum will come up with a plan like that because frankly, it's not any fun and it's pretty abusive. Do you think someone joined this game not to play it at all? Do you even think that that will be allowed? John Matrix is very likely not here and that doesn't really point anywhere on the town/scum scale. 2: I can't find other stuff you previously mentioned besides the last part of this post where you say I am calling you town while calling you scum which is just not true. I am saying that you are pushing a scummy agenda but like I wrote earlier in this post, that doesn't have to make you scum (actually it doesn't say anything about your alignment at all). Have you never seen a townie push a scum agenda before? Have you never written a huge dumb analysis on someone exposing how they're clearly doing things that benefit scum only to have them flip town? | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
On October 18 2012 17:04 Alex Hesse wrote: Because I have never seen scum deliberately not post. They show up, see the thread, make a dumb small post because you have to post, it's kind of in the rules (not really but do you really think that Palmar will tolerate abusive shit like that?). Right now his lack of posting is a sign of him not being here, not a sign of him being scum. And you've also never been in a smurf-only setup where the mafia replaces their NK, am I right? Why are you guessing what hosts would do? It is clear in the OP that there are NO ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS. In my opinion, optimal scum strategy is absolutely what I described. Guys, I think Alex might just be a bit slow. The scummiest guy in the thread is the one who hasn't posted. | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
There's still the play to win rule and you need to play to win. Not playing is not playing and it is clearly modkillable. Do you seriously think that if one guy got hit by a meteor and another forgot about the game and we had two people who didn't post at all that this game and this original setup would just be over and done with like that? Would suck for all participating parties and that's not really why we came here. Optimal scum strategy might be to not say anything but I still don't think that they would not say anything because then they would be doing what the optimal scum strategy is and what the least optimal town strategy is and that would probably get them lynched. Or modkilled. | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
On October 18 2012 20:17 Alex Hesse wrote: Palmar explains no activity requirement rule. There's still the play to win rule and you need to play to win. Not playing is not playing and it is clearly modkillable. Do you seriously think that if one guy got hit by a meteor and another forgot about the game and we had two people who didn't post at all that this game and this original setup would just be over and done with like that? Would suck for all participating parties and that's not really why we came here. Optimal scum strategy might be to not say anything but I still don't think that they would not say anything because then they would be doing what the optimal scum strategy is and what the least optimal town strategy is and that would probably get them lynched. Or modkilled. None of this post makes sense; why would playing their optimal strategy get them modkilled? Also, I am the only one voting for the guy who hasn't posted, so playing (what I believe to be) the optimal scum strategy hasn't done so much harm so far, has it? People are *monumentally* resistant to lynching absolute lurkers/no-posters. | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
| ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
On October 18 2012 20:21 Harry Tasker wrote: None of this post makes sense; why would playing their optimal strategy get them modkilled? Also, I am the only one voting for the guy who hasn't posted, so playing (what I believe to be) the optimal scum strategy hasn't done so much harm so far, has it? People are *monumentally* resistant to lynching absolute lurkers/no-posters. l2read | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
| ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
| ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
On October 18 2012 20:25 Alex Hesse wrote: I think that I am "*monumentally*" resistant to lynching people who are just not here (who else is "people", am I not the only one who is resisting right now?), especially when I have a perfectly good case on a guy who is actually doing scummy things. The other thing about no-post lynches is that we probably don't get anything from it because it's either you like lynching no-posters or you don't. He only did one single thing that you can discuss (nothing) and it's pretty easy to just take one stance instead of the other, especially when we have no meta to hold people up to. This is like the 3rd time you've said "what we get from the lynch". The only thing that matters is whether they flip scum. No-one likes lynching no-posters or total lurkers in any normal setup. I would not advocate it in any setup but this. In any normal setup, if you don't post, then you get modkilled, or if you vote at the last minute, you're are massively in the firing line the next day. Due to activity requirements and NK mechanics, neither of these things are the case here. | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
I refuse to believe that John Matrix has been gone because he figured out the scum strategy of not playing the game at all and relying on people defending him in the thread to keep him from getting lynched just so he could hammer and then just nightkill his way out of his responsibilities. It's long term, it's unreliable, it's not likely that scum will do it. Deal with it. | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
| ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
On October 18 2012 20:39 Alex Hesse wrote: If you don't think that "The other thing" is a good argument then just ignore it, it's supplemental and the other arguments should be enough to convince you. I refuse to believe that John Matrix has been gone because he figured out the scum strategy of not playing the game at all and relying on people defending him in the thread to keep him from getting lynched just so he could hammer and then just nightkill his way out of his responsibilities. It's long term, it's unreliable, it's not likely that scum will do it. Deal with it. I would listen to you, perhaps, if any of your points held any validity. You "refuse to believe" - that's not an argument, that's just an admission of your own limitation. Why is it longterm? It's one day cycle. Why is it unreliable? Why is it unlikely scum will do it? As a quick note to one of your potential responses - 'it's not fun to play' - you miss one day cycle and then you get the most fun/challenging role in the game - replacing someone. All your responses look like unsubstantiated emotional ones to a legit scum strategy. Is your only real objection "it's too risky for scum"? | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
Yes, I am limited in my ability to believe that he is the scummiest in the thread because he didn't say anything compared to someone who said scummy things. One day is a very long time, when was the last time you concocted a 48-72 hour plan as scum? And on day1 in a smurf game where you have no idea what people will think about it beforehand, the risk/reward is simply too high. It's unreliable because it's a crazy plan in a 72 hour day smurf game. That's why it's unlikely. Whatever, people didn't PM Palmar to join this game thinking "Wow, I can't wait to afk for 72 hours and then replace someone". But they're not. Your responses look like they were written in faroese by an okapi. There is a better case on Alan Schaefer and I've fleshed out repeatedly why the case on John Matrix isn't convincing. That's plenty of reason to oppose his lynch and push Alan Schaefer instead. | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
The risk is low because people like you will argue vehemently against it, and the reward is very high - it'd be halving the chances of scum getting lynched day 1, and also you'd have no tells in your play to compare to after the NK (for example, if I'm scum and I carry out NK, I not only have to assume someone else's identity, but I have to make sure I don't manage to sound anything like Harry Tasker pre-flip - it's a double task). All you do is you keep saying what's unlikely or crazy or unreliable, which is just WIFOMing because your arguments repeatedly boil down to "I wouldn't do this", against a clearly demonstrable strong plan as outlined by myself. Personally, I play to win. Ben Richards pointed it out - you yourself said scum have an interest in posting much less. The only difference is that he's not posted at all. You're seeing this as some massive logical leap, and there's no reason for it. Ben Richards - what do you make of Alex now? I find his arguments quite sincere - he seems annoyed at me, and he's willing to take the fight to me singlehandedly - which seems townie. What say you? | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
Harry Tasker thinks that John Matrix is scum. The premise is that John Matrix is purposely abstaining from posting and that's scummy in any game but more scummy in this game because he can hammer and night kill out of his responsibility. I agree with the argument but not with the presmise: I don't believe that John Matrix is purposely abstaining from posting. I believe that John Matrix is genuinely away. That is scummy in itself but not a lot and not enough to warrant a lynch considering Alan Schaefer. | ||
| ||
