Traveling next two days; will be fully available Thursday onwards.
Doesn't look like this is starting soon so should be no issue!
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
cakepie
985 Posts
Traveling next two days; will be fully available Thursday onwards. Doesn't look like this is starting soon so should be no issue! | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
Alright, GLHF; let's jump straight into the discussion: ----- 1) Stance on Lurkers: i.e. Do you policy lynch? I am all for discouraging lurking, but policy lynching should never be a substitute for scum hunting. This game is about building well reasoned cases against suspected scum, pressing them, and the discussing and logically evaluating the cases on the strength of the evidence. When town is able to foster active, productive discussion, lurking is just another scummy behavior to be used to build up a case against suspicious players, and prolonged lurking in particular becomes more suspicious as the game continues. There is never a good reason for town to lurk. Only by discussing our reasoning and lines of thought can we hope to find and eradicate scum. Town must never clam up for fear of making mistakes -- 1. it is through discussion that we may hope to correct errors in reasoning; and 2. more importantly, in the event of a mislynch, it would leave trail for others to follow. Hence, a silent townie is a far more useless than a bad townie. I feel that it is futile to try to set predefined activity standards for what amounts to lurking; every game varies. Quality is also important. Insofar as fostering a healthy level of activity goes, this game is off to a good start; what we need to do now is to keep the discussion going. When we do get to the point when a few individual players are clearly standing out as not contributing productively (whether as a consequence of lurking or otherwise) we shall evaluate those cases at that time. Policy discussion is nice to start the ball rolling and get people posting, but now that a good chunk of us are here, we need to switch our focus to scum hunting soon. ----- On December 19 2012 07:50 Mocsta wrote: 2) How do you think scum would try to infiltrate us? You need to look up "infiltrate" in a dictionary. There is nothing to "infiltrate". The scum are already among us, posting openly in this public thread. Unless you have just made a slip? Hmmm? Scum may seek to sway opinion and/or cause confusion and influence the lynch. But everything here is open to the scrutiny of all. As town we initially outnumber scum; with responsible play and sound wits and logic, we can prevail. Remember: when everyone contributes, even a mislynch is informative for the survivors. ----- On seafood: Seafood is yummy. That it all. ----- On December 19 2012 08:29 threesr wrote: I don't have a problem with lurkers. On December 19 2012 08:42 threesr wrote: I like lurking because a lot of the time its hard to know what to say. Obviously it doesn't benefit the town but I don't think it hurts the town that much also. It benefits the scum because it makes it easier for them to blend in but good players should still be able to find the mafia even with lurkers. I disagree, and disapprove. If you are not thinking and scum hunting, then you are not playing responsibly as town. If you are afraid of being wrong, then I say: by sharing your thoughts, mistake can be corrected, and you leave a trail of reasoning that we can look back at even if you are killed or mislynched. Behavior that does not help town but benefits scum is a net loss for town, and we cannot condone it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=386816¤tpage=13#249 A complete ban elsewhere and a modkill in witchcraft does no bode well for you. Your posts so far have been short and without substance. I don't know what your arrangement with the mods is for this game, nor is it my place to question that. But if you don't step up your game soon, be prepared to be under heavy scrutiny. ----- On lying: In this thread it is scum that is trying to mislead town, especially while town outnumbers scum. While there are some cases where town players, and blue roles in particular, may have reason to lie in some sort of gambit against scum, there is no place for that in this newbie game, none of us are at that level yet. When a townie lies, there is a far greater chance that it will sow confusion amongst us, and when discovered, it will distract from hunting actual scum. Bottom line: it is not acceptable for town to lie in this game, it will hurt us more than it helps us. ----- That's where I stand on policy issues and early game fluff. Going to get brunch and go about my day for now, be back in a bit. | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 19 2012 11:52 cakepie wrote: GMT-8 here EBWOP: GMT+8. I need to stop forgetting that I've just crossed the Pacific Ocean. | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
----- @Spaghetticus: this is my first game. If my count is right, this is the first time for 7 of us, and 4 others have just one game under their belt (not counting threesr who has played elsewhere before). Quite the newbie game! ----- On December 19 2012 17:58 Mocsta wrote: Show nested quote + On December 19 2012 17:42 OmniEulogy wrote: [snip] A player who doesn't want to add a lot to conversations or help scumhunt doesn't come across as being town to me, but I'm inexperienced so does anybody else have thoughts on the matter? Personally I'd love to know why he wants to lurk If i haphazard a guess i would say he is concerned about being outwitted. I.e. Mafia or even town intentionally misconstruing his comments As I have already stated, my belief is that such fear is unfounded, counterproductive, and not a valid reason for a townie to lurk. By posting, even if a player is misunderstood and killed for it, a trail will remain for others to follow. This is crucial in this game that is built about asymmetry of information. I can understand if players with blue roles are inclined curtail their activity so as not to stand out too much and present an obvious target for scum kp. However, that is not a free pass to completely lurk either. ----- On December 19 2012 17:16 Aquanim wrote: A big thing which has jumped out at me so far is cakepie's first post. Everyone else replied to those questions pretty briefly, cakepie dumped a wall of text. Well, sorry for wanting to answer thoroughly and spell things out clearly. =( | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
----- Aquanim: put some effort to find suspicious players, albeit evidence is too scant at this early point to build strong cases. Regardless, boldly throws down the first vote to get things rolling. I cannot fault the choice of voting cDgCorazon as a pressure vote; an excellent choice. I would hope to see more fleshed out cases as this day phase continues, and as the rest of the progresses. ----- cDgCorazon: you need to justify your stance on why lurkers should be handled on a "case to case basis" as this is a point of disagreement between you and several other players, myself included. On December 19 2012 10:24 cDgCorazon wrote: I think it should be handled on a case to case basis when it comes to lurking. Sometimes it helps when someone just sits back and tries to figure things out instead of discussing every point. Q1. How much time should someone be allowed in order to "sit back and figure things out?" A day phase is 48 hours long. What do you think is a reasonable expectation in terms of productive contribution from each player within that time frame? Is two to three substantial posts too much to ask? Q2. threesr openly condones lurking, and claims a lurking playstyle (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17239117). He was banned elsewhere, and modkilled in his last game here on TL. How do you propose we approach this situation, from your standpoint of handling on a "case to case basis" ? Where would you draw the line for unacceptable behavior, if his effort does not improve? My focus now is on forcing activity from lurkers and broadening the search for scum suspects, but if his play does not improve in the rest of the day, and questions are not answered satisfactorily, I would be happy to jump on the cDgCorazon wagon when we get to the phase of narrowing down the list. For now, ##FOS: cDgCorazon ----- Chromatically: pressed threesr and corazon earlier in the day, and brief discussion with mocsta, but has probably gone to sleep since, assuming NA timezones. Looking forward to more when he wakes up in a few hours from now. ----- FatChunk: not much besides a promise to be fearless. Needs to step it up. Q:Now that there are fairly substantial filters for several players and a conspicuous lack thereof for others, who do you think is suspicious, and why? You also need to address the question: On December 19 2012 17:25 Mocsta wrote: Please be fearless and share your thoughts on what you think promotes an environment for Mafia to thrive? ----- Kickstart: we agree that hunting scummy scum takes precedence over lurkers. Fingered to threesr’s defense of lurking, although that was pretty obvious, and comes after several others already pointed it out. Play so far seems less active than in previous games. Would like to see more activity and contribution in the remainder of the day phase. Show us the experience from your three games. Q1: re: threesr, he has openly declared that his playstyle was lurky, tried to defend it, and, well, did it. You said that: On December 19 2012 17:05 Kickstart wrote: I think scum would be hesitant to say something like that because allowing for people to just lurk creates a very bad town atmosphere, so I don't think scum would come in and so "o hey lurking is fine by me". What do you think of the possibility that threesr has adopted this meta in order to benefit himself when he rolls (eventually) scum? Q2: what do you think of the shz’s case on mocsta? What is your current read on mocsta? Does it look like scum with useless questions and creating a false impression of activity? Or an earnest townie? Q3: Apart from cDgCorazon, mocsta and threesr, has anything else caught your attention by now? ----- Mocsta: prolific, but does come across as a little over-eager. A bit too excited about first game? The FOS on sylencia was definitely too hasty. Shz’s case on mocsta so far does not look like it holds much water right now. Nonetheless, the time for banter about policy is past; it is time to put forward cases. Q: You accused shz of sheeping. What do you think after studying his filter? Are there the beginnings of a case that can be built upon? Whatever you find unsatisfactory about his play, I would like to see you question him and push him to take a position on someone or something. ----- OmniEulogy: NA time, was active up till 4 am ET, before cases started being made. Will assume sleeping, awaiting further contributions once awake. In particular, please comment on the cases so far, and see if you can build a case against someone. ----- OrangeRemi: Nothing apart from useless, "unsure" answers on mocsta’s initial questions, deferring to earlier answers and pleading inexperience -- we are all new here, but that is no excuse for not even putting some thought into simple questions. Besides that, only noted timezone and first game. This is despite three posts spanning over 4+ hours during which others were active. On December 19 2012 09:08 Orangeremi wrote: Just for the record, my timezone is GMT-7, but my waking hours are rather unorthodox. Conveniently enough, seeing as a few of us are aussies :D If waking hours are "unorthodox" in a way that is "convenient" for the aussies, we could have expected much more substance by now. Q: Pick and make a case against someone. Pressure voting. ##Vote: OrangeRemi ----- shz: Tried to provide a case on mocsta as an alternative to cDgCorazon. However, the fast town read was first pointed out by spaghetticus, and OmniEulogy was the one who first pointed to the questions about scum startegy. Not sure the case is viable at this point, but I agree that Mocsta seems a bit too eager. Q: Evaluate my play. Does it look town, or does it look scum? Why? ----- Spaghetticus: solid so far, no complaints. Would like to see you start getting on one of the cases or form one of your own. ----- Sylencia: Declared busy, has been mostly absent. Would hope to see at least some participation in the lynch discussion. Expecting to be much more active after your work dinner party when you are "free from any obligations whatsoever." ----- threesr: Has posted nothing but useless one- and two- liners. It is coming up to daytime EST, time to step up your play or else. As I and others have already mentioned, lurking is not acceptable here. In the absence of scummier targets, I will not hesitate to lynch you. ##FOS: threesr | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
----- On December 19 2012 21:12 Aquanim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 19 2012 21:08 cakepie wrote: @Spaghetticus: this is my first game. If my count is right, this is the first time for 7 of us, and 4 others have just one game under their belt (not counting threesr who has played elsewhere before). Quite the newbie game! I think your count's a little off: afaik Kickstart has three games, Sylencia, Chromatic, Spaghetticus and myself have one each. We actually agree, then: 7 first-timers, 4 with one game, and threesr and kickstart, a total of 13. ----- FatChunk has addressed the question posed by mocsta and put forward a case against threesr. keep the good stuff coming. | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
cDgCorazon (2): Aquanim, Chromatically threesr (2): FatChunk, Mocsta Mocsta(1): shz, OrangeRemi(1): cakepie shz (0): FatChunk(1): threesr not voting (4): cDgCorazon, Kickstart, OmniEulogy, OrangeRemi | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 20 2012 00:05 Chromatically wrote: Comments on Corazon? On December 20 2012 00:32 Chromatically wrote: On Corazon, I'm focusing more on his defensiveness and excuse-making as reasons for why he is scum. Do you agree that the things I have highlighted in his posts are more likely coming from mafia? My read of his scant content is just slightly scummy. The lack of contribution is a bigger concern for now, and so I think two pressure votes plus the credible threat of more should hopefully cause a reaction one way or the other. I am waiting to see how he will address my questions to him. (may need to update questions though.) ----- So, we’ve got some shit starting to hit the fan. Mocsta with a bunch of posts, voting shz. Threesr the self-proclaimed lurker stops lurking and FoS Mocsta, triggering a voteswitch by Mocsta that does not look completely well-reasoned, even somewhat omgus. Then threesr himself switches to FatChunk before clamming up again. On December 20 2012 00:25 threesr wrote: ##FOS: Mocsta ... Then he keeps spamming the thread with questions, but not actually taking a stance on anything himself. Seems like he is trying to become the "town moderator" and by asking a million questions in order to appear pro-town without providing any substance. ... This is something I have noted myself. Looking at Mocsta’s filter, for all the prolific output and various questions posed -- hardly any of the questions apply pressure on anyone, only fluff about policy, scum strategy, what environment allows Mafia to thrive, how to stimulate discussion, etc, rather than scumhunting questions. Now, this is not to say that Mocsta has not openly presented (or tried to) his reasoning for suspecting people, and responded to questions and accusations. But his two votes were in response to others suspecting him, and there is no original scumhunting to be seen. Things seem to start going really haywire with the deathwish post: On December 20 2012 00:22 Mocsta wrote: Im dead regardless. End of Night 1, I suspect I will be shot. Hopefully we have a medic that likes me *sigh* It is way too early in the game for this nonsense. It is not only poor form to appeal to blues -- even if Mocsta earnestly believes that his play has singled him out as target for scum, I would consider it overrating his own contributions. Then, in response to the FoS from threesr: Show nested quote + On December 20 2012 01:19 Mocsta wrote: On December 20 2012 00:25 threesr wrote: ##FOS: Mocsta He determines that Chromatically is a good town read after one post that he reads. Then he keeps spamming the thread with questions, but not actually taking a stance on anything himself. Seems like he is trying to become the "town moderator" and by asking a million questions in order to appear pro-town without providing any substance. I don't like that hes all over the place. First he says "Personally, I do not think Threesr is Mafia." then "I agree if no scummier target, lets lynch him." ##Unvote Thanks for the behaviour slip Threesr. You have made this too easy. SCUM:Threesr If we look @ the post above, his point is made relatively clearly. However, note, all his quotes are taken completely out of contex; let us put events back into perspective. (1) Threesr: He determines that Chromatically is a good town read after one post that he reads. Actual: On December 19 2012 11:06 Mocsta wrote: @Chromatically (1) So far you are my best town read. (Based on your other comments in thread) I concede "Best town read" is open to interpretation as "good town read". It is clear I expressed my decision based off more than 1 post, but here Threesr attempts direct manipulation of fact. Why? Threesr is attempting to condemn with no evidence. The addition of "one post" is a nice subtle reminder of his hidden agenda - SCUM BEHAVIOUR. (2) Threesr: "Asking a million questions in order to appear pro-town without providing any substance" Actual: Townies know their innocence, and are seeking the scum hunt. Threesr, for your benefit in future games (if you dont get modkilled again..) only scum think about trying to appear pro-town. Your interpretation of my behaviour correlates to your role in this game SCUM and in my opinion is a clear slip and to add further insult to injury, is an extremely poor attempt [again] @ fact manipulation. (3) Threesr: First he says "Personally, I do not think Threesr is Mafia." then "I agree if no scummier target, lets lynch him Actual: On December 19 2012 23:57 Mocsta wrote: This is going against the trend, but my priority is to lynch mafia. Personally, I do not think Threesr is Mafia. The conclusion is: I currently view Threesr as a future uncertainty to deal with (i.e. interests may or may not be vested in Town, but I do not think is mafia). [Having just now viewed Cakepie post Has posted nothing but useless one- and two- liners. It is coming up to daytime EST, time to step up your play or else. As I and others have already mentioned, lurking is not acceptable here. In the absence of scummier targets, I will not hesitate to lynch you. I agree if no scummier target, lets lynch him. However, i implore that with the remaining ~30hrs we do our best to find a candidate with more certainty. My post is quite clear cut. I advocate Threesr as a threat, but without enough post history, mafia is difficult to ascertain. The stance is also obvious, I think Threesr is a threat to town, but not a top priority. [Based on others also lurking] (Note: I even "implore" town to find another candiate for Day 1) Threesr knows Town will be coming after him, perhaps Day 2 or Day 3, so is trying to negate the threat by targeting me Unfortunately, with all the pressure to mount a case founded upon quicksand, he has had to resort to quote misrepresentation to convey himself. This equates to lying. And is grounds for a vote & lynch come Day 1. ##:Threesr Counter-arguments (1) and (3) are fine at refuting the accusations from threesr, but I am not completely convinced by (2) as I do indeed find a lack of substance in the questions posed by Mocsta. Mocsta seems to swiftly conclude that threesr is seeking to misrepresent what he had said, and quickly switches his vote on the basis of lynching liars. I offer an alternative explanation: the weak aspects of the case put forward by threesr could be merely lazy scumhunt by someone who has been accustomed to lurking and not following closely, but has been forced to participate under pain of lynch. (This is by no means defending threesr or offering an excuse for his behavior.) Mocsta You’re definitely getting too excited with the flurry of posting and you need to cool your head. Try to consolidate your posts more, it also gives you time to reflect and digest things. I hope you take another fresh look at things when you wake up in the morning. Q: Consider: if threesr is lazy "scumhunting" because he simply doesn’t know any better -- how would that measure against your case against shz for sheeping, and poor vote justification i.e. lack of critical analysis before voting based on "questions raised by others"? especially @ Aquanim, Chromatically, Kickstart, Spaghetticus, shz Q: what do you think of mocsta’s flurry of posts and vote switch? Is he merely overly excited, or could there be merit in the accusation that his incessant questions were noise without substance? ----- On December 20 2012 00:09 Spaghetticus wrote: I am someone with a natural inclination to lurk. So far I'm on my 6th page of notes, and once I have more than a 30% read on anyone as scum I'll make a case. Until then I just trawl through the data and try to keep others on track. I'm reluctant to play aggressively until I have a foot to stand on. I think you’ll have plenty to work with by the time you wake up On December 20 2012 00:09 Spaghetticus wrote: Personally I would like people to focus their efforts away from Mocsta and Cakepie, and focus almost exclusively on the lurkers. If they do happen to be scum then at this rate they will leave a trail and we will nail them day two. This, very, very much. Keep in mind: if I were to be mislynched or killed by scum, what could you infer from the trail that I am leaving? What about Mocsta? Or anyone else for that matter? | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
Elaborate on your case against FatChunk. On December 20 2012 04:04 threesr wrote: Show nested quote + On December 20 2012 03:55 cakepie wrote:I offer an alternative explanation: the weak aspects of the case put forward by threesr could be merely lazy scumhunt by someone who has been accustomed to lurking and not following closely, but has been forced to participate under pain of lynch. (This is by no means defending threesr or offering an excuse for his behavior.) Sounds about right. Not a valid excuse. Lazy is worse than just plain bad. ----- On December 20 2012 02:57 shz wrote: I don't agree with your vote for Orangeremi at the moment though. Yes, he did not contribute until now, but I would give him some more hours before lynching him for that. It is early yet. The vote stands as a reminder so that OrangeRemi is not forgotten while we carry on at length about other players. Yes, there are several more hours, let’s wait a bit and see what he/she does with that time. Other key suspects have votes on them already, my FoS stands to back those up as well. As we draw closer to the lynch, there will be a process of consolidation. But I shall leave this pressure vote where it is for now, rather than switch frivolously, and will see where things stand in a few hours. On December 20 2012 02:57 shz wrote: I don't have an opinion on FatChunk yet, as he did not contribute enough. If we don't find a conses by the lynch-deadline, we should lynch one of the lesser active players, for sure. Really? As opposed to Mocsta, who you have your vote on? If you had to lynch for inactivity and/or lack of serious contribution, how would you order the 3-4 candidates? ----- It is past 3 am, going to bed now. I like that some NA folks are starting to chip in more now that it is day over there, and look forward to longer filters to analyze when I get back. | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
It has taken a large chunk of the evening for me to catch up with all the posts since I was last in here, taking notes, etc. It is 0100 KST as I start drafting this post (excludes newer posts from consideration), and I have now pretty much made up my mind for D1. It is late and I need to get an early start to tomorrow as well, so forgive me for not addressing the status of every player (compared to my previous posts). But the important bits are definitely here. ----- As I did my catch-up reading I grew increasingly suspicious at the lack of pressure being applied from Spaghetticus. His response to my questioning is that he wanted to wait until he had a >30% scummy read on someone, but that is followed by some 15 or so posts in which little real pressure is applied on anyone. He tries to coax threesr and corazon to not OMGUS and to pick and stick to a read. Then presses OmniEulogy to diversify his suspects list, and asks OrangeRemi and Sylencia to step things up without any questioning of substance. I refuse to believe that Spaghetticus can have nothing of worth to bring to the table in that 8-hour duration. Of course, following that is the defence of Corazon as the votes got stacked up to a dangerous number of 6+fos. Aquanim builds a thorough and well-considered case, and that I agree with all of it. One thing I can add is that I am watching how others react to my choice of playstyle, and compared to everyone else who generally addresses my (early) play only in passing, or only addresses me directly in response to my questions, Spaghetticus comes across as conspicuously eager to seem chummy with me (but also deliberately cautiously so, under the caveat that I am leaving a trail if he later deems a need to consider if I am scummy or not.) This is anomalous and I do not like the vibe that it gives me, considering the various possible motives for such behavior. The only thing he has going for him is the lack of OMGUS, but he jolly well can't do that if he preached against it earlier! Consequently, he still has not voted yet, and it is now getting late in D1. ##Unvote ##Vote: Spaghetticus On December 20 2012 23:54 Chromatically wrote: If y'all won't go for FatChunk, though, I'm willing to go for Spag. Let's do this thing for reals. The only votes left on Corazon are threesr, shz, Sylencia. Two of those I will not take too seriously, and shz voted there as an overnight placeholder pending later consideration. @Spaghetticus out with your reads, if you are town and we are all terribly mistaken. It may not save you, but it will help the common town wincon when you get mislynched. There is no time to wait for >30% scummy or whatever now. ----- Reminder: these still stand from my earlier post. ##FOS: threesr ##FOS: cDgCorazon threesr has posted more, albeit abrasive, lazy, and chaotic. but it is marginally better than before. I can understand his play from a lazy angle, but I still do not approve of it. willing to see if there is a further effort at improvement. My FoS on cDgCorazon has strengthened at the attack on Aquanim's case in lieu of defending Spaghetticus. (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17302166) He has also failed to address my questions adequately. Q1 was ignored, and his answer to Q2 (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17295870) is hardly informative as by the time he posted that response, threesr had posted quite a bit as well as voted several times. Furthermore it is notable that the only votes left on threesr as I write this are corazon and fatchunk, both of whom picked him for being an easy target early on. (Don't forget that fatchunk is also under suspicion as well. I don't FoS him yet, but he has stayed firmly in the scummier half of my semi-ordered players list.) ----- Additionally, ##FOS: OrangeRemi although I unvoted. I can understand some reasons/motivation why you might be cautious, and am willing to wait to see what you can bring to the table N1/D2. But do not test my patience too much. Also, as chromatically already explained, no lynch leaves us with no info and down at least one from N1 scum kp -- please do not no lynch. ##FOS: Kickstart the lack of activity from him has gotten to the point of really uncharacteristic compared to his earlier games. Other than spaghetticus, only he has yet to vote. Give us something to work with soon, otherwise be prepared for further scrutiny. And please do not get modkilled -- if you are town, we'd like to see you put your past experience to work. ----- It is late now and I need to be out and about early tomorrow. Depending on whether I manage to drag myself out of bed, I may or may not be able to pop in around 2h before lynch (before I need to head out). Regardless, with the information at hand now, we should be on track for a lynch of Spaghetticus or cDgCorazon, with FatChunk earmarked for scrutiny next. I am satisfied with how things stand, at 6 hours to go. If this is headed for a mislynch, I trust spaghetticus will keep his head on, do the right thing and give us as much to work with as possible. (side note: good to see a less frenetic mocsta. keep it up.) | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
@Spag give us something to work with. If you have been keeping close track and taking notes, then you should have some reads to share by working off those notes, this should take less time than a defense and should come first (followed by the defense). What you've given earlier on OmniEulogy is not quite up to snuff. It appears a sufficient number of people might just be present if there is a need to swing the vote elsewhere. There is a little time yet, use it well. For my part I need to head out now, and will not be able to follow things very closely until later. Also, after sleeping on it, I have decided that my substantial night post will be made later in N1 than I originally planned -- though I still intend to pop in at that time to catch up. | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
GG spag. Thank you for your final thoughts, it will give us something to chew on this night. The hunt continues! Continued activity would be nice, but let us also exercise caution lest we give scum too much that will aid them in deciding their night actions. Those who have been relatively inactive should start joining in more, but those who have already had a lot to say may want to save some for later in the night, at least until just before the dawn of day. Well, time to pore over notes and voting patterns! To make up for my absence earlier yesterday I will stick around for an hour or two now and take brief questions on the side while I work on my analysis. | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 21 2012 11:47 cDgCorazon wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 21 2012 07:39 cDgCorazon wrote: Show nested quote + On December 19 2012 23:21 cakepie wrote: cDgCorazon: you need to justify your stance on why lurkers should be handled on a "case to case basis" as this is a point of disagreement between you and several other players, myself included. Q1. How much time should someone be allowed in order to "sit back and figure things out?" A day phase is 48 hours long. What do you think is a reasonable expectation in terms of productive contribution from each player within that time frame? Is two to three substantial posts too much to ask? Q2. threesr openly condones lurking, and claims a lurking playstyle (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17239117). He was banned elsewhere, and modkilled in his last game here on TL. How do you propose we approach this situation, from your standpoint of handling on a "case to case basis" ? Where would you draw the line for unacceptable behavior, if his effort does not improve? I do apologize for not answering your questions, which I will do so now in the little time I have before going to work. In terms of figuring things out, I would say between 24-36 hours should be allowed for someone at the beginning of the first day phase. That way, others can put some pressure on and make other arguments, and instead of focusing on the case of one person, they can sit back and see things from a wider perspective to make their reads. However, I do feel that they should come forward with at least their reads on Day 1, even if they do not vote for anyone. Contributing all at once with a great amount of information all at one place is a lot more convenient for all of us than make several reads as the day goes on. We know more information than we did 24 hours ago, and everyone has posted enough to get off the "lurker label", someone making a smart evaluation here would most certainly more than make up for 24 hours of not posting much detail. Unacceptable behavior would be coming to conclusions too fast, as in threesr's case. He likes to lurk, and besides a few posts here and there, and his self-defense from my attacks, he has mostly been in the shadows. He has openly accused multiple people of being scum, which signals something is not right. Why would you pursue multiple cases within a few hours when the focus is on one or two people. To figure that out, we must ask ourselves two questions: What would be a possible Mafia lynching policy? The mafia knows who the other mafia are, so they should be looking to defend fellow mafia that are under attack. On offensive lynching policy, they should all look to communicate with each other to be on the same page voting wise, and as long as a member of the mafia does not get lynched, they are content to see anyone and everyone get lynched, because it would be the town just killing themselves off and playing the game for them. Hypothetically, the mafia could not kill anyone and still win the game if the town manages to argue themselves to death. Of course, this is unlikely. What would be a possible SK lynching policy, assuming that we have an SK? The SK policy is similar to the mafia's lynching policy, except the only one they have to defend is themselves. They are ok with anyone and everyone getting lynched, as long as it is not them. Along with the Mafia, they could hypothetically win without killing anyone, as long as the town lynches each other, and he never get targeted. If you would like more detail, do not be afraid to ask. I will gladly be able to help you after work. Was this a good enough answer for you? Your answers provide a little more insight into how you would judge players, and are welcomed. I remain concerned about the lateness of the answer and the possible benefit of the clarity of hindsight, especially now that Day 1 is done. However, I will listen to you with a little more good faith on account of Spag's "will" post. As a follow up, I would like you to look away from threesr for a moment and consider those players who have had more to say in D1, especially early contributors such as Aquanim, Chromatically, Mocsta and myself, as well as shz and fatchunk with their early votes. Not all 3-4 scum are likely to sit relatively idle for 24-36 hours. With that in mind, how do you assess the players I have mentioned above? (please try to minimize the omgus) | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:34 cDgCorazon wrote: I hate to ask, but what is OMGUS? It feels like it is when you vote someone because they voted for you. Close to that. It's "omg you suck", an emotional retaliation/counter-accusation that lacking solid reasoning, and founded on little beyond "you voted me, and that reads bad/scummy to me". | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 21 2012 13:22 Mocsta wrote: @Cakepie I refer you to. Show nested quote + On December 21 2012 11:42 cakepie wrote: The hunt continues! Continued activity would be nice, but let us also exercise caution lest we give scum too much that will aid them in deciding their night actions. Those who have been relatively inactive should start joining in more, but those who have already had a lot to say may want to save some for later in the night, at least until just before the dawn of day. Mod has confirmed night actions can be placed at the last second. If your intent was to post your commentary after the "lockdown" period to avoid putting a target on your head; well.. this is now null and void. No, I was aware that there would not be a lockdown in any case, so that is absolutely not the intent. I do not seek to overly influence the night actions of blue roles, if any. All that we know for sure is Spaghetticus' town flip; and the posting and voting behavior of day one is open for analysis. Any attempts to direct blue roles on what to do are WIFOM, since the one giving advice may be an earnest townie, or may be a god scum trying to lead town astray. In the end, it boils down to the same thing: blues now need to weigh what they see and come to their own decision of what to do. The rest of town may discuss a little, but ultimately must hope that any blues we have are up to the additional responsibility that their role confers. I have little new advice for blue roles; my most important thoughts toward end of D1 are there to be read and considered with an analytical mind. I may add a little more later perhaps, based on what happens over the next 10-12 hours. But mostly I do not want to add more WIFOM burden at this point. The more crucial goal is to thwart scum. Apart from their obvious goal of killing off townies, they will also maximize their utility by sowing chaos to confuse blues and VTs alike. They must decide if they want to hunt blues before they become too useful, or off the town players that are most dangerous to them. As for the second variety, how should they pick? By activity, by town cred, by amount of good intuition shown, or by amount of correct scumreads? Let scum ponder that on their own, try not to feed them any bones. We should of course all be looking closely at the D1 posting and voting patterns, but there is no need for us to help scum unravel that right now. Save it for the rise of the sun, when there is little time left for that to influence scum's decision of who to kill, but with plenty of daytime ahead to compare, study, and discuss our analyses. @Mocsta: Buy it or no, the above is my philosophy on night play and I am sticking to it. @Corazon: your effort and thought shows, even if it is only in response to my questions. Peace now, and form your analysis of D1; have it ready at start of D2, where we will hope for you to show more initiative rather than to be prodded into action. | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 21 2012 14:47 cakepie wrote: or may be a god scum trying to lead town astray. ebwop: *good scum ... but perhaps indeed godly good if they do so well at it =) Going out now. Thanks corazon and mocsta for the light discussion. See y'all again in around 12 hours. | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
Not sure what possessed me to think I could stay up late after dinner, let alone still function well at mafia. Time to try and make up for that. | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
----- It is my belief that scum will likely keep a nice spread of playstyle between themselves, I don't think they can imagine getting by with everyone being middle-of-the-road, 50-50 type players. There will be someone trying to seem active, as well as a possible designated lurker/chaos-causing player set up in case a bus is needed. ----- There is scum among the group Aqua, Chrom, fatchunk, shz, (and possibly Mocsta) Not everyone jumping in the early discussion and trying to move things along is town, it is expected that at least one scum should be in that group trying to appear town and gain credibility. It is instructive to look at the first 4-7 votes, before things started getting messy with threesr and corazon. Note that corazon & threesr were really easy targets to be pushed as lynch candidates, given the state of their play from early- to mid- D1. This could cast suspicion on Aquanim and chromatically (early corazon voters) and fatchunk (taking threesr as an easy way out early) Shz did not justify/elaborate very well on Mocsta with the second vote either, even frivolously putting it forth as an alternative for an alternative's sake. Although I must say I did share some of the suspicions he (and threesr) had about Mocsta's playstyle and intent, i.e. high quantity but a bit short on substance at times. Mocsta's votes on shz is a bit omgus, and the vote on threesr could have been taking the easy road to look like he was contributing. This adds to the suspicions on him that arise from his playstyle -- although it must be said that at least that has improved since I commented about it in (post#17292684) Contrast with my vote on OrangeRemi which is a stated pressure vote to force activity, and which I stuck to for a good while, to patiently gauge a longer-term reaction from him. (More on that later, hopefully) | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
Worth a good long look. ----- OmniEulogy: Seems more suspicious to me in hindsight, with the benefit of voting analysis. First votes corazon, although long after the initial accusations there, and conveniently after corazon's possible "scumslip", although crafted to be primarly on the "slip" rather than other aspects of his play. Could be carefully spaced to be later than Aquanim. Particularly strange that: On December 20 2012 19:47 OmniEulogy wrote: Till then Corazon is still my #1 read. without unvoting... what?! Other vote is the fairly quick follow-up to Aquanim's sudden push on Spag. Like Aquanim, not much else to work with in terms of other players. Very scary to consider the possibility of him working in concert with Aquanim as the scumteam. ----- OrangeRemi: I will be hoping for a lot more in D2. Held up patiently against my pressure vote in D1, choosing not to jump into anything in haste at all. Inspecting his filter in relation to the whole thread will reveal that he is present and paying attention, watching and waiting, and hopefully analyzing. The no lynch was a terrible idea, but I can understand a newbie view of preferring to avoid a mislynch. But now with all the information from D1 and the voting patterns, there should be enough for him to start forming some thoughts and opinions, if not full cases. I don't think it is possible to wait for any more certainty. Will look to judge on if he delivers, if he has indeed been watching and thinking. | ||
cakepie
985 Posts
Sylencia: got a free pass D1 for being away, but had better start contributing. Looking okay so far in N1. ----- On Corazon: Reanalysis of his defense of Spaghetticus, as well as they way he has conducted himself since, lifts a lot of the suspicion cast on him based on his earlier play, which can be explained as coming from an uncertain newbie. As for the "slip", a simple mistake could be just that -- a simple mistake. I am willing to evaluate him afresh based on how he steps up his play henceforth. | ||
| ||
ESL Pro Tour
Spring 2024 - Europe Round 4
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney 45118 Dota 2Calm 4594 GuemChi 950 Shuttle 619 Stork 485 ggaemo 442 Hyuk 397 Mini 326 Light 271 Soulkey 253 [ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games singsing2293 hiko1050 DeMusliM758 crisheroes572 Hui .557 B2W.Neo540 Pyrionflax306 QueenE95 NuckleDu75 Kaelaris44 Crank 36 Liquid`VortiX21 Organizations
StarCraft 2 • LUISG 5 StarCraft: Brood War• Kozan • LaughNgamez Trovo • Poblha • Migwel • aXEnki • intothetv • Gussbus • Laughngamez YouTube • IndyKCrew Dota 2 League of Legends |
Big Brain Bouts
ESL Pro Tour
Online Event
ESL Pro Tour
OSC
OSC
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
TerrOr vs Sziky
Nyoken vs Zhanhum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
[ Show More ] ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Bonyth vs StRyKeR
DragOn vs MiStrZZZ
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
PassionCraft
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
|
|