EPT/replacement
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXVI
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
cakepie
985 Posts
/replacement | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
| ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
----- 1. I count N1 as a qualified success in that no one died. Sn0 discussed: + Show Spoiler + On January 30 2013 00:23 Sn0_Man wrote: What I would like to discuss right now is the night action. Remember that NOBODY DIED last night. The scenarios that I can think of for that are: A) Mafia shit the bed (pretty unlikely given that they have a coach), B) Both mafia members are/were inactive (Cakepie...  )C) Town has a JailKeeper/Doctor who is a clairvoyant (this one seems the most likely). In the case of C, however, there is an interesting distinction between having a JK and a Doc. If we have a Doc, they have a confirmed townie on their hands, although that isn't necessarily that helpful. If we have a JK, then they know that their target is EITHER mafia OR the mafia target last night. But they can't be certain which. That again is interesting. As warbaby also pointed out, there is a possibility of both JK and Doc being present, so you must not discount that. This takes me to the next point: ----- 2. Nobody has made any claim of being roleblocked. (All roleblocked targets are notified if they were blocked successfully). Hence, either: a. there is no jailkeeper, or b. someone is hiding something, and the j/k knows this. Note that (b) is reliable even if there are both doc and j/k in the game. A doc, if present in this game, cannot assume that the nokill is due to a successful save by them -- it may be due to success by a possible jk. Whereas the j/k at this point can conclude that their N1 target has chosen to not reveal that they got roleblocked. And in a newbie game, that is equivalent to a lie. However I don't think that this information is valuable enough to be worth a roleclaim so early in the game. Careful crumbing might be useful. (likewise with the doc's possible confirmed townie) ----- 3. Guys, remember that the bad guys have a rolecop as well. ----- 4. On January 30 2013 00:23 Sn0_Man wrote: [...] Cakepie is the only TRULY afk player over the course of all of Night 1... I replaced into the game with 2h remaining in N1 phase, in the middle of my workday. Be reasonable about it. In fact, you'll have to bear with a couple days of reduced participation from me as I was not expecting to have to replace in this early: On January 25 2013 03:09 cakepie wrote: I was postponing my signup since I'm still going to be fairly busy for the next week or so and the roster wasn't filling up, but if you guys are moving to a 9P setup then I'll just /replacement I have to teach a 90 min lecture in an hour from now and another one in two days, the prep work for that has been keeping me fairly busy. I'll try to devote as much of my free time as possible, but my schedule really only starts to open up toward the end of the week. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
| ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
I was willing to get behind warbaby's vote on glurio, but things moved too quickly. (Basis: voting patterns) In any case I am not willing to be on either the cora or warbaby wagons. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
I can get behind this. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
| ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
If you are indeed cop we can get more use out of you one more night if warbaby can protect you. And if you are not protected, then warbaby is lying = confirmed scum to be lynched D3, as opposed to the current uncertain situation. A chance that warbaby is not lying and we get another cop read, is better than no chance at all -- you WILL be killed if you are telling the truth, and unprotected tonight | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
I think you're all barking up the wrong trees based on perceived poor play, aggressive play, WIFOM, and some OMGUS. You switching off warbaby is guaranteed to be a nett positive outcome: either we catch warbaby lying if he fails to protect you tonight, or we get more use out of your cop pr. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On January 31 2013 09:55 Sn0_Man wrote: Or scum didn't kill night 1 and then somehow we see warbaby as this unlynchable doc when he is scum? How likely is that? It'd have to be either really ballsy scum, or completely absent and not playing scum. I don't think so. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
If we mislynch warbaby and then lose sn0, we'd be fighting an uphill battle with only 2 confirmed town in zare and cora | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
| ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
Alright guys, N2 could be interesting -- does mafia kill the confirmed town (Zare) or the cop claim (Sn0) ? Both should prepare a will for just before daypost. @Sn0 assuming you are telling the truth, do not waste N2 check in vain -- you might actually survive the night. You get to pick from four players, 50/50 chance of hitting scum, significantly better odds if you pick intelligently. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On January 31 2013 11:50 Acid~ wrote: Sn0_Man: [...] plus the breadcrumbing early in the day... [...] Where is this breadcrumb? I must have missed it. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On January 31 2013 11:58 zarepath wrote: If there is a JK, they NEED to role claim. It means that Sn0_Man was lying. Plus JK's N1 target who failed to report being blocked. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On January 31 2013 12:15 Acid~ wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 31 2013 11:55 cakepie wrote: Where is this breadcrumb? I must have missed it. First one, earliest: Second one: On January 31 2013 07:02 Sn0_Man wrote: I have a plenty strong town read on you, don't worry about your own image, nail the scum. If he turns out doctor its me and acid who screwed up. Voting acid when he clearly won't get lynched today is not helping town. All you do is make the scum votes more powerful by throwing yours away. Third one: On January 31 2013 07:54 Sn0_Man wrote: Warbaby can't properly scumhunt until we kill the last 2 lurkers, yet from day 1 he was self-proclaimed "scumhunting" and anybody who questioned him was clearly scum-loving. Can we PLEASE kill Warbaby? @Acid: are you seriously voting cora? o_o where did everything go so wrong... Cora is *not* scum. Oh, those, I'd noted them already, but I don't really count those as breadcrumbs -- I thought you meant Sn0 used steganography in N1 to indicate his intended action. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
| ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On January 31 2013 14:05 cDgCorazon wrote: The fact that you're trying to push the blame of the lynch on someone else is ridiculously scummy. Zare you are indirectly (and I'm using the loosest possible meaning of "indirectly") responsible for WB's death. Don't put it on me or anyone else. It's time you owned up for your actions. And you, the hammer vote on warbaby, are trying to blame Zare for the mislynch, because On January 31 2013 14:05 cDgCorazon wrote: but his case was so stupid and full of WIFOM that I basically had to make an association case between the two to vote for WB. Are you fucking serious? You are blaming someone else's bad case for your poor judgement? Go back to NMM33 and look at the lessons learned for town -- you'll see that making association cases before flips are a really really bad idea. (Chrom, Mocsta) Maybe you didn't pay attention because you were scum back then. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On January 31 2013 14:24 cDgCorazon wrote: I'm pretty sure XXXIII meant not making associated cases based on information from flips. + Show Spoiler + On December 31 2012 09:59 Hapahauli wrote: Nope! Haha, glad you learned something from our PM's. A couple of townies were trying to put together scumteams, and I think that's a pretty faulty way of playing. Your job is to lynch the scummiest player, and then make the associations. Association cases can catch really straighforward scum plans, but against any decent scumteam, such cases are worthless. For example, I just finished a game (Witchcraft Mafia) where two scum members spent most of the game double-bussing each other. On December 31 2012 10:01 Dandel Ion wrote: Lists and association cases are the evil we try to erase during the newbie games. They are the metascum of new players. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On January 31 2013 14:05 cDgCorazon wrote: For the rest of you, you should've called out the WIFOM in the case. Sn0 was the only one who managed to do so. You guys need to analyze these cases and make better decisions based on them. In case it isn't clear, I thought the cases behind both wagons were weak sauce built upon too much WIFOM and OMGUS: On January 31 2013 09:53 cakepie wrote: I think you're all barking up the wrong trees based on perceived poor play, aggressive play, WIFOM, and some OMGUS. | ||
| ||
