|
On March 31 2013 12:39 RyuSuzaku wrote:
I'm gonna call out RoL on the spamming = illegitimate strategy bullshit because his go-to strategy as scum is to lurk and not post until absolutely necessary to avoid a modkill.
If anything, THAT is an illegitimate strategy, given that you purposely only post to avoid a modkill. I myself would strongly consider replacing or modkilling you for that type of strategy in one of my games, because my rules explicitly state that trying to skirt an inactivity modkill will result in one.
Clearly the host this game did not have a problem with spam, otherwise people would have been warned for it. (and if they were, I am not aware of it). Calling it an illegitimate strategy is honestly self-deceptive, almost like a cop-out for not playing well.
You knew me at a different time. I used to post a lot and play a lot regardless of alignment. This is what I absolutely hated and why I stopped playing. I was busy with school/work/gf and didn't have the time to contribute as much as I used to be able to. I'd look at the thread and there would be 50 pages for me to read and I straight up didn't have time.
It had nothing to do with me being scum but somehow everyone assumed it did. I did it as town too and kept getting lynched D3 and had my ass rode until I died for like 5 games straight. I couldn't put in the time because of how much mafia games have changed over the years. That's why I stopped playing and that's why I played this game on a smurf. I didn't feel like getting typed into playing in a specific way based on literally no reasoning. My life and responsibilities have changed since I started playing mafia and so has the current meta of the game itself. With both attributes changing drastically I was unable to play in the same way I used to. It has nothing to do with me flipping scum. Take a look at Insane Mafia, or some of my other games as scum from years ago. I had no issue posting a lot and staying active with the thread. It's just that times have changed.
|
On March 31 2013 12:37 Blazinghand wrote:
I remember there was once an 80-person game (that I was only in briefly before it fell apart) and there were several roles called "lurker vigis" which could fire a bullet to shoot a lurker. It worked pretty poorly, but it was a fine idea.
I don't think posting restrictions are the best of ideas, just because it changes the way the game works. That being said, I think the real way to stop spam is the same as the real way to stop lurking: consider it a scumtell and lynch people who do it. Obviously it's not possible for a single person to enforce this, but if enough people believe it, it will become true. And FWIW a certain level of spam probably IS a scumtell. It is anti-town to get into long arguments with everyone for no reason and derail all the useful lynches. Calling players out for this and threatening to lynch them will 1) discourage scum from doing it and 2) discourage town from doing it which could be good.
That is very difficult, as some players just have a natural tendency to post often. E.g. marv posted many one liners as town as FiveTouch if I recall. I didn't read the game that closely but I assume he played a large part in the rompstomp. Something like posting often ... isn't objectively policy enforceable. You would need to force many players to change up their playstyle.
I might try to make an invite normal mini with more consolidate-y post type players to see how that goes first. That way, people can still play normally within regular mafia rules, and we can see the type of gameplay that results.
|
On March 31 2013 12:44 ThePeashooter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2013 12:39 RyuSuzaku wrote:
I'm gonna call out RoL on the spamming = illegitimate strategy bullshit because his go-to strategy as scum is to lurk and not post until absolutely necessary to avoid a modkill.
If anything, THAT is an illegitimate strategy, given that you purposely only post to avoid a modkill. I myself would strongly consider replacing or modkilling you for that type of strategy in one of my games, because my rules explicitly state that trying to skirt an inactivity modkill will result in one.
Clearly the host this game did not have a problem with spam, otherwise people would have been warned for it. (and if they were, I am not aware of it). Calling it an illegitimate strategy is honestly self-deceptive, almost like a cop-out for not playing well. You knew me at a different time. I used to post a lot and play a lot regardless of alignment. This is what I absolutely hated and why I stopped playing. I was busy with school/work/gf and didn't have the time to contribute as much as I used to be able to. I'd look at the thread and there would be 50 pages for me to read and I straight up didn't have time. It had nothing to do with me being scum but somehow everyone assumed it did. I did it as town too and kept getting lynched D3 and had my ass rode until I died for like 5 games straight. I couldn't put in the time because of how much mafia games have changed over the years. That's why I stopped playing and that's why I played this game on a smurf. I didn't feel like getting typed into playing in a specific way based on literally no reasoning. My life and responsibilities have changed since I started playing mafia and so has the current meta of the game itself. With both attributes changing drastically I was unable to play in the same way I used to. It has nothing to do with me flipping scum. Take a look at Insane Mafia, or some of my other games as scum from years ago. I had no issue posting a lot and staying active with the thread. It's just that times have changed.
fair enough, but it's one thing to frown upon spamming and another thing completely to classify it as "illegitimate".
Obviously no town likes an overly spammy game, just as no town will like an overly inactive game. That's why there's a policy such as lynch all lurkers. If there's a style of play that you don't like or you think is detrimental to town, the onus is on you to push an idea or policy that will limit that type of play.
Taking your approach is not going to improve your play IMO.
|
I think since it is actively discouraging other players from playing for a reason not specifically within the game then it is illegitimate. I see purposely making the game unreadable, or inadvertently making the game unreadable due to constant posting for no reason as a detriment to the game as a whole regardless of alignment.
|
On March 31 2013 12:38 ThePeashooter wrote:
Cosmic, did you ever know the whole scum team? Like could LayAbout tell you who his whole scum team was?
The mason link was severed after his conversion. I didn't expect him to be converted so early either, and was hoping to write some sort of will to dictate how he should play. That said I think I chalked up his general waffling as a town who was unsure of how to play to his new win con. I don't think he posted anything useful in thread ... yea ...
I figured out kita just by post analysis. I felt his cases were pretty weak and his glurio read awful. I was looking into Ryu because Keir (1st NK) pointed out something about him. When someone like Keir dies instead of Wiggles / Ace / whatever "vet", I'm inclined to look carefully (not to say Keir is a poor player, I just assume vets get shot first unless there is good reason). The post greymist flip blame really stuck out. Doesn't matter if objectively it was true, the attitude was all wrong.
Was looking at Kenpachi and DarthPunk due to process of elimination (town reads). When DP realized that kita and Ryu were scum, I began to consider layabout, but I died soon after so I stopped following the game.
|
I would much rather play with someone who posts too much than someone who posts 3 times per cycle.
|
depends on what they post 
3 posts from Fishball are worth about 20 posts from Bill Murray
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On March 31 2013 12:52 Keirathi wrote:
I would much rather play with someone who posts too much than someone who posts 3 times per cycle.
I don't think guys like VE, Mocsta and I are in danger of falling into the latter category. Do you think it's possible that a policy lynch against a spammer would reduce the actively levels of normal players?
|
On March 31 2013 12:37 Blazinghand wrote:
I remember there was once an 80-person game (that I was only in briefly before it fell apart) and there were several roles called "lurker vigis" which could fire a bullet to shoot a lurker. It worked pretty poorly, but it was a fine idea.
I don't think posting restrictions are the best of ideas, just because it changes the way the game works. That being said, I think the real way to stop spam is the same as the real way to stop lurking: consider it a scumtell and lynch people who do it. Obviously it's not possible for a single person to enforce this, but if enough people believe it, it will become true. And FWIW a certain level of spam probably IS a scumtell. It is anti-town to get into long arguments with everyone for no reason and derail all the useful lynches. Calling players out for this and threatening to lynch them will 1) discourage scum from doing it and 2) discourage town from doing it which could be good.
I used to think this way but after the last couple of big games that I've seen I'm just not sure anymore. If players won't make any effort to change than something has to be done by hosts.
When you have certain players who are either good or considered good who actively encourage worthless spam in every single game that they play it's incredibly frustrating. I'm not sure if it's because they have an irrational fear of "lurkers" (incidentally if anything these massive post counts only encourage players with less time or inclination to post to avoid posting even more) or if they simply are unable to control themselves, but it's completely ridiculous.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
It might be easiest to run a big game, like this 25-man one, and (openly) give both scum and town a Policy Vigilante role that can be used to shoot either a lurker or a spammer, rather than making a posting restriction. That seems to me to be a "neater" solution. It also is nicer because it solves the problem by giving tools to the players, rather than implementing it via a top-down edict.
|
|
|
On March 31 2013 12:50 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I think since it is actively discouraging other players from playing for a reason not specifically within the game then it is illegitimate. I see purposely making the game unreadable, or inadvertently making the game unreadable due to constant posting for no reason as a detriment to the game as a whole regardless of alignment.
again, you have this irrational bias against BH because he was scum. What Mocsta and VE did is identical (actually, arguably much worse) yet you have nothing against them because they spammed as town.
This is a huge double standard.
Two solutions to this:
1. request that some sort of rule change be made (and it's unlikely to happen, given how hazy the idea of spamming is-what constitutes it? What's the cutoff? The punishment?)
2. deal with it in-game.
IMO number 2 is unequivocally the better option. Hosts already warn for spam, and there's not much else you can do for it.
|
Not to be pessimistic or anything, but it's pretty hard to define lurker / spammer no?
I think kitaman was very lurky early game, despite having "good looking posts". I think there are players (I try to emulate this guy) who can produce really good content, but have lower post counts. On the flip side, there are strong town players who are lurky (Foolishness) and "spammy" (marvellosity).
|
I wish you could easily look through the scum qt, when does the "all messages" function cut off?
Just before i was converted the qt cut off and i was unable to communicate with cc outside of the thread.
I wasn't prepared to sacrifice myself when i found out that i would be converted back to mafia. On day4 for instance it would have been best for me to just do nothing let cosmic die and become mafia again. In the end i decided that playing in the spirit of the game was more important than playing optimal and whilst it might have annoyed the mafia team i think it made the game much more interesting.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
Well, a Policy Vigilante doesn't HAVE to shoot someone who is lurking or spamming! That's the beauty of it, see? You put this tool in the hands of a townie and he can shoot a lurker or a spammer if he thinks that guy is going against the town wincon. This is why this role is way better than trying to make a rule.
|
the policy vig idea is pretty stupid, just give players a regular vig.
It's almost impossible to cleanly define lurking and spamming given that activity standards change with time.
|
On March 31 2013 12:56 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2013 12:52 Keirathi wrote:
I would much rather play with someone who posts too much than someone who posts 3 times per cycle. I don't think guys like VE, Mocsta and I are in danger of falling into the latter category. Do you think it's possible that a policy lynch against a spammer would reduce the actively levels of normal players?
I dunno.
I wouldn't consider myself a spammer, but I'm going to post what I want to post whenever I want to post it. No "policy" is going to change that.
Part of the problem with the whole "spamming = bad" thing to me is that I just find it much, much easier to read people when they're having an active, back-and-forth conversation with someone than I do from big, contrived posts. In those kinds of conversations, you get people giving their "pure" thoughts, not some watered-down "does this make me look bad? let me word it a bit differently" thoughts.
I understand that if *everyone* is making those kinds of big posts and that that is what the whole game revolves around, then it's just a different type of game style. It requires a different scumhunting strategy. Maybe if I had played in an era where that was the norm, I could understand the desire to move back there, but really I feel like the general play style now is "easier" and therefore open to a broader audience of players.
Edit: I should say that be easier, I mean a simpler "style" in that a lot of it is reading people (which is something we, as humans, do naturally, even if sometimes badly) instead of looking for arbitrary clues that people have to learn.
|
On March 31 2013 13:08 RyuSuzaku wrote:
the policy vig idea is pretty stupid, just give players a regular vig.
It's almost impossible to cleanly define lurking and spamming given that activity standards change with time.
Eh, depends on do you want to win the game vs. do you want to improve overall play of TL Mafia (and have less chance winning that specific game)? Because I'd probably keep the vig for a strong scum read (for the sake of winning), rather than shooting into lurkers / players with playstyles I don't like.
|
On March 31 2013 13:05 layabout wrote:
I wish you could easily look through the scum qt, when does the "all messages" function cut off?
Just before i was converted the qt cut off and i was unable to communicate with cc outside of the thread.
I wasn't prepared to sacrifice myself when i found out that i would be converted back to mafia. On day4 for instance it would have been best for me to just do nothing let cosmic die and become mafia again. In the end i decided that playing in the spirit of the game was more important than playing optimal and whilst it might have annoyed the mafia team i think it made the game much more interesting.
When was this? I was under the impression that all my mirror images would die when I did, otherwise why bother playing to the new win con?
|
On March 31 2013 13:11 cosmicomics wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2013 13:08 RyuSuzaku wrote:
the policy vig idea is pretty stupid, just give players a regular vig.
It's almost impossible to cleanly define lurking and spamming given that activity standards change with time.
Eh, depends on do you want to win the game vs. do you want to improve overall play of TL Mafia (and have less chance winning that specific game)? Because I'd probably keep the vig for a strong scum read (for the sake of winning), rather than shooting into lurkers / players with playstyles I don't like.
there's literally no difference between a 1 shot policy vig and a 1 shot vig other than one is limited by who you can shoot.
It's also incredibly hard to balance because the cutoffs for spamming/lurking are completely subjective (so to make it fair you'd probably need to do something like have someone who doesn't have the roles determine whether the shot is valid or not) and if you argue that you can add KP for such a role, then you need to balance for that KP.
It's an ugly way to deal with something that arguably isn't a problem that needs to be fixed with roles in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
