EPTTL Mafia LXIV: A Game of Intrigue - Page 2
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
We can deal with suspicious lurkers by threatening hammer. If I'm mayor, I will lynch my top scumread at the end of Day 1, no matter who it is. I do not care if it is Marv or BC, the most suspicious person at the end of Day 1 will be lynched. I will threaten hammer on anyone who is under significant suspicion in the thread and fails to respond to it. I will threaten immediate hammer until they adequately respond to all accusations, I will threaten hammer to lurkers who try to avoid the discussion. By properly utilizing votes and the pressure of a hammer, we can force people to play at the pace the town wants them to play at. That's all. I won't try to be a hero and hammer someone without announcing or first putting on adequate pressure and giving people a chance to defend themselves but I would not be afraid to use it if I suspect the mafia are making a serious effort to derail a lynch on bad logic. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 11 2014 09:41 justanothertownie wrote: Well IF Kush is playing this way and you still think nobody will be able to read him - ok. But I don't think threating him this way (deciding to kill him without caring about what he actually does) improves the situation with him. Well it started a discussion and that's really useful - I hope this is BH's true intention. To immediately create a situation in the town where people can take sides and argue, it's actually beneficial to players who put in effort to read and consider everything. If this is not his true intention - then nevermind. Either way I demand he explains. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 11 2014 09:48 gumshoe wrote: Have you considered that your aggressive approach will stimy conversation day 1 ? I mean it might be ok for getting one guy to talk, but several other townies may quiver in the shadows at the thought of a scum mayor Dh jumping on something they say. Also on the one hand you say you'll threaten hammer on anyone, on the other you say you'll lynch the scummiest read... Assuming the second is your aim, do you expect people to still take your hammer puffing seriusly? ## vote the king you can keep in check. What's wrong with aggression? Think of the situation as being something like this: Day 2 Majority of players find players A, B and C to be scummy Players A and B defend themselves clearly while player C barely posts, or defends lightly and dodges certain questions/deflects certain points Mayor threatens hammer on Player C if Player C does not adequately respond to the pressure/accusations. This does not necessarily mean Player C is the top scumread, it means Player C is not allowed to dodge the pressure. If Player C continues to dodge the pressure or martyrs, it's highly likely that they are scum and would probably move to the top of anyone's scumreads barring something like a red DT check on A/B or a scumslip from another player. One of the nice things about hammer games, is they are on going and the pressure is immediate and life or death, it is very difficult for scum to slip by if they try to simply remain passive. That is the sort of environment I believe the mayor should try to create. If Player C does not totally satisfy me or the town with his defense, I would still vote at the end of the day for the player I find to be scummiest, unless I was alone in my read and unable to swing a lynch. So the priority would go something like this - as far as where I try to swing the bandwagon in the grand scheme of a day: 1. My top scumread 2. Player who does not respond adequately to pressure of hammer/thread in general 3. Town bandwagon that intersects with my personal scumreads However the priority for where I use my vote to direct discussion would go as follows: 1. Scum accused players who I believe are scum and respond passively 2. Scum accused players who I believe are scum and respond actively 3. Reactionary scumreads, ones that develop naturally over the course of the day If the thread remains active, arguments will be resolved quickly because there is no other option for a player who wants to survive. While a townie can see that all they have to do is answer questions and participate to avoid the immediate hammer, or banking on the fact that it could be a bluff, there's no reason for them not to do so. A mafia in this situation, even if they believe it's an empty threat, I think will respond either very aggressively under the pressure or try to delegitimize the hammer as a concept to continue being passive - dodging the accusations by forming new and irrelevant arguments about the mechanics of the game itself. If the hammer threat draws out a scum, then I will drop it, but chances are it won't really be necessary if scum are revealed through this method anyway. But it's not an empty promise. I would drop the hammer if a scum is clearly revealed, agreed upon by a trustworthy circle of the town, and then there is a clear movement away from this lynch or an attempt at immediate misdirection. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 11 2014 10:11 marvellosity wrote: in a funny game theory sort of way, it would make all your theoretical scumbuddies step up their game so as not to be on the receiving end of your ire ^_^ How do you think a mafia bigname would go about trying to clinch the mayoral spot, Dr H? You can say that about anything but I think in most games mafia would want to avoid a high-pressure environment where mistakes/passivity are directly confronted and threatened. I've always maintained that lynching randomly into lurkers is a terrible idea because mafia can just direct the town sentiment toward lurkers that aren't on their own team while avoiding suspicion, in this case they wouldn't really be able to do that either. As town, I'd love to see scumbuddies step it up so as not to be on the receiving end of my threats, then they'd all be very visible in the thread. I think a mafia mayor will go with some sort of platform that seems safe, bank on their veteran status if they have it, promise good scumhunting and then not follow through. Waste the actual benefits of the position itself. This of course doesn't mean I'll be threatening to hammer anybody, this will go down on players already in the hotseat who do not defend themselves adequately or try to avoid arguments/certain questions. Meaning if the overall case on Player A can be boiled down to six points and they only respond really to four of them, I would threaten hammer to force them to respond to the other two. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 11 2014 10:47 Alakaslam wrote: Hello. I have neither interest in running for nor objection to being mayor. Probably better to confirm a vet as town and then vote that veteran. I will initiate a private chat with Blazinghand soon, otherwise feel free to PM me your desired method of communication. I watch Star Trek evenings (California time), immediately following tends to improve communication with me. Please be wary of me, I am very good at looking town early! It just doesn't tend to last. This game I may try and learn how to do that or simply exude my alignment naturally. I'm expecting a pretty good game. Cool, now participate in the current discussion. Should the mayor ever hammer? What do you think of BH on kush? | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
He's supporting me in PM land and delaying his post about it | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 11 2014 16:22 WaveofShadow wrote: I would think that you should. I'm not entirely certain that it will be enough in this game for the mayoral role to go to someone people believe/assume is town alone---it may be important that the role rightfully goes to someone who will effectively get scum lynched; that is, someone with strong reads and convictions but who will also be able to defer to the town and/or take advice when necessary. I am actually interested in other people's thoughts on this matter: would it simply be enough to give the mayor role to someone who was theoretically confirmed town but may or may not use the role to great effect? And another question specifically for you, Mocsta. I am currently in contact with somebody who believes that you may be trolling with that vote. Is that true? I just got back from Friday Night Magic so I'm going to respond to the thread. I'd rather give the mayor role to someone I was maybe 70% sure was town but know would be effective than someone who I was 100% sure is town but had no confidence in. Scum mayor is a high pressure situation and if they're afraid to use or threaten the hammer at all, or kind of sit back with the role and play it safe I'll probably push them on Day 3 if I'm still alive. It'd be worth losing the mayor role to catch a mafia tbh, but of course I wouldn't vote for anyone I find suspicious. That's why I'm running anyway. On January 11 2014 16:41 WaveofShadow wrote: I don't think I understand. What do you mean by 'dropping it,' and if the bandwagon would change to what? Do you mean off of the threatened person or onto him? Dropping the hammer, off the threatened player. So I threaten hammer on Player C who is accused Day 2, Player C either shitposts or dips out of the thread entirely. I will not drop the hammer but encourage everyone to lynch Player C. If there is a concerted effort to misdirect the vote off of C or people start to lose confidence for a dumb reason, that is when I would exercise the power to hammer the player. Partly because town should never ever do that and partly because I'd like to foster a town environment where that kind of wishy washy shit doesn't happen. I agree more or less with yamato's reads so far. I'd bet like five dollars at this point (let's say that means I'm around 40% sure) that either marvellosity or bloodycobbler are mafia. Marv said he's high in a PM to me and BC sometimes doesn't read when he's not interested and I'm not going to call for anyones head until they defend themselves, but they can not be allowed to continue playing passively. All Marv did when he PM'd me today is basically try to make me doubt myself, then not push it/argue when I didn't agree, and ask me sort of easy questions? There wasn't really any point to the communication, I couldn't figure out what he was getting at as town but maybe he was just bored. Either way, it's not good. So, BH PM'd me his post about voting for me like an hour or two before he posted it, that's really strange? I think he was gauging for my reaction to it but all I did was comment on the bit about the miller, I didn't thank him or tell him anything I thought about his support in and of itself, because I was immediately put off by a move like that. I told Marv what happened and he says oh well it's just BH being BH, it's not interesting, which I am also put off by because that's an easy excuse not to examine his intentions. I demand that BH explains his intentions. He still seems to think a kush lynch is the best option, so why not continue your campaign yourself? All you have to do is use the hammer in the way I've explained, if you think that's a good idea, you can get what you want and what I argued for? Says to me he doesn't really care about his own lynch at all and that's not a good sign. Please explain. On January 11 2014 17:24 raynpelikoneet wrote: I am also curious why people are supporting DrH so hard when he has made zero contributions towards anyone in this game besides himself. If he is to become a mayor he should be interested in lynching mafia, not discussing how he is going to get people talk on D2. I don't think it's fair to call me a non-contributing player for talking about policy and derailing a shitty policy lynch like an hour or two into the game, when I've been pretty busy all night. I don't think talking about policy is useless at all actually, I think it's the best thing or really the only thing to do on Day 1. I've expressed this sentiment before, outside of being in a game, so I can promise you that viewpoint is not connected to my alignment in any way. Scum have been caught straight up this way before. Like Promethelax in LX who argued about policy lynches on Day 1 then didn't follow through with his own logic then martyred himself over getting caught. Just the way people respond to the mayoral campaigns and policy ideas can be very telling. I.E if they spend all their time devaluing other peoples ideas and complaining that no one is scumhunting when they aren't doing anything else except throwing negativity on what other people are doing - with no clear goal in mind. The player who agreed with the kush lynch is highly suspect as well, here's some trademark laziness from me - i'm not gonna look back and find out who that is rn - but i'm pretty sure someone said the kush lynch seemed like a good idea or is "okay with me" and if I was a dayvig I'd have a strong urge to shoot that person right away. Wouldn't do it. But I'd have a strong urge. I apologize for not having rock solid scumreads and that I'm not ready to kill anyone right now. Hopefully my intentions to pressure marv/BC into being active and BH into explaining himself count as contribution. I'd also like to see rayn do something other than post one liners and cast doubt on others. If I am expected as town to be doing some kind of amazing scumhunting right now, then you are too. Unfortunately, I scum hunt at my pace and on my time and not yours and I prefer to keep town on a need to know basis. There are plenty of other players that have piqued my interest or said things that stood out to me. I find making constant lists of everyone I find mildly suspicious absolutely worthless, I can say I already have ideas forming about who and how to pressure certain people when I'm more alert in the morning and that I can promise that it will be made very apparent in the second half of Day 1. | ||
| ||
