|
On December 27 2010 18:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 18:25 Ryuu314 wrote:On December 27 2010 17:57 ilovejonn wrote:On December 27 2010 17:46 Ryuu314 wrote:
Probably. I don't see how else the game could run otherwise.
7. Editing posts. Editing posts is not allowed for any reason. Anybody can see if you edited a post, and if you are caught, you will look suspicious. Editing will result in a warning. After that, you will be owned. I do have close connections to people who can check pre-edited material if you are truculent. Please do not edit; this is the one part of the site where it is okay to be double posting, even triple-posting. While I ask for everybody to post as concisely as possible, post again if you have to edit anything. Make sure you read all the rules. =) Oops x[ I remembered after I edited hahaha. I \was basically gonna say that Coag probably couldn't be mafia as the timing of his ban would probably prevent him from making hits? But then I looked up the time of his ban and it disproves my theory. The timing of his ban should have nothing to do with what role he may or may not be. Or rather what role I may or may not be.
Well if his ban happened before roles were assigned and thus hits could be made, then there's no way he could've made a hit as he'd be in Disneyland. That said, his ban was after roles were assigned I believe so this point is moot.
|
Checking in late for this party. In The Netherlands we celebrate 26th dec aswell so I was with family all day. I'll try to make a more elaborate post later today.
|
On December 27 2010 21:02 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 18:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On December 27 2010 18:25 Ryuu314 wrote:On December 27 2010 17:57 ilovejonn wrote:On December 27 2010 17:46 Ryuu314 wrote:
Probably. I don't see how else the game could run otherwise.
7. Editing posts. Editing posts is not allowed for any reason. Anybody can see if you edited a post, and if you are caught, you will look suspicious. Editing will result in a warning. After that, you will be owned. I do have close connections to people who can check pre-edited material if you are truculent. Please do not edit; this is the one part of the site where it is okay to be double posting, even triple-posting. While I ask for everybody to post as concisely as possible, post again if you have to edit anything. Make sure you read all the rules. =) Oops x[ I remembered after I edited hahaha. I \was basically gonna say that Coag probably couldn't be mafia as the timing of his ban would probably prevent him from making hits? But then I looked up the time of his ban and it disproves my theory. The timing of his ban should have nothing to do with what role he may or may not be. Or rather what role I may or may not be. Well if his ban happened before roles were assigned and thus hits could be made, then there's no way he could've made a hit as he'd be in Disneyland. That said, his ban was after roles were assigned I believe so this point is moot.
Remember this post?
On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L.
40 Minutes Later
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=179875#2
On December 27 2010 14:20 Coagulation wrote:
your sister hot?
User was temp banned for this post.
Not a scum tell per say... but still...
|
On December 27 2010 18:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
Also DT's shouldn't claim if they find a red and definitely not in PM either. Build a case on that person. Read through their posts and seriously consider them. Read them as though they are mafia, what are they doing to hurt/mislead the town and does it make sense? They might be a miller (there are probably 2, that is the normal count) and they might also have been framed.
When you checked someone and now they are mafia or are nearly certain you build a good case to get them lynched, you don't claim straight away because it's still possible the mafia won't hit you and if they do it become immediately apparent why you pushed so strong for a specific lynch which means the mafia have to do a lot of damage control especially if they tried to spread distrust/attack that DT.
DTs should be using mouths to claim if someone is red or not, it shouldn't be an issue since we can use PMs this game.
LunarDestiny's posts so far come off as the most scummy but that's just barely, no good target has presented itself yet to me for the lynch so I'll vote for myself. My work schedule is unpredictable and I don't want to get modkilled for it.
Hmm... Never noticed him
@LunarDestiny
On December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves.
What do you think we should do about inactives then?
|
On December 27 2010 21:02 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 18:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On December 27 2010 18:25 Ryuu314 wrote:On December 27 2010 17:57 ilovejonn wrote:On December 27 2010 17:46 Ryuu314 wrote:
Probably. I don't see how else the game could run otherwise.
7. Editing posts. Editing posts is not allowed for any reason. Anybody can see if you edited a post, and if you are caught, you will look suspicious. Editing will result in a warning. After that, you will be owned. I do have close connections to people who can check pre-edited material if you are truculent. Please do not edit; this is the one part of the site where it is okay to be double posting, even triple-posting. While I ask for everybody to post as concisely as possible, post again if you have to edit anything. Make sure you read all the rules. =) Oops x[ I remembered after I edited hahaha. I \was basically gonna say that Coag probably couldn't be mafia as the timing of his ban would probably prevent him from making hits? But then I looked up the time of his ban and it disproves my theory. The timing of his ban should have nothing to do with what role he may or may not be. Or rather what role I may or may not be. Well if his ban happened before roles were assigned and thus hits could be made, then there's no way he could've made a hit as he'd be in Disneyland. That said, his ban was after roles were assigned I believe so this point is moot.
No hits were made, the "hits" in the first day post are done on people that aren't in the game / the mods just for flavor. It wouldn't be fair if people didn't even get a chance to start playing before they died.  Also, mafia hits aren't usually done individually -- one player sends in the whole team's selection of hits to the mod.
There are far too many people that I consider really smart voting Pandain right now. Bumatlarge, why is your vote there? The only thing we've got remotely close to justification is "lol RNG", and I don't buy it.
On December 27 2010 12:57 bumatlarge wrote:
5 votes in thirty minutes for pandain. Thats a bit unsettling. But it will give us something to work with.
So, bum, what do we have to work with now?
RebirthOfLeGenD, you have yet to post since the game has started, yet you've apparently read enough to vote Pandain. What's going on, man?
|
okay, hi peeps
FOS LSB.
analysis to come shortly
|
On December 27 2010 19:59 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 19:53 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:On December 27 2010 18:57 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On December 27 2010 17:20 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
Coag just got temp banned for two weeks, doch is in... there must be a conspiracy :/ do you really think that because that's really stupid On December 27 2010 18:13 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
So what's the infamy surrounding DoctorHelvetica? Would anyone care to enlighten me? Nothing I just always end up the center of attention in games whether I'm mafia or not and it always ends up hurting the town. No need to be so touchy, gosh it was just a joke. Several other people were making similar jokes so I don't really see why there is a problem and there's really no reason to flame out about it. Mr. Wiggles go and read through any game Drh has played... you'll see a) why drh is well known and b) why it's ironic he replaced coag. drh you are right, the attention lavished on you (as I'm doing right now) always hurts the town so I have a proposal for you, let's try and go one mafia day without you being the topic of discusion... k? Your post is: A) Really defensive when I never flamed you. I'm really just worried that joke might be serious, this wouldn't be the first time ridiculous metagame arguments would used against me and whether you were joking or not may not be relevant. I'm pointing out that the IDEA is stupid, not you, so it isn't a flame. B) You aren't lavishing attention on me and you're basically creating an excuse to discourage my posting at all. You're proposing my idea to me and being cute about it in a way that is really irritating. Yeah ok I accept your proposal that has been the thing I've been shouting at people in every mafia game where this happens. I don't really understand what you're trying to imply about me with the last "question" but I'm annoyed by it.
The question is whether the defensiveness is because he was a bit touchy, or if it is because he's sweating as Mafia.
Note, Meapak has never been mafia yet. And always, someone's first game as mafia is very loose (I should know), and super defensiveness is incredibly telling.
|
On December 28 2010 00:41 annul wrote:
okay, hi peeps
FOS LSB.
analysis to come shortly
<3 you too.
I want to see the analysis.
|
On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:@LunarDestinyShow nested quote +On December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. What do you think we should do about inactives then?
Can you read his post?
Though personally I think one of the best ways to root out mafia is individual pressure. It will become increasingly obvious that the person is town based on how they defend themselves and whoever else supports them. If a person stays afk then that is a huge issue but generally a little pressure will generate a defense by one or more people that we can then analyze.
|
[QUOTE]On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:
@LunarDestiny
[QUOTE]On December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves.[/QUOTE]
What do you think we should do about inactives then?[/QUOTE]
Can you read his post?
It doesn't do anything about inactives.
It just says we make a list of inactives and see what happens. We've done this practically every single game.
Does it work? Not really.
LunarDestiny, can you elaborate a bit more then?
|
EBWOP
On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:@LunarDestinyOn December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. What do you think we should do about inactives then? Can you read his post?
It doesn't do anything about inactives.
It just says we make a list of inactives and see what happens. We've done this practically every single game.
Does it work? Not really.
LunarDestiny, can you elaborate a bit more then?
|
On December 27 2010 10:27 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:25 TheMango wrote:
where are my mafia team mates? lets start getting rid of some people. Flamwheel/Incog forgot to send me who my teammates were, can you PM me them? Thanks!
what is the point of this post? acting as if he is mafia to create the impression he is not mafia? WIFOM surely, but think about it
On December 27 2010 10:35 LSB wrote:
I say we lynch ~OpZ~ because his town play and mafia play is indistinguishable.
what is the point of this? instant attempt to form a wagon on someone who hasnt even posted yet and the game had just started?
On December 27 2010 10:37 LSB wrote:
If there are mayoral elections, will you help me make my campaign poster?
On December 27 2010 10:38 LSB wrote:
Nvm, doesn't seem like there are mayoral elections
two posts to seem active and he answers his own question a minute later. point of this?
On December 27 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I wanted to wait for the day post before posting this but w/e All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about: - Should we lynch an inactive day one? Assuming of course, there is no good alternative
- Plans for the roles
Inactives:A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive. Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives. We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. The key is that we have to make sure the town knows it is not okay to just simply sit back and not do anything. This way, hopefully everyone will be active and we won't need to lynch an inactive. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. Generic Blue Activity planOne plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The DTs should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Medics should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. Framer Issue: Framers are much better put to use framing the important townies. So any attempt by the mafia for framing the inactives would be a waste.
"should we lynch an inactive?" <-- probably knows mafia is most likely to at least pay attention to the thread enough to evade being labeled inactive. probably knows even if there are mafia inactives, he can choose any other town inactive and maintain the aura of "hey im helping out town"
the rest of this is informative sure, but common sense? but the line "We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one." worries me. much better to hit an active scummy person and LSB should know this.
"DO NOT CLAIM" is good advice, and i would like to say obvious, but given current history and shit it isnt =\
On December 27 2010 11:18 LSB wrote:
Lets say Coagulation tells Doctor H that he is the medic.
That's a claim
Let's not do that this game
On December 27 2010 11:25 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:20 TheMango wrote:
Isn't that part of the game? assuming you're using it strategically, and not just for fun/out of boredom? Of course. There's a few cases where claiming is okay. 1) You are about to be lynched. Don't expect this to save you, but it would be nice to tell the town what happens 2) DT checks you. The DT then messages you and say that "I know your role is [insert green/blue role here]. This is mainly used when the DT finds a red, and also finds a green. The green becomes the "DT Mouth" and tells the Town what the DT found out. 3) The Medic successfully protects you. Assuming that it wasn't a hit from the mad hatter, if the medic protects someone, that person probably isn't mafia. 4) The town thinks of some super awesome plan. The issue is when blues jump the gun and start claiming before they confirmed someone. That's a great way to get our blues sniped. (See Salem Mafia. For a short summary, look at the article in the Pony Express)
1 and 2 are fine, 3 is not - you don't claim here, you just admit to being hit - preferably to town circle if you know where it is. 4 is a catch-all sure, but claiming day 1 to a "super awesome plan" is a horrible idea.
that said though, LSB is providing pure information (some of which is sketchy) and no analysis. this early it is usually fine but consider it in the light of his earlier postings? it is like he wants to be active but isnt contributing valuable stuff.
On December 27 2010 11:27 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:26 ilovejonn wrote:There's already a rule to prevent inactives? Modkills:
Inactivity has been a problem in every mafia game so far. Inactivity is most easily defined as failure to vote. If you do miss a vote, you will be modkilled. Special consideration will be exercised if a player in danger of being modkilled by this manner has been an active contributor in the thread. If something comes up and you know you will miss the vote, PM me in advance about it to let me know and you will be spared. Remember again: abstaining votes are NOT allowed. And once again, flaming is not tolerated. Keep it civil, or else you will receive a quick lightning bolt to the back of the head. Furthermore, you must post at least once in this thread per game cycle (from the start of the night to the end of the next day) to avoid being modkilled. Simply voting doesn't work. This is to prevent lurkers from lurking. Unless you mean you have to post a lot to not be labeled as an inactive. Check out Pokemafia. Basically the entire mafia team, except for DCXLIV and Kavdragon posted once a day, and made sure they voted. That's what lurking is.
common sense information
On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote:
TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history?
fair question!
On December 27 2010 12:06 LSB wrote:
Hahahahahhaha
?
On December 27 2010 12:37 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 12:35 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
If he is of the belief I'm spamming, I've just been posting somewhat short responses because there hasn't really been anything worth discussing up to this point.
What do you feel about lynching inactives / spammers? What do you feel that the blues should do?
more "hit inactives" crap - this is bad. also maybe a blue fish?
On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote:
Can I write one then?
On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote:
That was at Incog/Flamewheel
wants to write a day post. uh huh. keep this in mind with the "try to appear active but not" lens.
On December 27 2010 13:26 LSB wrote:
I don't believe Pandain is mafia just because he fingered Mr. Wiggles.
Clearly at the time Mr. Wiggles did not contribute anything, and Pandain just voted to accent his point.
Indeed, as Ver put in his town guide, spamming can be detrimental to the town.
Now, I don't belive we should lynch Mr. Wiggles. It is far to early to tell anything about him, and also I'd rather lynch a lurker/inactive than a spammer.
HEY something of content, cool. sort of defense of pandain and blatant defense of mr. wiggles. sadly the rationale of "inactives instead!" is scummy.
On December 27 2010 13:30 LSB wrote:EBWOP Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:24 TheMango wrote:On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote:
TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history? Hmm, shows up for me, are you going to my profile page and clicking on my post count, or doing a search? both show up properly for me :o Yep, thats what I'm doing. It looks like there is a little time lag between what you post and what shows up in the search function. Maybe this is normal... Haven't actually tried searching for posts this recent before.
dunno how to analyze this -- information that isnt common sense (or meant to filibuster) is fine, and even i didnt know this one. id say this gets a pass
On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain
yes, lets lynch people with zero meaningful posts. LSB, you up?
or yes lets lynch a modkill target because those are almost certainly going to be town and we want to lynch towns, yes.
On December 27 2010 13:39 LSB wrote:
5/5! And Merry Christmas to you too!
you too.
On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L.
good idea, i like this, but why sign up and then insta modkill on purpose? if youre replaced its not like you can consider any potential wins by the mafia as wins for you -- you are considered not to have even played the game. seems like something nobody should ever do on purpose and if they do, metagaming at its finest.
buuuut then we haaaave.....
On December 27 2010 13:57 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:45 Soulfire wrote:
But I will speak for other players who are new like I am, it is difficult to post something that contributes in Day 1 - so yet another thing to differentiate: new players who are lost and can only agree with others, and mafia trying to slip under the radar and avoid modkill. As for new players, don't worry to much about being inactive. As long as you try to play mafia and spend some time thinking and reading the thread, this won't ever be a problem. Just post you thoughts on the person currently being accused. And feel free to ask questions, in thread, PMing the hosts, or any of the Bootcamp helpers, and I'm always willing to help
"DONT WORRY ABOUT BEING INACTIVE LOL" after his entire campaign day 1 was "kill the inactives" -- whaaaat? what is this inconsistency?
On December 28 2010 00:34 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 21:02 Ryuu314 wrote:On December 27 2010 18:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On December 27 2010 18:25 Ryuu314 wrote:On December 27 2010 17:57 ilovejonn wrote:On December 27 2010 17:46 Ryuu314 wrote:
Probably. I don't see how else the game could run otherwise.
7. Editing posts. Editing posts is not allowed for any reason. Anybody can see if you edited a post, and if you are caught, you will look suspicious. Editing will result in a warning. After that, you will be owned. I do have close connections to people who can check pre-edited material if you are truculent. Please do not edit; this is the one part of the site where it is okay to be double posting, even triple-posting. While I ask for everybody to post as concisely as possible, post again if you have to edit anything. Make sure you read all the rules. =) Oops x[ I remembered after I edited hahaha. I \was basically gonna say that Coag probably couldn't be mafia as the timing of his ban would probably prevent him from making hits? But then I looked up the time of his ban and it disproves my theory. The timing of his ban should have nothing to do with what role he may or may not be. Or rather what role I may or may not be. Well if his ban happened before roles were assigned and thus hits could be made, then there's no way he could've made a hit as he'd be in Disneyland. That said, his ban was after roles were assigned I believe so this point is moot. Remember this post? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L. 40 Minutes Later http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=179875#2Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 14:20 Coagulation wrote:
your sister hot?
User was temp banned for this post. Not a scum tell per say... but still...
yes coagulation got a 14 day ban on purpose to "help" his mafia team day 1, this makes perfect sense.
*****************
in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing.
my vote is on LSB now.
|
Should we also watch out for people who are sporadically active?
What I mean is that they would post a lot one day, then not very much for a span of time, then post a lot in a short period, repeat.
Would inconsistency in posting frequency reveal anything about a person? It could show someone who wants to post a lot to not be considered inactive or anything, but then lay low and hide once that activities been established.
By this I don't mean someone who starts posting more when it's relevant, like they're being accused of something and need to defend themselves, but rather they post a lot in one day, then almost disappear for the next two. This could also be a blue trying to gather information though, so I don't know.
What's normal procedure for a sporadic poster like this?
|
i post when i have something to say and i do not post when i dont. doesnt make me any color, since i do this no matter what i happen to be.
others are probably similar
|
Firstly, pointing out that someone isn’t on topic isn’t analysis. It’s just plain distracting. Why don’t you include my two posts at the start of the game? Their spam too!
On December 28 2010 01:00 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I wanted to wait for the day post before posting this but w/e All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about: - Should we lynch an inactive day one? Assuming of course, there is no good alternative
- Plans for the roles
Inactives:A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive. Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives. We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. The key is that we have to make sure the town knows it is not okay to just simply sit back and not do anything. This way, hopefully everyone will be active and we won't need to lynch an inactive. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. Generic Blue Activity planOne plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The DTs should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Medics should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. Framer Issue: Framers are much better put to use framing the important townies. So any attempt by the mafia for framing the inactives would be a waste. "should we lynch an inactive?" <-- probably knows mafia is most likely to at least pay attention to the thread enough to evade being labeled inactive. probably knows even if there are mafia inactives, he can choose any other town inactive and maintain the aura of "hey im helping out town" the rest of this is informative sure, but common sense? but the line "We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one." worries me. much better to hit an active scummy person and LSB should know this.
Please read Pokemafia.
"DO NOT CLAIM" is good advice, and i would like to say obvious, but given current history and shit it isnt =\
Thanks!
Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:25 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 11:20 TheMango wrote:
Isn't that part of the game? assuming you're using it strategically, and not just for fun/out of boredom? Of course. There's a few cases where claiming is okay. 1) You are about to be lynched. Don't expect this to save you, but it would be nice to tell the town what happens 2) DT checks you. The DT then messages you and say that "I know your role is [insert green/blue role here]. This is mainly used when the DT finds a red, and also finds a green. The green becomes the "DT Mouth" and tells the Town what the DT found out. 3) The Medic successfully protects you. Assuming that it wasn't a hit from the mad hatter, if the medic protects someone, that person probably isn't mafia. 4) The town thinks of some super awesome plan. The issue is when blues jump the gun and start claiming before they confirmed someone. That's a great way to get our blues sniped. (See Salem Mafia. For a short summary, look at the article in the Pony Express) 1 and 2 are fine, 3 is not - you don't claim here, you just admit to being hit - preferably to town circle if you know where it is. 4 is a catch-all sure, but claiming day 1 to a "super awesome plan" is a horrible idea. that said though, LSB is providing pure information (some of which is sketchy) and no analysis. this early it is usually fine but consider it in the light of his earlier postings? it is like he wants to be active but isnt contributing valuable stuff.
Help me then. What analysis could I do at that point?
Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 12:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 12:35 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
If he is of the belief I'm spamming, I've just been posting somewhat short responses because there hasn't really been anything worth discussing up to this point.
What do you feel about lynching inactives / spammers? What do you feel that the blues should do? more "hit inactives" crap - this is bad. also maybe a blue fish?
Read the thread please
wants to write a day post. uh huh. keep this in mind with the "try to appear active but not" lens.
Do you seriously think that I need to pretend to be active?
Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:26 LSB wrote:
I don't believe Pandain is mafia just because he fingered Mr. Wiggles.
Clearly at the time Mr. Wiggles did not contribute anything, and Pandain just voted to accent his point.
Indeed, as Ver put in his town guide, spamming can be detrimental to the town.
Now, I don't belive we should lynch Mr. Wiggles. It is far to early to tell anything about him, and also I'd rather lynch a lurker/inactive than a spammer. HEY something of content, cool. sort of defense of pandain and blatant defense of mr. wiggles. sadly the rationale of "inactives instead!" is scummy.
Why don't you analyze my defense of Pandain, what does it say?
in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing.
my vote is on LSB now.
Nice ‘analysis’ yourself btw.
|
1. i read pokemafia. still a horrible idea to lynch inactives over active scum
2. you could do whatever analysis you please? all i know is you didnt do any
3. evidently you do need to pretend to be active, since you did for ~30 posts
4. it says you are defending pandain? i dont understand what you are asking me to do
5. thank you.
|
On December 28 2010 00:56 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:@LunarDestinyOn December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. What do you think we should do about inactives then? Can you read his post? It doesn't do anything about inactives. It just says we make a list of inactives and see what happens. We've done this practically every single game. Does it work? Not really. LunarDestiny, can you elaborate a bit more then?
I thought it said, "we make a list of inactives and then vote on one of them." Yes, this is virtually identical to what we've done in previous games, and you're right that it doesn't work very well. I don't think further elaboration on his part will really help though, as I don't think any variant or extension on the aforementioned plan is what we need to win.
|
|
|
On December 28 2010 01:29 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:56 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:@LunarDestinyOn December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. What do you think we should do about inactives then? Can you read his post? It doesn't do anything about inactives. It just says we make a list of inactives and see what happens. We've done this practically every single game. Does it work? Not really. LunarDestiny, can you elaborate a bit more then? I thought it said, "we make a list of inactives and then vote on one of them." Yes, this is virtually identical to what we've done in previous games, and you're right that it doesn't work very well. I don't think further elaboration on his part will really help though, as I don't think any variant or extension on the aforementioned plan is what we need to win.
Personally, I would like DT checks on the inactives. That could be an easy way to clear people.
That does bring up an issue, we should make it so that there is some way for the DT to be able to say what they checked, so that when they die, their information doesn't get lost.
What if at the start of every day, people just randomly say a person's name, and a role. The DTs would say who they checked and someone's role.
It would look something like this
+ Show Spoiler +LSB is Townie Infun is Mafia DTA is DT LSB writes I checked Infun, he's medic Infun writes I checked LSB, he's mafia DTA writes I checked Infun, he's mafia And so when DTA dies, we can go back and check out his checks
|
the above is a good idea in theory
however, this only benefits mafia. mafia will know that any players who say "i checked X, hes mafia" when X is not mafia are not DTs. it will also give advance warning to any DTs who call mafia out correctly.
anyone who is called out incorrectly will know the list of incorrect DTs and this can be just as good as DTs coming out -- which they should never do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
