EPTOn September 13 2011 23:27 Forumite wrote:
GM, do we need 7 or 8 votes to lynch today?
GM, do we need 7 or 8 votes to lynch today?
It's seven, you need to have more than 50% of the votes to lynch, that is all.
My Little Pony Mafia - Page 15
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
It's seven, you need to have more than 50% of the votes to lynch, that is all. | ||
tnkted
United States1359 Posts
I'll hop on the originalname bandwagon until he perks his pony little head up. ## Unvote ## Vote OriginalName Also, do these smaller games not have voting threads? Are voting threads going away? | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On September 14 2011 01:37 Sevryn wrote: That gets rid of the pressure. "O hey im going to vote for you now but its not for real so dont worry you can keep lurking." yeah no shit, this genius already managed that one: On September 14 2011 00:33 Nisani201 wrote: We don't intend to lynch the lurkers. We plan to pressure them. This is very true. Listen to the voice of reason, AKA greymist: On September 14 2011 01:10 GreYMisT wrote: Lurking is obviously pretty bad for the town, as is being inactive. I feel, however, that we need to go after real targets as a priority even on day 1. Scum can use this lynch inactives policy to shunt lynches away from themselves, and we don't want that to bite us later on. Lynching real targets before lurkers will also give us more information. I will post some analysis when I am out of bio lab in about 3 hours. Lurking is a null tell, IMO. If we pursue null tells vigorously through policy lynches of lurkers we're gonna get screwed hard when those lurkers pop town. This is exactly what has ruined some games for us that I've played in. Correct lynches rely on townies establishing themselves as town early on (as in Resurrection) and then pursuing behavioral clues in order to find mafia. We HAVE to lynch mafia based on contradictions and behavior. If behavior lines up with activity and voting patterns, great! If not, then we can't use activity or a lack thereof as a reason to lynch someone. It's just not reliable. On September 14 2011 01:44 Jackal58 wrote: I think lynching them is an excellent idea. I'm also realistic and understand it never fucking happens. And then in 3 days when all the active players are dead we get to listen to you cry, whine and complain about a game full of lurkers. But it's all good man. I plan on being dead by then anyways. wtf is this If active players are making sense then town needs to listen to them, medics need to prot them, etc. etc. If active players are contradicting themselves and being wishy washy then we need to lynch them. Killing lurkers is the job of the vigilantes; they can more clearly determine who is scummy out of a pool of lurkers without having to deal with the shitfest of information that is influenced by both mafia and dumb townies. If we lynch lurkers then we are susceptible to be influenced heavily by scum, and that is EXACTLY what we do not want. On September 14 2011 02:23 dreamflower wrote: Ah, true. Yes, I was referring to lurkers when I said inactives. My apologies. A lot of my thinking still dates back to the olden days before inactivity modkills or the Ban List, so please excuse me if I phrase things oddly like that. I also agree about OriginalName, whom I'm a little annoyed about not noticing myself. I also noticed that DroneAllDay's statement of Mafia newness came very soon after he signed up and long before roles were sent out, so that pretty much rules out his being a Mafia trying to masquerade as a newbie. My mistake there. OriginalName's one contribution to the thread after the Day post has been to call Forumite's post "a huge pile of fluff," but after that he hasn't said anything else at all. That does look more like lurking than outright inactivity. . Dreamflower are you an oldtimer?  nice to meet/play with you.ON's mafia play is really easy to spot, IMO. By his vote post alone I knew he was scum in Resurrection. Until that point, like we see now, he was just another lurker. Finally, I have to disagree about this: On September 14 2011 02:23 dreamflower wrote: To add my own opinion on the merits of lynching lurkers, I think it is a good idea early on, when we don't have much information to work with. I agree that lynching lurkers doesn't yield much information afterward, but I don't think going after "real" targets always does either. The people who argue for a townie to be lynched or vote for their lynch are not necessarily Mafia themselves. So, I don't think either approach can give us much in the way of useful information We gain next to nothing by lynching a lurker, unless of course that lurker happens to be mafia. Lurkers, by definition, haven't contributed anything. Thus, except in exceptional circumstances, we can't really link them to anyone else, and we can't even be sure about their flip until they die. It's just an unreliable scumhunting method IMO. With your last sentence you can easily replace "townie" with "lurker". What happens when the townie is also a lurker? Then, what's up with you concluding that neither approach can give us much useful information? If you think neither method is good, then wtf do we do? Do we go after behavioral clues, which are easiest to spot among active players, or do we lynch lurkers? I'm not understanding your conclusion, you don't really suggest what we should do. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On September 14 2011 03:46 tnkted wrote: Yeah, I'm backing off greymyst for now, his defence wasn't convincing but the manner of it has mollified me for now. I'll hop on the originalname bandwagon until he perks his pony little head up. ## Unvote ## Vote OriginalName Also, do these smaller games not have voting threads? Are voting threads going away? This post smells funny to me. | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On September 14 2011 03:54 wherebugsgo wrote: yeah no shit, this genius already managed that one: This is very true. Listen to the voice of reason, AKA greymist: Lurking is a null tell, IMO. If we pursue null tells vigorously through policy lynches of lurkers we're gonna get screwed hard when those lurkers pop town. This is exactly what has ruined some games for us that I've played in. Correct lynches rely on townies establishing themselves as town early on (as in Resurrection) and then pursuing behavioral clues in order to find mafia. We HAVE to lynch mafia based on contradictions and behavior. If behavior lines up with activity and voting patterns, great! If not, then we can't use activity or a lack thereof as a reason to lynch someone. It's just not reliable. wtf is this If active players are making sense then town needs to listen to them, medics need to prot them, etc. etc. If active players are contradicting themselves and being wishy washy then we need to lynch them. Killing lurkers is the job of the vigilantes; they can more clearly determine who is scummy out of a pool of lurkers without having to deal with the shitfest of information that is influenced by both mafia and dumb townies. If we lynch lurkers then we are susceptible to be influenced heavily by scum, and that is EXACTLY what we do not want. Dreamflower are you an oldtimer? nice to meet/play with you.ON's mafia play is really easy to spot, IMO. By his vote post alone I knew he was scum in Resurrection. Until that point, like we see now, he was just another lurker. Finally, I have to disagree about this: We gain next to nothing by lynching a lurker, unless of course that lurker happens to be mafia. Lurkers, by definition, haven't contributed anything. Thus, except in exceptional circumstances, we can't really link them to anyone else, and we can't even be sure about their flip until they die. It's just an unreliable scumhunting method IMO. With your last sentence you can easily replace "townie" with "lurker". What happens when the townie is also a lurker? Then, what's up with you concluding that neither approach can give us much useful information? If you think neither method is good, then wtf do we do? Do we go after behavioral clues, which are easiest to spot among active players, or do we lynch lurkers? I'm not understanding your conclusion, you don't really suggest what we should do. It's exactly what I said. I have no problem with lynching a lurker. I have no problem with a vig shooting a lurker. I have no problem with brooming them on day1/night1/day2. But I also know it isn't going to happen. I'm not advocating the lynch of a lurker over the lynch of an individual that plays scum in such a horrid manner that it's painfully obvious during day 1 he's scum. That rarely happens though. What does happen is some townie makes a stupid case on somebody, scum jumps on board and there ya go we lynched a townie. So ya I'd prefer lynching somebody with one post and nothing else. Because he's gonna get us killed on day 3. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Lurkers
9.) OriginalName 11.) sinani206 If and only if we don't have a more active, scummy target? | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On September 14 2011 04:35 wherebugsgo wrote: So you want us to lynch into this list: Lurkers
9.) OriginalName 11.) sinani206 If and only if we don't have a more active, scummy target? I don't see a problem with that. If you do please explain it to me. I'm not being a smart ass but I honestly see no problem with one of them if no other viable candidate arises. And as I said before I'm willing to give the noob some latitude. ON and sinani have no excuse for lurking. | ||
|
Sevryn
698 Posts
On September 14 2011 04:44 Jackal58 wrote: I don't see a problem with that. If you do please explain it to me. I'm not being a smart ass but I honestly see no problem with one of them if no other viable candidate arises. And as I said before I'm willing to give the noob some latitude. ON and sinani have no excuse for lurking. I am for this plan if we dont find someone super scummy then we will lynch a lurker. I personally dont think we should cut droneallday very much slack even though he is new it gives him the perfect reason to lurk as scum. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Also like I said about ON we'll know if he's mafia when he decides to vote. Is drone a smurf or new? | ||
|
tnkted
United States1359 Posts
| ||
|
dreamflower
United States312 Posts
On September 14 2011 03:54 wherebugsgo wrote: We gain next to nothing by lynching a lurker, unless of course that lurker happens to be mafia. Lurkers, by definition, haven't contributed anything. Thus, except in exceptional circumstances, we can't really link them to anyone else, and we can't even be sure about their flip until they die. It's just an unreliable scumhunting method IMO. With your last sentence you can easily replace "townie" with "lurker". What happens when the townie is also a lurker? Then, what's up with you concluding that neither approach can give us much useful information? If you think neither method is good, then wtf do we do? Do we go after behavioral clues, which are easiest to spot among active players, or do we lynch lurkers? I'm not understanding your conclusion, you don't really suggest what we should do. First, yup, I am old-timer-ish. It is nice to meet you too. Second, what I was trying to say in my awkward, inarticulate way is that if we lynch someone who is widely believed to be a "real target" and he flips green, we don't necessarily get any more information than if we lynch someone who is lurking. The people who accused them or started building cases against them might just have been misled or confused townies. What is worse about the former situation is that, when people try to build early cases against someone and get them lynched and then the lynchee flips green, the town often turns around and starts accusing the people who originally accused the green lynchee. This can turn into a self-destructive pattern for the town, which I was wanting to avoid starting on Day One. Lynching a lurker early on will at least avoid creating any sort of accusational crossfire for the following days, so it seems to me to be less potentially destructive (but admittedly not at all informative, as you've noted) if it fails and we lynch a townie. In the long run, of course we should look at behavior, voting patterns, and even night hits for finding Mafia. (For night hits, I mean that if the Mafia hits So-and-so at night, we should go back and read So-and-so's posts to see if they might have said anything that would've gotten Mafia scared enough to hit them, like an accusation, a good case, or even making a good point about the game setup.) But right now, for our first lynch, I think it would be better to lynch a lurker on Day One. On September 14 2011 04:35 wherebugsgo wrote: So you want us to lynch into this list: Lurkers
9.) OriginalName 11.) sinani206 If and only if we don't have a more active, scummy target? So, yes to the above post. No one right now is jumping out at me as being active and scummy, so I would prefer lynching a lurker this early in the game. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On September 14 2011 04:46 tnkted wrote: Why would you give the noob some lattitude? This is how they learn: they get lynched d1 as town for lurking after they were pressured. Why would you blatantly hop on a bandwagon after saying your previous target's defense was unconvincing? | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On September 14 2011 04:47 dreamflower wrote: So, yes to the above post. No one right now is jumping out at me as being active and scummy, so I would prefer lynching a lurker this early in the game. One just jumped out to me. He's more mafia than any of those lurkers. Tnkted has contributed a smidgeon more than those 3 (voila they've contributed absolute jack shit) but tnkted has actively lurked. ##vote tnkted I don't like your wishy washiness, scum. | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On September 14 2011 04:46 tnkted wrote: Why would you give the noob some lattitude? This is how they learn: they get lynched d1 as town for lurking after they were pressured. Because I still remember my first game. RoL, LSB, Ace, Node, Chaoser, Bumatlarge, Barunder, Beneather, Pandain, and others all pounding each others opinions. I was a bit lost. | ||
|
tnkted
United States1359 Posts
On September 14 2011 03:46 tnkted wrote: Yeah, I'm backing off greymyst for now, his defence wasn't convincing but the manner of it has mollified me for now. And as for contributing jack shit: I posted a small little analysis on Greymyst, he responded to my FoS and I'm satisfied with the way he responded. If you don't think that's enough contribution for day one, too fucking bad. I have a life, you know. | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On September 14 2011 04:59 tnkted wrote: Uh, what? Did you even read my post? And as for contributing jack shit: I posted a small little analysis on Greymyst, he responded to my FoS and I'm satisfied with the way he responded. If you don't think that's enough contribution for day one, too fucking bad. I have a life, you know. Why would you say his defense wasn't convincing then? It's as if you put both things in there just to be safe. Your analysis on Greymist didn't seem genuine to me, that's why I'm jumping all over you now. | ||
|
OriginalName
Canada1140 Posts
On September 14 2011 02:23 dreamflower wrote: Ah, true. Yes, I was referring to lurkers when I said inactives. My apologies. A lot of my thinking still dates back to the olden days before inactivity modkills or the Ban List, so please excuse me if I phrase things oddly like that. I also agree about OriginalName, whom I'm a little annoyed about not noticing myself. I also noticed that DroneAllDay's statement of Mafia newness came very soon after he signed up and long before roles were sent out, so that pretty much rules out his being a Mafia trying to masquerade as a newbie. My mistake there. OriginalName's one contribution to the thread after the Day post has been to call Forumite's post "a huge pile of fluff," but after that he hasn't said anything else at all. That does look more like lurking than outright inactivity. To add my own opinion on the merits of lynching lurkers, I think it is a good idea early on, when we don't have much information to work with. I agree that lynching lurkers doesn't yield much information afterward, but I don't think going after "real" targets always does either. The people who argue for a townie to be lynched or vote for their lynch are not necessarily Mafia themselves. So, I don't think either approach can give us much in the way of useful information. I need an hour or two to finish irl stuff then ill be here. | ||
|
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
On September 14 2011 04:35 wherebugsgo wrote: So you want us to lynch into this list: Lurkers
9.) OriginalName 11.) sinani206 If and only if we don't have a more active, scummy target? Assuming we don't get a more solid target before time runs out, I prefer Sinani206 for the lynch over the other two. Both ON and droneallday have not posted at all since /confirming (with the exception of ON's most recent post about). Both of these players are currently inactive, there is no evidence to suggest they have even read the thread. Sinani on the other hand is currently Lurking. He has a total of 3 posts to his name occurring after the daypost. Here is his Filter. Now lets pick out his posts out of there. On September 13 2011 14:14 sinani206 wrote: Can someone who watches the show explain what Nightmare Moon is? It might be useful to help solve whatever is hidden in the post, something like the roles or numbers of the mafia. A legitimate question for now. However he makes no attempt to analyze the actual post or respond to what others have said. He instead asks a very general question, something scum would do to appear as though they were contributing, and at the same time delay actual efforts at interpreting the post or scumhunting. Thats all he posts for a while until we get to On September 13 2011 23:10 sinani206 wrote: Goddamnit you guys. 7/13 = 53.85% nubs and On September 13 2011 23:10 sinani206 wrote: (it takes 7 to lynch not 8) Again, he posts something of legitimate concern. But it is something that can be found out by one's self, and detracts from discussion much like the above quote regarding the daypost. Around the time of this second set of posts as well, both me and Forumite get FoSed. dispite obviously being around enough to know that we are misunderstanding "majority" he fails to weigh in on either of the cases. sinani is, in the absence of a strong contender, our best lynch at the moment. ##Vote Sinani206 | ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
| ||
| ||
