|
On January 27 2012 08:27 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 27 2012 08:09 risk.nuke wrote:
Yes, wbg. that everyone understood. Assuming nobody here is full on retard they can figure that out.
Wbg are you telling me you approve of vote circles? Yeah, I fully approve of them. I'm going to give Palmar some time to shape up, but if he doesn't agree with this (if he's town he should, it's completely logical) then he should probably die. Anyone who opposes the vote circle plan: please provide reasoning as to why it's bad. WBG, I'm iffy on the vote-circle, and here's why: we can't know who the extra votes are going to. Scum are going to kill someone, and whoever tried to give that person a vote is going to have an extra vote. Will scum design the kill to give themselves extra VP? We can't know the answer, and we won't know even if we lynch the receiver. That's the fundamental flaw in the plan: it provides the most opportunity for everyone to have the same number of votes, but it ensures that someone is going to have more than everyone else and we have no idea if we can trust that person or not. At least by giving a vote to someone who appears pro-town in-thread, we can keep who gets the extra votes within our power.RE: Palmar - Palmar's agenda right now is accruing votes from sheep - he's not going to approve of this plan regardless of his alignment unless he's trolling us. The question becomes: would scumPalmar put stick his neck out like this, bucking the only semblance of a nearly universally accepted plan just to try and gain some VP for the next cycle? I think he would, because he's likely to succeed regardless of his alignment. But town may disagree. I'm willing to kill Palmar today if he doesn't shape up, but I'm also willing to give him until tomorrow. Right now he's one of only two scum reads I have. I'll echo you and say that we need more activity.
This seems like a pretty weak reservation to have.
The goal of the "votecirlce" is to minimise the extent to which mafia can use the vote-trading to their advantage.
This systematic approach gives us an expected outcome and allows us to hold players accountable for the their vote-trading.
Being able to give 1 player a extra vote is hardly threatening at all, when there are 45 votes in all and scum will not necessarily gain the vote themselves.
Please stop trying to make Palmar an issue, he never lives long anyway.
|
On January 27 2012 08:27 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:11 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 27 2012 08:09 risk.nuke wrote:
Yes, wbg. that everyone understood. Assuming nobody here is full on retard they can figure that out.
Wbg are you telling me you approve of vote circles? Yeah, I fully approve of them. I'm going to give Palmar some time to shape up, but if he doesn't agree with this (if he's town he should, it's completely logical) then he should probably die. Anyone who opposes the vote circle plan: please provide reasoning as to why it's bad. WBG, I'm iffy on the vote-circle, and here's why: we can't know who the extra votes are going to. Scum are going to kill someone, and whoever tried to give that person a vote is going to have an extra vote. Will scum design the kill to give themselves extra VP? We can't know the answer, and we won't know even if we lynch the receiver. That's the fundamental flaw in the plan: it provides the most opportunity for everyone to have the same number of votes, but it ensures that someone is going to have more than everyone else and we have no idea if we can trust that person or not. At least by giving a vote to someone who appears pro-town in-thread, we can keep who gets the extra votes within our power. RE: Palmar - Palmar's agenda right now is accruing votes from sheep - he's not going to approve of this plan regardless of his alignment unless he's trolling us. The question becomes: would scumPalmar put stick his neck out like this, bucking the only semblance of a nearly universally accepted plan just to try and gain some VP for the next cycle? I think he would, because he's likely to succeed regardless of his alignment. But town may disagree. I'm willing to kill Palmar today if he doesn't shape up, but I'm also willing to give him until tomorrow. Right now he's one of only two scum reads I have. I'll echo you and say that we need more activity.
I just explained what happens in that circumstance.
If scum are killing people to give themselves extra VP, I think it'll be obvious. Someone who probably wouldn't die ends up dying.
In that case it's still beneficial for us, because chances are good that in order to give themselves VP scum will need to shoot suboptimally. Half the time they won't, ofc, but how does that matter?
Does 1 extra VP on one person really matter? It's 1 out of like 40. I really don't think that extra VP is going to change much unless town is being retarded, and that one person will be under a lot of scrutiny anyway.
On January 27 2012 08:22 risk.nuke wrote:
Ehh... Okey if if it's so easy for scum to look town. Then why don't they do it anyway and lol their way to victory?
Are you illiterate or just plain thick?
The reason scum don't normally do this is because normal games are not NO FLIP
This is the key, this game is FUCKING NO FLIP. I don't believe you've thought hard enough about this if you're asking such questions.
Also, that's what good scum do regardless of whether it's no flip or not anyway. I know for a fact it's what I'd try doing as scum. It's what I did in Mini X, I just made myself look town and then loled all the way to 1vtown victory.
|
I'm not beein thick you are. I said why don't they do it anyway and ment THIS GAME, regardless of votecircles or not.
You say that if we lett everyone give thier votes to whoever they want then scum will try to look the most town and that's why it is a bad idea. What you say doesn't even make sense.
|
I'm in the game guys, I'm working on a plan right now, expect to see me soon
|
On January 27 2012 08:53 risk.nuke wrote:
I'm not beein thick you are. I said why don't they do it anyway and ment THIS GAME, regardless of votecircles or not.
You say that if we lett everyone give thier votes to whoever they want then scum will try to look the most town and that's why it is a bad idea. What you say doesn't even make sense.
uhh of course it does.
You say, let's give our votes to whoever looks most town.
Scum then simply get votes for doing what would be optimal for them anyway!
No doubt scum are going to try to look town. By saying we are going to give the people who look town the votes, we're basically going to reward scum for their play with votes. What YOU are saying doesn't make sense, because you completely overlook this.
The most useless players in the game are generally all townies, and so you're basically going to shift votes away from them onto scum and active townies. It will almost always benefit scum because the vote proportion will change just by the fact that the lazy townies won't receive votes while everyone else will.
|
On January 27 2012 09:04 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:53 risk.nuke wrote:
I'm not beein thick you are. I said why don't they do it anyway and ment THIS GAME, regardless of votecircles or not.
You say that if we lett everyone give thier votes to whoever they want then scum will try to look the most town and that's why it is a bad idea. What you say doesn't even make sense. uhh of course it does. You say, let's give our votes to whoever looks most town.
Scum then simply get votes for doing what would be optimal for them anyway! No doubt scum are going to try to look town. By saying we are going to give the people who look town the votes, we're basically going to reward scum for their play with votes. What YOU are saying doesn't make sense, because you completely overlook this. The most useless players in the game are generally all townies, and so you're basically going to shift votes away from them onto scum and active townies. It will almost always benefit scum because the vote proportion will change just by the fact that the lazy townies won't receive votes while everyone else will.
No. I say I will give my votes to whoever I think is town, town isn't goin to hold a moot about it and have everyone send their vote to 1 or 3 people. And tell me how is scum going to act to look pro-town. All we can do to find scum in this game is look for inconsistencies and scummy behavior. Free vote-trading just gives us more to look for and help us get better reads on people. And scum will have to activly post to get votes or have their votes reduced. Which will prevent first of all lurker-scum but also more room to slip and make an error.
Also you're going by the assumption that there will be three scum who will look mega town. along with 3-4 townies who will try to play and get killed first while the rest of the town is useless. Thats dumb. Yeah there are a few people in this game that shouldn't be. But you are just either fearfull or purposly fearmongering.
Assume the majority of the townies will be regular townies. Not useless lurkers. Please, This was supposed to be a game free of beginers just because of that. There will likely be 1 or 2 useless townies anyway who slinked in. They will have 1 votepower and wont hurt us as much as they could with 3 votes. Consider them as a lurker-bane shot them.
You have provided no reasoning for why votecircles are better then free voting other then. Scum will try to look town and get all our votes which is incorrect and dumb-townie at best. Scumplay at worst.
I'm off, we'll continue this tomorrow.
|
Sorry guys for the extremely late arrival but plan time!!!!
The Strongest Chain
Things we know about the setup
1. If someone dies, all actions to him are canceled. All of his votes disappear
2. Vote power is public
3. You can only give one vote to one player.
Mafia Objectives
1. Accure votepower
2. Try not to lose votepower through lynches
Town Objective
1. To gain, or keep voting power
Individually if I had the option to not trade, I would obviously do it, since there is a chance that I would give it to a mafia. If I kept my vote I can insure that it will stay with the town.
The best plan will attempt to replicate this, while building some sort of advantage. Here is the plan, it is quiet simple. Circlevotes*! (*But better) Now the actual plan and why it works
The Plan
Everyone will transfer their votes. Palmar will give a vote to Jackal58, NetStalker will give a vote to me so on so forth until LayAbou gives a vote to Palmar.
In addition, there will be something called the Self Correcting Fixing Mechanisms
Each day afterwards, votes will be adjusted so that everyone will end up with 3 votes the day after. Because KP is set at 1, at the end of every nights there will be one person with 4 votes, and one person with 2 votes (as their trades to the killed person will be canceled). For the next night, the person with the 4 votes and the person with the two votes will be removed from the circle and they will trade votes. The person with the 4 votes will give the other 2 votes, and the person with 2 votes will give the other 1 vote, leaving each of them with 3.
+ Show Spoiler [Example] +
DAY 1: A:3 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:3 F:3
A->B 1 vote
B->C 1 vote
C->D 1 vote
D->E 1 vote
E->F 1 vote
F gets killed
DAY 2: A:2 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:4
A->E 1 vote
E->A 2 votes
B->C 1 vote
C->D 1vote
D->A 1 vote
The self-correcting mechanism has a ‘flaw’ though, in the above example, if person A dies night two, mafia will net an ‘extra’ vote.
BUT: this isn’t a real flaw. It’s actually is an Advantage. First of all, it will strongly green E as a townie. Second of all, the person with the four votes could be protected by the doctor / slightly greened during the day before he dies.
Mafia is left with a choice. Either to give us information, or to give up a vote, or to keep everything the same. All of which at least break even for town
Why this plan is better than all other plans
1. It neutralizes vote movements from mafia. Mafia can no longer transfer votes between members. Defeating Mafia objected 2
2. It is better from ordinary circle-jerks because if the mafia chooses to exploit the ‘flaw’ with self-correction we will be able to green someone. On the other hand, if mafia exploits the flaw with chain voting, we would not be able to get as good data
3. It is better than passing 2 votes. Passing 2 votes is very pro-mafia. There is no reason to pass two votes if you only have 3. Remember, you can only pass votes to one person, so just passing one vote neutralizes any other vote passing actions you have. The only reason why you would want to pass two votes would be to make a two vote swing for the mafia. (in-addition passing two votes eliminates a self-correcting mechanism)
4. Giving one person all of the votes is an extremely risky endeavor. It is an instant lose if the person is mafia. And even if you gave all the votes to me, there is no guarantee that I can live the night.
5. Random passing is a bad idea. First of all, statistically speaking a portion of the town votes will end up in mafia hands, while very few if any mafia votes end up in town hands. This means that mafia will always gain vote power each night
|
So we have some opposition to the vote circle. I am still leaning towards it. Because with it we can force the mafia to trade votes who WE want them to trade votes too. Telling people to give votes to the most townie player wont work as well imo because we have at least one good mafia as WBG has pointed out that will play the town role very well. And we also know that mafia wont be losing any votes as they will most likly trade with each other.
Saying that four people trading together will be obvious is not so true imo. We cant even tell who they are trading to if they lie about it. I like town circles most because we have the control
If they choice to kill a player so that the mafia would come out with an extra vote. Then we ofc should scrutinize that player. And it would be down rigth foolish for mafia to do the same thing a second time. They gain a single vote or maybe two votes for what possible reveling half there scum team. I dont think the mafia are that dumb.
However. If we dont go with the vote circles. Then i believe that we should announce who we are giving our vote too. It helps gives us transparency and the ability to caught scum in scummy behavior or even lies. The vote circle seems like a good idea tho.
Palmar if you think the the person above you or below is town will you be part of our town circle 
|
I'm actually going to be busy for about 3.5 hours, so I'll be back to answer major concerns then.
Please be wary of anyone supporting a "Passing two votes" plan, and a "Giving everyone all the votes" plan
|
On January 27 2012 09:26 risk.nuke wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 09:04 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 27 2012 08:53 risk.nuke wrote:
I'm not beein thick you are. I said why don't they do it anyway and ment THIS GAME, regardless of votecircles or not.
You say that if we lett everyone give thier votes to whoever they want then scum will try to look the most town and that's why it is a bad idea. What you say doesn't even make sense. uhh of course it does. You say, let's give our votes to whoever looks most town.
Scum then simply get votes for doing what would be optimal for them anyway! No doubt scum are going to try to look town. By saying we are going to give the people who look town the votes, we're basically going to reward scum for their play with votes. What YOU are saying doesn't make sense, because you completely overlook this. The most useless players in the game are generally all townies, and so you're basically going to shift votes away from them onto scum and active townies. It will almost always benefit scum because the vote proportion will change just by the fact that the lazy townies won't receive votes while everyone else will. No. I say I will give my votes to whoever I think is town, town isn't goin to hold a moot about it and have everyone send their vote to 1 or 3 people. And tell me how is scum going to act to look pro-town. All we can do to find scum in this game is look for inconsistencies and scummy behavior. Free vote-trading just gives us more to look for and help us get better reads on people. And scum will have to activly post to get votes or have their votes reduced. Which will prevent first of all lurker-scum but also more room to slip and make an error. Also you're going by the assumption that there will be three scum who will look mega town. along with 3-4 townies who will try to play and get killed first while the rest of the town is useless. Thats dumb. Yeah there are a few people in this game that shouldn't be. But you are just either fearfull or purposly fearmongering. Assume the majority of the townies will be regular townies. Not useless lurkers. Please, This was supposed to be a game free of beginers just because of that. There will likely be 1 or 2 useless townies anyway who slinked in. They will have 1 votepower and wont hurt us as much as they could with 3 votes. Consider them as a lurker-bane shot them. You have provided no reasoning for why votecircles are better then free voting other then. Scum will try to look town and get all our votes which is incorrect and dumb-townie at best. Scumplay at worst. I'm off, we'll continue this tomorrow.
I'm not making any assumptions about anything.
Pretend there are 3 townies this game who do not receive any votes from other townies. That's not an unreasonable number. I might even imagine there might be as many as 5 or even 6 who don't receive votes n1, because most townies' opinions about who they think is town tend to be very similar.
As I said earlier, remember how people thought BM looked town in mafia L? And he played terribly to boot.
Now, imagine those 3 townies don't receive any votes. Scum only send votes to scum and at least 3 votes go from townies to scum. Impossible? Nah, you can RNG the votes and they'd end up that way.
One townie dies, vote power for scum just increased from 9 to 12 in a pool that went down from 43 to 40 or 41.
Percentage of scum votes went up from less than 25% to around 30%. That's a significant increase.
Also in this hypothetical the scumteam only received 3 votes. I could guarantee you that if I were scum and I were trying hard enough I'd be able to get that many votes alone, EASILY.
The advantage to the vote sending system is that, at most, scum gain 1 vote during the night.
|
On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote:Sorry guys for the extremely late arrival but plan time!!!! The Strongest Chain Things we know about the setup1. If someone dies, all actions to him are canceled. All of his votes disappear 2. Vote power is public 3. You can only give one vote to one player. Mafia Objectives1. Accure votepower 2. Try not to lose votepower through lynches Town Objective1. To gain, or keep voting power Individually if I had the option to not trade, I would obviously do it, since there is a chance that I would give it to a mafia. If I kept my vote I can insure that it will stay with the town. The best plan will attempt to replicate this, while building some sort of advantage. Here is the plan, it is quiet simple. Circlevotes*! (*But better) Now the actual plan and why it works The PlanEveryone will transfer their votes. Palmar will give a vote to Jackal58, NetStalker will give a vote to me so on so forth until LayAbou gives a vote to Palmar. In addition, there will be something called the Self Correcting Fixing MechanismsEach day afterwards, votes will be adjusted so that everyone will end up with 3 votes the day after. Because KP is set at 1, at the end of every nights there will be one person with 4 votes, and one person with 2 votes (as their trades to the killed person will be canceled). For the next night, the person with the 4 votes and the person with the two votes will be removed from the circle and they will trade votes. The person with the 4 votes will give the other 2 votes, and the person with 2 votes will give the other 1 vote, leaving each of them with 3. + Show Spoiler [Example] +
DAY 1: A:3 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:3 F:3
A->B 1 vote
B->C 1 vote
C->D 1 vote
D->E 1 vote
E->F 1 vote
F gets killed
DAY 2: A:2 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:4
A->E 1 vote
E->A 2 votes
B->C 1 vote
C->D 1vote
D->A 1 vote
The self-correcting mechanism has a ‘flaw’ though, in the above example, if person A dies night two, mafia will net an ‘extra’ vote. BUT: this isn’t a real flaw. It’s actually is an Advantage. First of all, it will strongly green E as a townie. Second of all, the person with the four votes could be protected by the doctor / slightly greened during the day before he dies. Mafia is left with a choice. Either to give us information, or to give up a vote, or to keep everything the same. All of which at least break even for town Why this plan is better than all other plans1. It neutralizes vote movements from mafia. Mafia can no longer transfer votes between members. Defeating Mafia objected 2 2. It is better from ordinary circle-jerks because if the mafia chooses to exploit the ‘flaw’ with self-correction we will be able to green someone. On the other hand, if mafia exploits the flaw with chain voting, we would not be able to get as good data 3. It is better than passing 2 votes. Passing 2 votes is very pro-mafia. There is no reason to pass two votes if you only have 3. Remember, you can only pass votes to one person, so just passing one vote neutralizes any other vote passing actions you have. The only reason why you would want to pass two votes would be to make a two vote swing for the mafia. (in-addition passing two votes eliminates a self-correcting mechanism) 4. Giving one person all of the votes is an extremely risky endeavor. It is an instant lose if the person is mafia. And even if you gave all the votes to me, there is no guarantee that I can live the night. 5. Random passing is a bad idea. First of all, statistically speaking a portion of the town votes will end up in mafia hands, while very few if any mafia votes end up in town hands. This means that mafia will always gain vote power each night
I believe the vote trade cancel will leave one person with 4 votes and everyone else with 3.
I could be mistaken, but that's what I understood from reading the op; if you give a vote to a person who dies that night, you keep your vote.
And this is exactly what I've been saying and I agree 100% with LSB. As of now I'm actually willing to kill Risk.nuke just because he can't see this common sense.
##vote risk.nuke
|
i don't think we would have a player confirmed as "strongly green".
Otherwise plan well planned.
Back tomorrow.
|
On January 27 2012 09:36 wherebugsgo wrote:
As I said earlier, remember how people thought BM looked town in mafia L?
What game were you playing? BM just looked insane.
I agree with your points for a circle. I like LSBs self correction factor too.
But BM looking town??????
|
On January 27 2012 09:42 Jackal58 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 09:36 wherebugsgo wrote:
As I said earlier, remember how people thought BM looked town in mafia L? What game were you playing? BM just looked insane. I agree with your points for a circle. I like LSBs self correction factor too. But BM looking town??????
Apparently you don't remember day 1 at all.
BM got 11 votes and the fucking sheriff because everyone kept saying he looked town. At any rate, it's not relevant now, it was just relevant to my argument that giving people votes based on "town reads" is straight up retarded.
It also opens up the town to manipulation of these reads solely based on the vote transfers, which is actually pretty scary.
|
I'm going to do this:
##Vote: risk.nuke
because I feel that risk is stirring up dissent, and also he hasn't made a rebuttal on the fact that if mafia gets votes they will not give them away, they'll just trade to each other. It's common sense. Also sometimes I don't think he's actually doing anything except provoking players, so either he's just really BM or he's mafia. Either way I don't have a good feeling about him.
|
Based on his play in Election Mafia, I'd say that his BM and general abrasiveness transcends his alignment. I'm not sure if he's talking about trading out ALL of his votes, but if he is then yeah, that's shady. It seemed to me like he was leaving it pretty ambiguous intentionally, but maybe I missed something.
At any rate, risk.nuke is at least taking a stance on one side of the issue, which is something even I have yet to do...so I don't feel comfortable voting for him just yet. In general, I'd say that his chainsaw defense of Palmar is more damning than his BM - which actually makes me LESS suspicious of Palmar on the whole.
The more it's discussed, the more it makes sense to just come up with a system of vote-trading that lets us all have the same number of votes. That way, everyone is still accountable for the direction of the game, and we can see any scummy attempts to sway the flow of votes.
VE - For Transparent Trading Through Circle-Jerk
|
|
|
Honestly, I think the validity of the vote circle plan comes down to a very simple question: Who stands to gain more from a system where voting power is not spread out evenly? I think the answer to that question, for at least the first part of the game, is undoubtedly the mafia. In a set-up where scum KP is very low, but the number of members is relatively high, control of the lynch is huge. Keeping the votes even across all players puts us in the same situation we're in every other game, while moving them around will only allow the balance of power to swing in the favor of the mafia -- and once they have it, they aren't going to lose it due to the trading mechanics.
And just think, once the votes start piling up on a few individuals, we can't be sure they're going to stay in good hands. Mistakes are bound to be made. Do I trust, for instance, Palmar to pick somebody who's town? Yeah, kinda. Do I trust whoever he picks to also do so? That's less likely.
Keep in mind that we don't have the reliability of the flip to hold those with voting power accountable. It's all too easy for just a couple of mafia with a couple extra voting power to slip in and make a majority, and then what?
I want to re-iterate that if we don't hold people accountable for not following the voting circle, things are going to get very bad very fast, because as long as two mafia remain alive they aren't going to lose the lynch. It will only take one or two slip-ups to give the lynch to scum, and at that point it is over. It is for this reason that I am going to ##Vote: Palmar. Put simply: if we want to live, we follow the fucking voting circle.
|
Who should we lynch first: risk.nuke or Palmar?
|
I'd say risk. Palmar from what I gather is generally like this, risk is a more shady character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8frwy.jpg)
