|
@Palmar I think most people's reasoning behind the circle trade is that it leaves little room for error. I.E. townies trading a bunch of votes to mafia who looks "pro-town". If this happens, then with the fact that it is no flip, this puts mafia in a great situation for lynching a weaker townie the following day. They can keep picking off the weaker townies one by one.
You are contradicting yourself. You have little faith in us, think we are bad, and think we should die, yet want us to go with the system in which requires the most brain power. Either we are competent or not. You can't have it both ways. It is a big risk to give votes to who we "think" is the most pro-town person on N1, because we can't be sure of any of our reads. Being 100% sure of anything is impossible for a townie.
So it comes down to Less Risk(circle trading) versus More Information(free trading).
After Night 1 I am all for doing something else. We will have more information, due to the possibility of power roles. Power roles will be able to be 100% percent sure on things and lead town to lynches and pro-town reads. After Night 1 your plan is sound.
|
[QUOTE]On January 27 2012 14:57 risk.nuke wrote:
Sentinel
Eh. Is Sentinel new? Because in that case what you're experience is the "Someone is disagreeing with me, must be scum syndrome" Otherwise you just gained a few scumpoints.
Do you really think scum can you trade votes with eachother. Don't you think that would look ALITTLE suspicious? Everyone including scum will be forced to give their ONE vote. Because I'm not going to discuss any system where you give away more votes then absolutely neccersary. Why? Because only scum knows for sure who the townies are, giving away more is a stupid risk. Anyway back to scum will be forced to give their ONE vote to a player they can give reason for why is town. Because anyone who send a vote and can't later give an acceptable reason they will be sent to the block.
You vote for me which is +scumpoints in itself but you provide little reasoning in combination with the he's probably better of dead left jab. Don't care if your new or not that gives you more scumpoints.
[QUOTE]
Marvelous argument... except no. They can lie about who they trade votes to, or even better, send votes to whoever they're going to kill and get those votes back when person dies. Day 1 this will be viable, Day 2 maybe if they're smart about it. Scumteam will keep all of their votes and gain more.
|
I meant this
*Being 100% sure of anything is impossible for a townie during N1.
|
On January 27 2012 19:22 Paperscraps wrote:
You are contradicting yourself. You have little faith in us, think we are bad, and think we should die, yet want us to go with the system in which requires the most brain power. Either we are competent or not. You can't have it both ways. It is a big risk to give votes to who we "think" is the most pro-town person on N1, because we can't be sure of any of our reads. Being 100% sure of anything is impossible for a townie.
Optimal play is to do what I just said. I don't care if I think half of town is bad. Just prove me wrong.
|
On January 27 2012 19:22 Paperscraps wrote:
After Night 1 I am all for doing something else. We will have more information, due to the possibility of power roles. Power roles will be able to be 100% percent sure on things and lead town to lynches and pro-town reads. After Night 1 your plan is sound.
This. I don't get why people are convinced they'd have to circlejerk until the end of the universe if we go with the plan. I just want a one or two night circlejerk, get information out, and then start voting appropriately.
|
On January 27 2012 19:31 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 19:22 Paperscraps wrote:
After Night 1 I am all for doing something else. We will have more information, due to the possibility of power roles. Power roles will be able to be 100% percent sure on things and lead town to lynches and pro-town reads. After Night 1 your plan is sound. This. I don't get why people are convinced they'd have to circlejerk until the end of the universe if we go with the plan. I just want a one or two night circlejerk, get information out, and then start voting appropriately.
You're allowed an opinion, even if it's wrong.
|
On January 27 2012 19:34 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 19:31 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On January 27 2012 19:22 Paperscraps wrote:
After Night 1 I am all for doing something else. We will have more information, due to the possibility of power roles. Power roles will be able to be 100% percent sure on things and lead town to lynches and pro-town reads. After Night 1 your plan is sound. This. I don't get why people are convinced they'd have to circlejerk until the end of the universe if we go with the plan. I just want a one or two night circlejerk, get information out, and then start voting appropriately. You're allowed an opinion, even if it's wrong.
This is so incredibly hypocritical...
you have had nothing but shit opinions all game.
|
On January 27 2012 19:03 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +What this plan does is remove responsibility. Instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote, everyone simply gives their vote to whoever they have a town read on. I meant to say: What this plan does is remove responsibility, instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote. Everyone should simply give their vote to whoever they have a town read on. funny how punctuation can fuck up a sentence.
The problem is that any one scum who appears town will fuck us over.
I don't want to give mafia ANY vote power. I trust myself, but I don't trust anyone else. After BM got elected last game, how can you trust people to have good town reads?
Even good players will have bad reads sometimes. One bad read and you give mafia a vote.
Mafia will have no problem just handing their vote off to a teammate because no one ever flips in this game. They can defend each other like crazy and they will never see any serious repercussions from it because, again no one flips!
This simple fact is so important that I cannot believe you're still thinking it's a good idea to just trust your reads in a damn no flip game.
|
whatever, I don't have the energy to argue with dumb.
I will not be following whatever plan you guys cook up. I will be following my own plan.
|
And stop bringing up the no-flip thing. There's definitely some coroner type roles around this game.
|
On January 27 2012 20:01 Palmar wrote:
And stop bringing up the no-flip thing. There's definitely some coroner type roles around this game.
what is this, a claim?
|
No, common sense.
I know you wouldn't recognize it, so just take my word for it.
|
On January 27 2012 18:50 Palmar wrote:
Also, are you guys seriously stupid enough to not see the problem with the circle-jerk plan? If this is the way you guys think, I don't have much faith we'll succeed much at all this game. For example, Node should probably die very fast because there's no way he's this dumb. In fact, all townies who lack the critical thinking to see the problem, should die.
Mafia is about making choices. Much more than you can deduce from reading someone's posts and checking if they're doing scummy stuff, you can hold them accountable for their actions. You need to understand the reasoning behind why people do what they do.
What this plan does is remove responsibility. Instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote, everyone simply gives their vote to whoever they have a town read on. You should keep who you vote for to yourself until the next day, at which point everyone should claim to whom they gave the vote, and why.
Giving votes has the potential to give us information. If a player gives his vote to someone on weak reasoning, or if the player receiving the vote is very likely to be mafia (or at some point flips mafia), we have a reason to investigate that player, based on his actions.
Suggesting we remove the tool of analyzing how and why people give their votes away is terrible. It's anti-town and it should not happen.
If we follow a circle-jerk plan, we remove this aspect of the game, we give mafia a free pass, and a guarantee that they will not lose any voting power. I would hate to be in a situation as scum if I had two options: a) Lose some voting power. b) Make a case as to why I think a scumbuddy is town. That's seriously scary if you're mafia. I mean, good mafia players will have no problem cooking up a good case, but good mafia players are hard to catch anyway.
Apply some brain power, reap rewards.
It's very likely the most town looking people will be protected by medics, providing an even further deterrence for mafia from shooting them. Remember, mafia has to give 4 votes away tonight. It takes 4 townies having the strongest read on scum as town, to balance that out, or otherwise the mafia has to make cases as to why they think their scumbuddies are town. That's hard to do.
do you actually think we're so bad that we can't handle this? I guess the fact that the circle jerk plan got any support at all answers my question though.
I read through the thread to verify how correct I was and saw this again. The original thought I had was that I didn't think we could make an informed decision before N1 on who to give our vote to. I think this was a reasonable assumption at the time, and the first 6 posts were 6 people signing up for the Circle of Trust.
The other mistake was I assumed mafia would have vote-rigging, ballot-stuffing, chad-hanging abilities. No one else has had this concern so I was likely wrong.
So, do we think we can make a better than random guess during Night 1 on who to give our votes to?
The Circle of Trust was never supposed to be for all game, just to limit the damage to town until we had enough information in a no-flip, closed game.
My only reservation is that since mafia only has 1 KP, we might get too aggressive too quick with vigs and such blowing our loads too early.
|
The difference between finding mafia to lynch and finding townie to pass your vote to is night and day. Remember, if you just randomize it, you still have 70% chance of hitting a townie. Add in even a tiny bit of thinking and that percentage goes up.
When you're trying to lynch scum it's the opposite, and you will be influenced by outside factors (it's harder to get wagons started on scum). However, this is your decision and your decision alone, so you have complete control over the outcome.
There is no such thing as safe play in mafia. It's not safe to do the circle of trust because we don't know what abilities the mafia has, and we cannot possibly gain an advantage through that method. With no advantage we don't know how the game is balanced.
|
Since circle trading is effectively dead, can we talk about how stupid the risk.nuke lynch is?
|
|
|
I need to go shopping now but I'll write something when I get back.
##Vote: wherebugsgo
|
On January 27 2012 18:50 Palmar wrote:
Also, are you guys seriously stupid enough to not see the problem with the circle-jerk plan? If this is the way you guys think, I don't have much faith we'll succeed much at all this game. For example, Node should probably die very fast because there's no way he's this dumb. In fact, all townies who lack the critical thinking to see the problem, should die.
Mafia is about making choices. Much more than you can deduce from reading someone's posts and checking if they're doing scummy stuff, you can hold them accountable for their actions. You need to understand the reasoning behind why people do what they do.
What this plan does is remove responsibility. Instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote, everyone simply gives their vote to whoever they have a town read on. You should keep who you vote for to yourself until the next day, at which point everyone should claim to whom they gave the vote, and why.
Giving votes has the potential to give us information. If a player gives his vote to someone on weak reasoning, or if the player receiving the vote is very likely to be mafia (or at some point flips mafia), we have a reason to investigate that player, based on his actions.
Suggesting we remove the tool of analyzing how and why people give their votes away is terrible. It's anti-town and it should not happen.
If we follow a circle-jerk plan, we remove this aspect of the game, we give mafia a free pass, and a guarantee that they will not lose any voting power. I would hate to be in a situation as scum if I had two options: a) Lose some voting power. b) Make a case as to why I think a scumbuddy is town. That's seriously scary if you're mafia. I mean, good mafia players will have no problem cooking up a good case, but good mafia players are hard to catch anyway.
Apply some brain power, reap rewards.
It's very likely the most town looking people will be protected by medics, providing an even further deterrence for mafia from shooting them. Remember, mafia has to give 4 votes away tonight. It takes 4 townies having the strongest read on scum as town, to balance that out, or otherwise the mafia has to make cases as to why they think their scumbuddies are town. That's hard to do.
do you actually think we're so bad that we can't handle this? I guess the fact that the circle jerk plan got any support at all answers my question though.
So circle jerking is bad because if we didn't do it then every player would have to say who they are going to give votes to before they do it and that we could analyse that?
This seems like an unrealistic expectation to me, because players often vote to lynch without providing any reasoning or just repeating what others have said.
Why would players have to make cases?
What is there to stop players simply not explaining their actions or misleading us?
If you are town then you know that you are town but you do not know the alignments of other players.
Every time you give away a vote you are giving a town controlled vote to a player that could be town or scum.
For this reason it does not make sense for players (of either alignment) to be trading away lots of votes.
It also means that whenever you trade votes you want to be as sure as possible that you are giving them to town. As the game progresses we will get more information and should be getting more accurate reads.
On day1 the majority of reads suck. This means that day1 has the most potential for mafia to gain votes. Circle-trading minimises/near-eliminates this potential and it allows players to show through their actions that they want to help town. Circle trading day1 is the safest option we have.
On January 28 2012 00:03 prplhz wrote:
Since circle trading is effectively dead, can we talk about how stupid the risk.nuke lynch is?
why do you think it's dead?
why are you telling people that it is dead?
|
On January 28 2012 00:03 prplhz wrote:
Since circle trading is effectively dead, can we talk about how stupid the risk.nuke lynch is?
First off,
##Unvote risk.nuke He answered my question, even if I don't like his answer I thought he was avoiding it among others.
Anyways, I think more people are for circlejerk, at least the first night when we have no info to use, than against. It's far from dead at any rate.
|
I think we need to try to reach a conclusion on the whole "how should we give away our votes away" issue as it will be hard to reach an agreement that everyone will follow during night. We need to move discussion towards the lynch quite soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
