| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
For the same reason he doesn't make a good day 1 lynch because if he's not scum, then scum will want to shoot him. On November 16 2011 16:26 sinani206 wrote: This is completely stupid because some people have more than one read at a time. Why focus when you can divide (your attention) and conquer? No. | ||
|
sinani206
United States1959 Posts
On November 16 2011 17:27 wherebugsgo wrote: Coag is also a pretty good player, so if he's scum, he's capable of lurking and surviving. For the same reason he doesn't make a good day 1 lynch because if he's not scum, then scum will want to shoot him. No. yes | ||
|
sinani206
United States1959 Posts
On November 16 2011 16:34 Cyber_Cheese wrote: You've taken divide and conquer out of context, historically its about dividing the enemy, not yourself. You shouldn't be taking any less precaution over any of your votes than you usually would. It's better to scrutinize one person to best determine whether they are scum or not. If everybody does it, there should be enough information to extract reasonable opinions come voting time for anyone else you might want lynched. Using divide and conquer properly here is essentially lynching one scum at a time. you understnad the point, which is all that matters | ||
|
HarbingerOfDoom
United States508 Posts
As I mentioned in an earlier post of mine, risk.nuke: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=282366&user=76576 And then we have hyshes: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=282366&user=132738 As mentioned above, there is also Coagulation. I may very well be missing some, but hyshes and risk stood out to me since I played with them in my previous game. If we want to include people with more posts that are just all useless...well then the list becomes much longer :-) | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
I have no idea how Coag plays, but he's a well=known name around here. At this moment in time we should be pressuring lurkers into responding but there's not a huge point in focusing on them. Many players like kenpachi routinely lurk day 1 and there's almost nothing you can do to change that other than simply killing them. Of course, that's not feasible since trying to lynch 5-6 people would be really bad. | ||
|
HarbingerOfDoom
United States508 Posts
On November 16 2011 17:35 wherebugsgo wrote: we can expect hyshes to lurk, that says nothing about his alignment. Risk lurks pretty heavily too (in XLV he had like 2 posts per day) I have no idea how Coag plays, but he's a well=known name around here. At this moment in time we should be pressuring lurkers into responding but there's not a huge point in focusing on them. Many players like kenpachi routinely lurk day 1 and there's almost nothing you can do to change that other than simply killing them. Of course, that's not feasible since trying to lynch 5-6 people would be really bad. Risk lurks heavily? Interesting. In my game with him he got shot night one, and before dying managed to make in excess of 15 posts, including some very large analysis ones. | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
On November 16 2011 17:27 wherebugsgo wrote: Coag is also a pretty good player, so if he's scum, he's capable of lurking and surviving. For the same reason he doesn't make a good day 1 lynch because if he's not scum, then scum will want to shoot him. No. We can't differentiate between lurkers too heavily based purely on meta. If someone is lurking and being useless, they should be a valid candidate for lynch, especially if they are good and should have known better. Killing someone that is renowned to be a good player sends out a stronger anti-lurker message, which is the whole point in doing it. This is why Coag is a great choice for lynch at the moment, as opposed to someone like Sinani. Giving people a free pass on reputation leads to stupid things like Palmar managing to win in LotR mafia as third party while basically not even trying. Speaking of Palmar: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=282366&user=87086 Useless mass of one liners. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
For now, he's just another lurker. I forgot to address this following quote by chaoser. Let me do that now: + Show Spoiler + On November 16 2011 10:40 chaoser wrote: I didn't fabricate analysis though. Forumite built a shitty case on LSB out of nothing. The difference between him and I is that I didn't try to hide my case behind long paragraphs and shitty reasoning. I just went "lawl scum *vote*" But back onto the topic of pressuring: In XXXIX redtooth makes a bullshit case on Irish_Punk with no real reason and I followed up on his vote. There is no "leading the whole thread" in that game at all because the natural reaction to a bullshit vote is to go "wtf?", especially when clearly there was no real case in the first place. Who is going to be lead along by "lawl scum, *vote*" as the only reason for voting someone? No one, as was true in that game (people ended up voting Kurumi off 6 votes compared to the 2 on Irish) Anyway, due to the random no reasoning pressure, Irish overreacts and responds in a crazy manner. This then created discussion; At my expense though =[. More importantly, because of how he responded to the situation and how the rest of the players responded to his response of the situation, I was able to get a solid read on about half the thread and ended up pinning two other players as being mafia. My day two read/suspicious/vote was on amber was completely based around the fact that he was very flaky between voting Kurumi and being suspicious of Irish. Then I directed a vigi shot at GGQ due to how he handled the Amber lynch. Alright... First part: On November 16 2011 10:40 chaoser wrote: I didn't fabricate analysis though. Forumite built a shitty case on LSB out of nothing. The difference between him and I is that I didn't try to hide my case behind long paragraphs and shitty reasoning. I just went "lawl scum *vote*" I don't think I was quite clear; I meant that scum can take bad and unreasoned votes like yours on scummy townies and then fabricate a case or "analysis" afterward and it will be difficult to tell whether they are being genuine or not. They'll slip by, too, unless we are active about punishing them for it. People voting others with relatively little, if any reason, is detrimental to town. We need to know why people are getting votes, otherwise nothing's stopping people from just casting one liner votes that don't further our purpose. We need information to work with, and even if you happen to vote scum, unless you have reasoning or unless you can create a reaction, they'll often just ignore the vote or be more wary and be less likely to slip. Personally I prefer building at least a small case before voting, since gathering of information is so vital. If one thinks that someone is scum then by all means they need to get voted to see how they (and other players) react, but I don't feel that way about any of your votes. If you simply vote them as soon as you have the slightest suspicion, how are we going to better our own position and ensure that we are, indeed, lynching scum? This is why things like read lists at this stage of the game are pointless. Simply disseminating that information, like haphazard voting, is an inefficient way to attack scum, IMO. They are forewarned of suspicion and thus will act differently because they are aware of the attention. But back onto the topic of pressuring: On November 16 2011 10:40 chaoser wrote: In XXXIX redtooth makes a bullshit case on Irish_Punk with no real reason and I followed up on his vote. There is no "leading the whole thread" in that game at all because the natural reaction to a bullshit vote is to go "wtf?", especially when clearly there was no real case in the first place. Who is going to be lead along by "lawl scum, *vote*" as the only reason for voting someone? No one, as was true in that game (people ended up voting Kurumi off 6 votes compared to the 2 on Irish) Anyway, due to the random no reasoning pressure, Irish overreacts and responds in a crazy manner. This then created discussion; At my expense though =[. More importantly, because of how he responded to the situation and how the rest of the players responded to his response of the situation, I was able to get a solid read on about half the thread and ended up pinning two other players as being mafia. My day two read/suspicious/vote was on amber was completely based around the fact that he was very flaky between voting Kurumi and being suspicious of Irish. Then I directed a vigi shot at GGQ due to how he handled the Amber lynch. That's all wonderful, but honestly, who cares? You know that someone like sinani is never going to respond if he gets voted. Even as town all he does is troll. So, if you expect some sort of reaction out of your target to be useful, I can guarantee you that good scum won't bite. They'll ignore your vote on them and they'll give you the same reaction you would expect out of a townie. | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On November 16 2011 15:52 HarbingerOfDoom wrote: @Drazerk + Show Spoiler + On November 16 2011 05:13 Drazerk wrote: ##Vote: Sabin010 Bad vibes also this - On November 16 2011 09:06 Drazerk wrote: Your not going to lurk the first day, come out of no where and then vote chaoser without reason. FoS sinani206 And his filter: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=282366&user=107918 No matter how bad a reason I gave a reason. There is no reason to give no reason for a vote personally I believe Sabin screwed up and I am following that up by voting for him. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:00 Cyber_Cheese wrote: The top part of my previous post was in response to Harbringer. We can't differentiate between lurkers too heavily based purely on meta. If someone is lurking and being useless, they should be a valid candidate for lynch, especially if they are good and should have known better. Killing someone that is renowned to be a good player sends out a stronger anti-lurker message, which is the whole point in doing it. This is why Coag is a great choice for lynch at the moment, as opposed to someone like Sinani. Giving people a free pass on reputation leads to stupid things like Palmar managing to win in LotR mafia as third party while basically not even trying. Speaking of Palmar: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=282366&user=87086 Useless mass of one liners. So, leaving someone alive who has no potential to be of any use (sinani) is favorable to leaving someone alive who has great potential for use? (Coag)? Either way if they're still useless by tomorrow they need to die. The difference between sinani and Palmar/Coag is that sinani never does anything, and Palmar/Coag are actually useful as town. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
WBG, even if there are players that often lurk, metagame isn´t the issue, the issue is that lurking hurts Town. If they do this often and get away with it it´s probably because it´s harder to deal with lurkers in other games where only one player is lynched each day, them lurking in other games hurt just as much there. Having a history of lurking is no excuse. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
I agree that history of lurking is no excuse for lurking, but then if we're going to actually lynch a lurker today we need to figure out which one that is. The other thing I want to stress is that focusing on lurkers is going to distract us from the scum who aren't lurking. Hell, if we are fervent enough about punishing lurkers a lot of them will probably just become active and lose a lot of suspicion. | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On November 16 2011 17:33 HarbingerOfDoom wrote: Calling out lurkers? Sure thing! And then we have hyshes: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=282366&user=132738 As mentioned above, there is also Coagulation. I may very well be missing some, but hyshes and risk stood out to me since I played with them in my previous game. If we want to include people with more posts that are just all useless...well then the list becomes much longer :-) Hyshes is still very new I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't post much on day one + Show Spoiler + No | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:13 wherebugsgo wrote: My point is that you can't lynch all lurkers, and it's certainly optimal to lynch some over others. I agree that history of lurking is no excuse for lurking, but then if we're going to actually lynch a lurker today we need to figure out which one that is. The other thing I want to stress is that focusing on lurkers is going to distract us from the scum who aren't lurking. Hell, if we are fervent enough about punishing lurkers a lot of them will probably just become active and lose a lot of suspicion. If we are going to lynch lurkers we will start with kenpachi | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
##Vote Kenpachi | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:13 wherebugsgo wrote: My point is that you can't lynch all lurkers, and it's certainly optimal to lynch some over others. I agree that history of lurking is no excuse for lurking, but then if we're going to actually lynch a lurker today we need to figure out which one that is. The other thing I want to stress is that focusing on lurkers is going to distract us from the scum who aren't lurking. Hell, if we are fervent enough about punishing lurkers a lot of them will probably just become active and lose a lot of suspicion. Okay, we shouldn´t lynch all at once in case some of them just have a slow start. IMO the goal of lynching lurkers is to activate Town and to force scum to post or die, if scum change their playstyle then it´s actually a win for us. On the subject of this taking attention from scumhunting, unfortunate, but what else can we do? Waiting until the last few hours before the lynch will only make it harder to get enough votes on the lurkers. | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:09 wherebugsgo wrote: So, leaving someone alive who has no potential to be of any use (sinani) is favorable to leaving someone alive who has great potential for use? (Coag)? Either way if they're still useless by tomorrow they need to die. The difference between sinani and Palmar/Coag is that sinani never does anything, and Palmar/Coag are actually useful as town. Are you saying that Coag is in absolutely no danger of being lynched even if he continues to lurk? That seems to defeat the point of threatening to lynch lurkers. By bringing up the good players as the best choices, we can get them to stop lurking day 1, and prove why they are indeed worth keeping. Add to that the mafia might choose to pick them off for being good in meta, not wanting them around to actually pick up their game. The whole point in lynching lurkers is to discourage other lurkers. What incentive do these 'good' people have to stop lurking if they know they are safe because other lurkers will die first? | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:48 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Are you saying that Coag is in absolutely no danger of being lynched even if he continues to lurk? That seems to defeat the point of threatening to lynch lurkers. By bringing up the good players as the best choices, we can get them to stop lurking day 1, and prove why they are indeed worth keeping. Add to that the mafia might choose to pick them off for being good in meta, not wanting them around to actually pick up their game. The whole point in lynching lurkers is to discourage other lurkers. What incentive do these 'good' people have to stop lurking if they know they are safe because other lurkers will die first? So assuming that they're going to keep lurking, you'd rather lynch Coagulation than sinani? Or would you rather lynch both? | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:48 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Are you saying that Coag is in absolutely no danger of being lynched even if he continues to lurk? That seems to defeat the point of threatening to lynch lurkers. By bringing up the good players as the best choices, we can get them to stop lurking day 1, and prove why they are indeed worth keeping. Add to that the mafia might choose to pick them off for being good in meta, not wanting them around to actually pick up their game. The whole point in lynching lurkers is to discourage other lurkers. What incentive do these 'good' people have to stop lurking if they know they are safe because other lurkers will die first? I will not support a day 1 coag/palmar/whoever lynch unless they are actually doing things other than lurking that further a scum agenda. This includes other lurkers as well. When the players are otherwise equivalent, if I have to I will support lynching players like sinani over Coag, on day 1 at least. It just doesn't make sense to lynch someone who is not consistently bad just because they aren't active. You lynch people if they are scum or if they are being detrimental to town. Merely lurking falls into neither of these categories, which is why we have to be careful of how we implement lurker lynching. As I said earlier, if a player like Coag has done nothing by day 2 then that probably means we should get rid of them then. Until that time, other players take priority (for me) in the lurker lynch order. | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:50 prplhz wrote: So assuming that they're going to keep lurking, you'd rather lynch Coagulation than sinani? Or would you rather lynch both? You two don't seem to understand the point in lynching lurkers. It's to discourage lurking and promote a town atmosphere. Coagulation, as with any good player, is capable of picking up his game enough if he got in trouble for lurking right now. Thus, if it came to lynching a lurker, I would go with Coag as the first option, then fall back on lynching someone who will only lurks like Sinani. If we skip straight to threatening Sinani, Coag has no reason to pick up his game until tomorrow. On November 16 2011 18:54 wherebugsgo wrote: I will not support a day 1 coag/palmar/whoever lynch unless they are actually doing things other than lurking that further a scum agenda. This includes other lurkers as well. When the players are otherwise equivalent, if I have to I will support lynching players like sinani over Coag, on day 1 at least. It just doesn't make sense to lynch someone who is not consistently bad just because they aren't active. You lynch people if they are scum or if they are being detrimental to town. Merely lurking falls into neither of these categories, which is why we have to be careful of how we implement lurker lynching. As I said earlier, if a player like Coag has done nothing by day 2 then that probably means we should get rid of them then. Until that time, other players take priority (for me) in the lurker lynch order. Merely lurking doesn't help to promote a pro town atmosphere, and provides us with less information to determine peoples alignments, both of which are detramental to town. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
