|
On August 09 2012 10:24 Hapahauli wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@ Axero: Welcome to the game! On August 09 2012 10:04 Axero wrote:
I agree with Hapa's policy of not blindly lynching due to high activity.
I'm torn on the lurking policy, just because I'd feel bad if I accidentally voted for a fellow townie; but we must do what we must do to save our homes! I'm certainly not suggesting picking a random lurker, rather, focusing on lurkers as targets of early game pressure. I'd be very happy taking lynching a scummy lurker D1 - at best, we lynch a mafia, and at worst, we lynch someone who isn't contributing to the scumhunt (barring a strong scum-read on another type of player of course). Thoughts? : Welcome from observer-land! Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 10:08 goodkarma wrote:
Regarding the proposed "lurker lynch" policy:
So here's some policy talk from one of the "new guys." Day one lurker lynching is a policy I used to favor, but no longer. It can really limit our ability to put pressure on people now, meaning less information later. Day one may feel useless, as from what I've seen of the statistics it's easy to mislynch day one. But the information gained today from others can be referenced all game. Behavioral patterns become important as the game progresses, and that extra day of information gained from pressuring early is priceless. As I mentioned to Axero, I'm more suggesting a policy of pressuring lurkers aggressively from the start. Furthermore, we've seen several vocal townies in recent games get lynched for being controversial (Golbat and Obvious in Newbie XXI and XXII) - keeping our focus away from extremely active players will help us avoid horrible mislynches like those (barring a scum-sclip from an active player of course). I don't think this policy will narrow our focus in a negative way. Thoughts?
If you can actively pressure lurkers while following your scum reads on others then I see no problem with that. But from my experience only pressuring lurkers can limit discussion too much to really be a good policy.
|
Also. Town motives can be faked and scum motives could be made inconspicuous or accidental, with right choice of words and such.
Calgar, agreed?
|
@ Kronen: Welcome to your first game! Never be afraid to post, we won't bite (unless we think you're mafia of course).
To get some conversation going, what are your thoughts on the policy I quoted in the first post?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=355874¤tpage=21#409
Also, were you following the game at all before we reset? If so, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the first day of play
@ Goodkarma: That sounds fair - are there any policies/directions on Day 1 that you find effective?
|
On August 09 2012 11:18 YourHarry wrote:
Also. Town motives can be faked and scum motives could be made inconspicuous or accidental, with right choice of words and such.
Calgar, agreed?
Of course, though the longer games go on and/or the more that scum have to post, town-motive becomes near impossible to fake. Take my actions on the last day of XXI - me and Speedbump's combined aggression against Calgar made no sense from a town perspective, and had the game been more active, that should have been enough to get me lynched.
What in particular about Calgar are you talking about?
|
I'm of a mind that while it may not be good policy meta-wise to lynch for first night inactivity, if someone is inactive on the first night there's a strong possibility their level of activity will wain or at least be inconsistent... Just newb speaking though.
There is someone earlier however that mentioned that they will be inactive first night right? I forget who posted that.
I was not following the game before the reset, I just rejoined page 19ish when I got the invitation 
All in all, I'm looking forward to it! Got my popcorn ready.
|
On August 09 2012 11:27 Kronen wrote:
I'm of a mind that while it may not be good policy meta-wise to lynch for first night inactivity, if someone is inactive on the first night there's a strong possibility their level of activity will wain or at least be inconsistent... Just newb speaking though.
Can you clarify this? I'm not sure exactly what you mean here.
There is someone earlier however that mentioned that they will be inactive first night right? I forget who posted that.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=355874¤tpage=21#405
If you mean this post, that was me - I'll be gone either tomorrow or Friday (likely Friday) for some apartment hunting. I should be able to get some internet at somewhere and place an informative vote, but don't expect large levels of activity from me.
Also, make sure you read through filters - this game is about analysis and critical reading. It doesn't look good for you if you're unwilling to look a couple of pages back and find the name of a poster.
|
I mean that I am a fan of active players and active participation. If someone is inactive on the first night, they will probably be inactive on the following nights.
Your criticism is duly noted.
|
On August 09 2012 11:43 Kronen wrote:
I mean that I am a fan of active players and active participation. If someone is inactive on the first night, they will probably be inactive on the following nights.
I don't understand the second bit - it's probably true, yes, but what does it have to do with the policy I proposed? Please explain.
Your criticism is duly noted.
I apologize for being harsh, but it's important that every town member is willing to contribute good analysis and think critically about suspicions and ideas. It is impossible for town to win if townies aren't willing to read and think.
|
On August 09 2012 11:24 Hapahauli wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@ Kronen: Welcome to your first game! Never be afraid to post, we won't bite (unless we think you're mafia of course). To get some conversation going, what are your thoughts on the policy I quoted in the first post? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=355874¤tpage=21#409Also, were you following the game at all before we reset? If so, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the first day of play : That sounds fair - are there any policies/directions on Day 1 that you find effective?
Treat day 1 like you would days 2, 3, 4, and so on... Make cases based on scum reads first, and only consider "policy lurker lynching" second. I suppose you could call it the "treat day one like any other day" policy.
As a side-note, I'm betting we don't have many lurkers anyway. We are very fortunate to have had this game restarted, as it's given lurkers a chance to weed themselves out from playing .
|
On August 09 2012 11:53 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 11:43 Kronen wrote:
I mean that I am a fan of active players and active participation. If someone is inactive on the first night, they will probably be inactive on the following nights. I don't understand the second bit - it's probably true, yes, but what does it have to do with the policy I proposed? Please explain. I apologize for being harsh, but it's important that every town member is willing to contribute good analysis and think critically about suspicions and ideas. It is impossible for town to win if townies aren't willing to read and think.
No offense taken dude. To be entirely honest, I'm scouring the newbie guides right now. Through them, I'm getting a better idea of the culture of posting (i.e not to be flippant with posts).
As per your first statement, the root of the misunderstanding is that I misread your original post. I was approaching the benefits of lynching inactive people purely from a "improving gameplay" standpoint. Being a noobie game, I'd rather have people that are active, and I figured noobie games would have a higher level of inactivity given the lower level of commitment. Inactive people are hard to read, don't contribute to conversations, and don't advance the gameplay. Removing people who don't want to or can't actively participate in the game doesn't bother me. That more clear?
On August 06 2012 08:06 Hapahauli wrote:- We will not lynch highly-active members D1! Often, the most active members in games are townies. I suggest we be very mindful of bandwagonning on active/controversial players D1 – they often get lynched in newbie games and almost always flip town.
- We will focus our lynching efforts on less-active lurkers! Lack of discussion is bad for the town, and most mafia lurk/semi-lurk through the first few days of the game while they figure out how to play. I propose we keep the pressure up on non-posters day 1. Hell I don’t even mind a lynch-all-lurkers policy: in Newbie Mafia XXI, town would have had a 50% chance of lynching scum D1 if they went after lurking posters.
Having read your post more carefully, I can say honestly I have no experience removing lurkers because they are more likely to be mafia. It's worth thinking about it, but I really can't weigh in on that issue. (Though your suggestion makes sense because incognito's newbie guide suggests mafia generally lay low for the first couple days....)
From my noobie experience playing in person though, I've had very successful mafiosos both lurk while listening for weaknesses or try to guide the conversation in the first day. Comes down to player preference afaik.
|
I wonder if drunkenness is a scumslip?
|
@ GoodKarma - Fair enough. Though I think we're in great shape so far, given that all the new players have posted - only Shadysands and Promethelax to go!
@ Kronen - Thanks for clearing that up. Keep on reading the guides and thread, and I'm looking forward hearing any cases/suspicions you may have tomorrow
@ Lvdr - Drunkenness is not a scumslip, but your play has been pretty scummy so far. I understand trying to post random stuff to get discussion going, but your posting in the first few hours has been pretty rediculous.
|
More plausible than yh then?
|
On August 09 2012 13:03 Lvdr wrote:
More plausible than yh then?
...what do you even mean here? Whether you are more plausible scum than YH? Of course it's too early to tell, but you're not helping your cause by posting those one-liners.
But tell me - what about your play so far hasn't been scummy?
|
YourHarry:On August 09 2012 10:33 YourHarry wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 09:16 Hapahauli wrote:On August 09 2012 09:02 Dandel Ion wrote:
As for policy, I'd like to policy-lynch YourHarry. I call it the "YourHarry-lynch-policy". The goal is to lynch YourHarry. I surprisingly agree with this - if town Harry behaves scummy, and if scum Harry behaves scummy, we might be better of without him no? + Show Spoiler +I'm joking of course, but given how much thought YourHarry put into his scum play for the last two days, I have high expectations of him if he's town. I don't really think we neeeeeeeeeeed to go over too much of the policy stuff. Just get the thoughts from the 3 new guys (Axero, Kronen, Goodkarma). Anybody else can add what they want to add, but the policy shit should be in their filters already. Yeah I'm more or less hoping to hear some policy talk from the newer guys, but I'm also interested in hearing how effective people thought the Day 1 policy was. To me, this is the epitome of town tell. I am almost sure that Hapah is town after this post. He was very adamant last game in disagreeing with iamperfection. Iamperfection argued that I might as well be lynched because I am a bad player and will confuse townies. Hapha was strongly against this - it seemed as if Hapha was disgusted at the thought of justifying lynching a bad townie. Scum hapha would have wanted to avoid confrontation. At least, it would have crossed his mind that people may find him suspicious for shifting his philosophy regarding lynching a scummy townie. I believe that scum Hapha would have argued that lynching a bad townie is still bad - especially when the memory of Hapha strongly disagreeing with iamperfection's justification of lynching me for being incoherent and confusing is obviously fresh in everyone's mind. Thus, I have a strong townie read on Hapha.
I'm not following this. The way I'm interpreting the post, you're saying that the fact that Hapa is considering lynching a bad townie now is so in conflict with her previous town play that it would be inconceivable for scum-Hapa to even consider flipping on that view, for fear of being suspicious. What I don't understand following this interpretation is: Where does Hapa say that he is shifting this philosophy in that post? I kind of understand the thought process, but I can't find the evidence. If there's the potential to have a strong townie read on anyone this early, I would like to be as confident in it as you are. As of right now, though, I see it as unsupported WIFOM.
|
Also guys, full disclosure:
On the 14th through the 17th of this month I'll be travelling to, preparing for and going through with my marriage ceremony on the other side of the country. My activity will wane somewhat during those times, but I'll keep up on the reading with my Iphone. My post count will probably lower, but the ball and chain is bringing her laptop, so that should be ok. 
|
@mkfuba
On August 09 2012 09:16 Hapahauli wrote: Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 09:02 Dandel Ion wrote:
As for policy, I'd like to policy-lynch YourHarry. I call it the "YourHarry-lynch-policy". The goal is to lynch YourHarry. I surprisingly agree with this - if town Harry behaves scummy, and if scum Harry behaves scummy, we might be better of without him no?
|
@Hapha
I mixed up Calgar and Hapha, LOL. I meant to say, "Hapha, agreed?"
@mkfuba
Do you agree that Hapha is most-likely town? Your last post, though, is basically a fluff and it also makes me wonder how you possibly missed Hapha's change in stance against lynching me. Did you draw scum again?
|
On August 09 2012 14:13 YourHarry wrote:
@Hapha
I mixed up Calgar and Hapha, LOL. I meant to say, "Hapha, agreed?"
@mkfuba
Do you agree that Hapha is most-likely town? Your last post, though, is basically a fluff and it also makes me wonder how you possibly missed Hapha's change in stance against lynching me. Did you draw scum again?
the change with no reason given. you made one post and hapa changed his stance. I would like hapa to give some reasoning for his switch.
|
That doesn't mean Hapa is a townie. Scum know who eachother are, therefore Hapa could know your alignment and could be setting you up to get lynched. It's a good way to shift focus to someone else while also seeming like a townie.
It is also possible that they are both scum. Setting someone up as a sacrifice to ensure everyone views the other as a townie would seem like a very effective strategy.
Just my two cents.
(Post made from mobile so apologies for lack of quotes)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
