| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
Of course I was laying low seeing as all the active kids kept dying first Staying low doesn't help the town. I wasn't in that game but is active players were being killed off by mafia, I don't think that's a bad thing, it just means the active players are getting somewhere with what they were saying. The point of the game isn't to stay alive but to help town win. I'd take my death over inactivity that leads to town loss any day. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On January 21 2011 05:22 ShoCkeyy wrote: So we actually had a chance in the end to win as a town? But that didn't happen either way. How does that help you win as a town? Even if you survive to the endgame, you'll have no credibility because you haven't been active. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On January 21 2011 05:23 chaoser wrote: Staying low doesn't help the town. I wasn't in that game but is active players were being killed off by mafia, I don't think that's a bad thing, it just means the active players are getting somewhere with what they were saying. The point of the game isn't to stay alive but to help town win. I'd take my death over inactivity that leads to town loss any day. I fully agree with this, its the townies job to go like lambs to the slaughter so that they can gather enough data to figure out who mafia is. I understand the urge to survive, but really as town its our goal to get as much information as possible, even if it means dying to gather it. Also on a somewhat unrelated note, I saw the "FBI targets mafia" thread and this is the mafia I thought of. Also quote tags are fun  | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On January 21 2011 02:53 Hesmyrr wrote: Since everyone seems to be piping up, I shall take on the role of Devil's Advocate. Note that the current situation is 8-3. Assuming nothing happens with town keep failing lynches: 8-3 6-3 4-3 That is 2 ML available to eliminate 3 mafia. If vig misfires the available mislynch decreases to 1. Holy jeez, I'd love to have been stuck with F11 setup with these odds. Random bantering aside I am questioning that whether it is wise to religiously throw away one of these valuable lynch opportunity in banner of activity. Of course inactivity is hugely anti-town (thus a scumtell) but it should not be given greater weight than ordinary accusation even in day 1. At least the latter would help draw towns discussion more toward post of actual players. I believe scum KP is 1/night if I am reading the OP correctly. Am I right or did I miss something? | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
On January 21 2011 01:47 Pandain wrote: Hello everyone its Pandain the Panda, hoping he won't ruin town again for everyone. And as Pandain always learned when young, the best way to get from A to B when theres a brick wall in front of you is to not go around the wall, but keep on running into it until it breaks! In other news, just some general thoughts: 1.Blue's dont claim unless you are about to be lynched. If you find a red, don't claim. Instead prepare an analysis on him and get him lynched without claiming. If you find green, and they're about to be lynched, express support for him, but don't claim unless its near lylo. 2.I agree we should not let inactives survive in this town. But considering we've hardly started, "inactives" is hardly the word to call them. So let's get things moving. ##Vote Nemesis What is this? Clarify this for me, because as I understand right now you just said we should lynch scum, and then say we should lynch inactives. Plus I want to see more contribution. Come on people, pressure is pointless if only one person votes. Let's get things moving. Yes, I did say that we should lynch scum, but day 1, it is very hard to actually lynch scum because we don't have a lot of information available to us. Which is why I suggested that we should lynch inactives for the first day. As it has been said before, inactivity is a big problem which we do not want to see in this game. Lynching inactive first day encourages people to participate more in the discussion and be more active which makes it is easier to find mafia, as the more discussion we have as there is more information available to analyze. ##Vote Shockeyy I haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
I haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. To be fair, he's at work and can only post via his cell. Just saying. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On January 21 2011 06:11 Nemesis wrote: Yes, I did say that we should lynch scum, but day 1, it is very hard to actually lynch scum because we don't have a lot of information available to us. Which is why I suggested that we should lynch inactives for the first day. As it has been said before, inactivity is a big problem which we do not want to see in this game. Lynching inactive first day encourages people to participate more in the discussion and be more active which makes it is easier to find mafia, as the more discussion we have as there is more information available to analyze. ##Vote Shockeyy I haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. I don't like this post either. Let's take a look at it. First off, lynching inactives itself is a bad strategy. I shall be lenient to him because even I make this mistake, but lynching inactives is a horrible thing to do. When we say "lynch inactives", we mean "lynch lurkers." We want to differentiate the lurkers from the inactives/bored. If we say we'll lynch the inactives, the inactives won't respond. IF we say we'll lynch the inactives, the bored won't really respond. Only the mafia will respond if we say lynch the inactives. Which is why you never want to end up LYNCHING an inactive, just pressuring all of them to post. Furthormore, he just repeated information without actually adding anything to it. Finally he goes for the "easy" kill. This is typical mafia to me. I now offer Nemesis as a viable option for a real lynch. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On January 21 2011 06:50 Pandain wrote: I don't like this post either. Let's take a look at it. First off, lynching inactives itself is a bad strategy. I shall be lenient to him because even I make this mistake, but lynching inactives is a horrible thing to do. When we say "lynch inactives", we mean "lynch lurkers." We want to differentiate the lurkers from the inactives/bored. If we say we'll lynch the inactives, the inactives won't respond. IF we say we'll lynch the inactives, the bored won't really respond. Only the mafia will respond if we say lynch the inactives. Which is why you never want to end up LYNCHING an inactive, just pressuring all of them to post. Furthormore, he just repeated information without actually adding anything to it. Finally he goes for the "easy" kill. This is typical mafia to me. I now offer Nemesis as a viable option for a real lynch. I disagree with this post. While lynching inactives is suboptimal as a strategy when compared to lynching mafia, I wouldn't say it's a bad strat. There have been games where inactivity lost town the game. And I'm not talking about people being active and then becoming inactive. I'm talking about inactives staying inactive. Town doesn't want to waste lynches on them past day one and then you get like 3-4 inactives just sitting around at the end of the game making it almost impossible to weed out the last 2-3 mafia that are hiding within their ranks. Also, you're talking about semantics. Whether we mean inactive or lurker, inactive means they ain't posting and so from the point of view of the town, it's the same thing, a bad thing. Its like our policy to lynch millers. Doesn't matter if they are real mafia or not, if someone comes up as red, its better to lynch them than not to. Saying we're going to lynch inactive might not do anything but voting and pressuring them will get them to post so your point on that is wrong too. If they are truly "inactive", as in they are away from the comp, they won't come defend themselves and we can get a sense of whether they are "inactive" or a "lurker" as you put it. I'm actually weary of people who go "omg he wants to lynch inactive, he's mafia!" Everyone knows what people mean when they say lets lynch inactive day one, it's just a way to generate discussion. Most games start with people saying lynch inactive. And most of the time they're not mafia. Why did you jump to quickly to say he's mafia? We got a whole day left and not everyone has said anything yet. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On January 21 2011 07:11 chaoser wrote: I disagree with this post. While lynching inactives is suboptimal as a strategy when compared to lynching mafia, I wouldn't say it's a bad strat. There have been games where inactivity lost town the game. And I'm not talking about people being active and then becoming inactive. I'm talking about inactives staying inactive. Town doesn't want to waste lynches on them past day one and then you get like 3-4 inactives just sitting around at the end of the game making it almost impossible to weed out the last 2-3 mafia that are hiding within their ranks. Also, you're talking about semantics. Whether we mean inactive or lurker, inactive means they ain't posting and so from the point of view of the town, it's the same thing, a bad thing. Its like our policy to lynch millers. Doesn't matter if they are real mafia or not, if someone comes up as red, its better to lynch them than not to. Saying we're going to lynch inactive might not do anything but voting and pressuring them will get them to post so your point on that is wrong too. If they are truly "inactive", as in they are away from the comp, they won't come defend themselves and we can get a sense of whether they are "inactive" or a "lurker" as you put it. I'm actually weary of people who go "omg he wants to lynch inactive, he's mafia!" Everyone knows what people mean when they say lets lynch inactive day one, it's just a way to generate discussion. Most games start with people saying lynch inactive. And most of the time they're not mafia. Why did you jump to quickly to say he's mafia? We got a whole day left and not everyone has said anything yet. Did you just say this? :p I disagree with this post. While lynching inactives is suboptimal as a strategy when compared to lynching mafia, I wouldn't say it's a bad strat. Again, we want to pressure people to POST, not lynch the inactives. There is a HUGE difference between those two. We want to pressure the inactives and lynch the lurkers, not lynch the inactives themselves. Remember, mafia aren't inactive, they're lurking. Inactives are those who are bored, who don't care about the game, who don't have time. Lurkers are the ones who are watching yet don't contribute. Differentiating between those will make or break it for the town. We can't just lynch all the inactives and hope for the best. As of right now, I want Shockkey to post, but am giving him time. Meanwhile there is someone who might be scum and slipped up. There's no point not pressuring the person at the very least. | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On January 21 2011 07:11 chaoser wrote: I disagree with this post. While lynching inactives is suboptimal as a strategy when compared to lynching mafia, I wouldn't say it's a bad strat. There have been games where inactivity lost town the game. And I'm not talking about people being active and then becoming inactive. I'm talking about inactives staying inactive. Town doesn't want to waste lynches on them past day one and then you get like 3-4 inactives just sitting around at the end of the game making it almost impossible to weed out the last 2-3 mafia that are hiding within their ranks. Also, you're talking about semantics. Whether we mean inactive or lurker, inactive means they ain't posting and so from the point of view of the town, it's the same thing, a bad thing. Its like our policy to lynch millers. Doesn't matter if they are real mafia or not, if someone comes up as red, its better to lynch them than not to. Saying we're going to lynch inactive might not do anything but voting and pressuring them will get them to post so your point on that is wrong too. If they are truly "inactive", as in they are away from the comp, they won't come defend themselves and we can get a sense of whether they are "inactive" or a "lurker" as you put it. I'm actually weary of people who go "omg he wants to lynch inactive, he's mafia!" Everyone knows what people mean when they say lets lynch inactive day one, it's just a way to generate discussion. Most games start with people saying lynch inactive. And most of the time they're not mafia. Why did you jump to quickly to say he's mafia? We got a whole day left and not everyone has said anything yet. We will have a better idea of who is truly inactive by tomorrow afternoon. That is when I will cast my vote. I have no desire to be in another game where the only person I talk to for the last 3 days is myself. | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On January 21 2011 07:16 Pandain wrote: Did you just say this? :p Again, we want to pressure people to POST, not lynch the inactives. There is a HUGE difference between those two. We want to pressure the inactives and lynch the lurkers, not lynch the inactives themselves. Remember, mafia aren't inactive, they're lurking. Inactives are those who are bored, who don't care about the game, who don't have time. Lurkers are the ones who are watching yet don't contribute. Differentiating between those will make or break it for the town. We can't just lynch all the inactives and hope for the best. As of right now, I want Shockkey to post, but am giving him time. Meanwhile there is someone who might be scum and slipped up. There's no point not pressuring the person at the very least. Don't include me in your "we". If they aren't posting I want to kill them. There is no difference between "lurking" and "inactive". They are one and the same. The 5 games I've read through and the one we just finished all had "inactive lurkers" at the end that were scum. Why wait? | ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
On January 21 2011 07:16 Pandain wrote: Did you just say this? :p Again, we want to pressure people to POST, not lynch the inactives. There is a HUGE difference between those two. We want to pressure the inactives and lynch the lurkers, not lynch the inactives themselves. Remember, mafia aren't inactive, they're lurking. Inactives are those who are bored, who don't care about the game, who don't have time. Lurkers are the ones who are watching yet don't contribute. Differentiating between those will make or break it for the town. We can't just lynch all the inactives and hope for the best. As of right now, I want Shockkey to post, but am giving him time. Meanwhile there is someone who might be scum and slipped up. There's no point not pressuring the person at the very least. You need to keep this up, you are impressing me =) | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
Did you just say this? .I disagree with this post. While lynching inactives is suboptimal as a strategy when compared to lynching mafia, I wouldn't say it's a bad strat Do you disagree? I mean, I assume you do but like the example I listed, lynching inactives isn't a bad strat for day 1. While we might not hit mafia, we do weed out the forest that they can hide in once the game gets to late game. I'm not saying lets lynch an inactive every day, which you seem to be painting the people who have said "lynch inactive" as. I'm saying inactives are bad. I don't want inactives. I'd rather lynch one of them than going on a wild goose chase. That being said, if someone sees scummy, I'd go after them. But at this point, before everyone has even responded in the thread, a push to lynch someone is premature at best, scummy at worst. Not to say you're scum, fellow secret friendship club member =p Also, I don't think this game will have the problem of inactively, everyone seems semi active so far =] so i am happy. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
##Vote Shockeyy I haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. Shockey already said he's at work like twice so I think it's unfair/weird for someone to be calling him out when we still got a day left. But I'd rather wait till tomorrow when everyone has weighted in before just throwing FoS all willy nilly. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On January 21 2011 07:39 GGQ wrote: Whether or not everyone has posted has nothing to do with whether or not Nemesis's posts are scummy. Pandain was right to call him out. Maybe not for you, but it does for me. I like to consolidate all the information I can get before I make a decision. I almost got kicked out of a game by BM cause I kept trying to consolidate vote lists/changes in votes. I'd rather have people do that instead of people (mafia) jumping on a bandwagon early and just riding it to the end. I'm just scared of people being rash. | ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
I'll defer judgment on Shockeyy until he gets a chance to actually post. Pandain it seems to me like your argument against nemesis might be trying just a little too hard, I understand his post seems somewhat scummy (at least that was my gut reaction to it), but I dont think its enough to go on. I would like to see how he justifies his aggressiveness though. Also Pandain I feel like your differentiation between lurkers and inactive is mostly one of semantics, how do you propose we tell the difference between the two? chaoser I understand the importance of being cautious and having as much information as possible, but it is also important that we point out what we feel are tells as soon as possible so that they dont become buried under a mass of posts/other issues. Its ok if you want to refrain from making any decisions based on that information till later, but its also important that we notice and point out the information when it crops up. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Remember, although we are talking about lynching inactives, there are only two people I see that are in danger of being inactive. ShoCkeyy likes to lurk, and Chaoser can disappear at times (well, Chaoser had an excuse). Lurker- Avoids positions, attention, and tries to pretend that he is contributing, but really isn't. For example, Annul was technically a lurker in XXXV (Notice that besides answering questions, he did not comment on anything else). Generally Mafia Inactive- Doesn't post besides a "sorry, I'm inactive". Defiantly Ainti-town. I'm cool with killing both Lurkers and Inactives. But remember, the Inactive kill is more of a policy lynch, while the Lurker kill should only accompany analysis proving that the lurker is mafia. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On January 21 2011 06:11 Nemesis wrote: Yes, I did say that we should lynch scum, but day 1, it is very hard to actually lynch scum because we don't have a lot of information available to us. Which is why I suggested that we should lynch inactives for the first day. As it has been said before, inactivity is a big problem which we do not want to see in this game. Lynching inactive first day encourages people to participate more in the discussion and be more active which makes it is easier to find mafia, as the more discussion we have as there is more information available to analyze. ##Vote Shockeyy I haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. Wait, you're going to vote for me just because I was at work and clearly stated I wasn't going to be able to post till I get home? Ok let's see what you have posted so far: On January 20 2011 22:08 Nemesis wrote: @Jackal I wouldn't say that lynching actives is a big mistake. I wasn't paying attention to what happened in XXXVI, but we should lynch scum, and mafia is not always inactive. And I guess back to the usual first day topic. Lynching inactives. Since lynching a scum is very hard in the very first day. Lynching inactives would be a very good start as it would prevent mafia from lurking. I'm going to wait a bit for people to talk since the game has just started. Meh, something that always gets discussed in the first day of the game. "Should we lynch inactives or not? " On January 20 2011 22:30 Nemesis wrote: Duh, of course lynching the most active player day 1 is not the best idea ever (I suggested lynching inactives), but I am saying that we shouldn't be afraid to lynch active players. We shouldn't focus too much on what blues should do. We don't know what blue roles there are and blues will do what they think is best anyways. We should just focus more on scumhunting than whatever blue plans. More of the same stuff everyone post on day one... When do people ever learn that this won't get you by. You're basically repeating what everyone has stated before you and will state after you. On January 21 2011 06:11 Nemesis wrote: Yes, I did say that we should lynch scum, but day 1, it is very hard to actually lynch scum because we don't have a lot of information available to us. Which is why I suggested that we should lynch inactives for the first day. As it has been said before, inactivity is a big problem which we do not want to see in this game. Lynching inactive first day encourages people to participate more in the discussion and be more active which makes it is easier to find mafia, as the more discussion we have as there is more information available to analyze. ##Vote Shockeyy I haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. Now back to this... You seemed pretty active in the beginning of the game and then leave for about 40 post and come back instantly voting for me even though I haven't even had a chance to actually type anything. Great job... You just gained a lot more suspicion to yourself than anybody else could. Either way, I'm not voting till tomorrow, but for now I'm going to be watching you will be writing out and timing them. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
WardiTV 2025
Cure vs Creator
Solar vs TBD
herO vs Spirit
Scarlett vs Gerald
Rogue vs Shameless
MaNa vs ShoWTimE
Nice vs TBD
WardiTV 2025
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo League
Ladder Legends
BSL 21
Sziky vs Dewalt
eOnzErG vs Cross
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Ladder Legends
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
