|
On January 25 2012 15:15 MidnightGladius wrote:
I'm sorry if my first post came across as unhelpful, but I want to establish first principles before getting down to the nitty-gritty. I'll try to be more clear and direct.
In simpler terms, players who suggest courses of action that hurt the town's chances are suspicious, as innocents should never be making these kinds of proposals unless they have much more information than they're letting on. As it's Day 1, this is clearly impossible, so I look askance at zarepath and FakePromise, who both advocate a plan with very low expected value.
The other part of my methods take a bit longer to develop, as I need to see more posts before picking up any trends. Scummy behavior is such that it betrays access to hidden information, and then does not adjust accordingly as information is made public to the town. Players who behave in this way are either not updating their beliefs properly (tunnel-vision, confirmation bias, or ignorance are common causes), or updating them according to hidden information (perhaps a blue investigative role, but overwhelmingly likely to be mafia).
Does that explain my position more clearly?
The only problem with that is you confuse your actual detective for mafia just because he operates on hidden knowledge. The detective has an incentive to operate on hidden knowledge, while the mafia has no hidden knowledge to go off of except who else is mafia, and they're not going to talk about that.
Also, I would save theorytalk for when it's actually applicable. Otherwise it looks like you're just making empty posts.
|
On January 25 2012 14:05 MidnightGladius wrote:
Supporting the lynch, in your argument, is evidence of being mafia. However, you claim that arguing against the lynch is also evidence of being mafia. That is inconsistent, unless you would like to claim which case is more indicative of being mafia.
Upon flip, we'll know whether the plan's supporters or detractors were likely mafia or not. Not both sides at once, regardless of flip.
It's far better than a random lynch because, with a specific target, people have to reveal themselves by defending/accusing him. The information we gain from his flip then has repercussions; the information we'd gain from a random lynch would just be hit/miss with zero opportunity for analysis, save theory-based ("anyone who votes for random is mafia" "with 4/13 random vote is actually worse for mafia" etc.). Instead we can see who defended him and who attacked him and have actual leads from there headed into Day 2.
|
On January 25 2012 15:24 MidnightGladius wrote:
What logic would you claim to use on the first day? There is insufficient data to make any valid attempts at deduction, induction, or hypothesis. With what is available to you now, would you take even odds or better on any accusation?
The odds only get better when more townies die and more mafia are alive, so I think that a strategy of "playing the odds" is destined for failure. Mafia is more a game of deduction than it is of numbers. You have to start by making plays for information, and simply killing people who don't give information, in addition to being a bad "odds" play, doesn't create information. It just punishes people who will get punished anyway by mods. At 4/9 odds, we don't have a day to waste on policy lynches that the mods will already be doing for us.
|
I think we can all agree that a random strategy for a prolonged period of time is destined to failure, simply because the odds of mafia succeeding on the long run if we as town play on pure chance is exceedingly high. Also, chance lynches don't produce information. Furthermore, we don't even have the possibility to do a random lynch safely, so that is even more reason to stop discussing it, and do something a bit more productive with our time.
If i am not totally mistaken, we need to produce information. If we just play by chance, we will lose. Thus, i would really like to here more peoples take on zelblade, who in my opinion looks a bit strange at the moment. That, of course, includes zelblade himself, but also SacredSystem, Chocolate, DoYouHas, FakePromise, bal11t, CosmosXAM and TheFearedBeing, all of whom have barely contributed at all so far.
|
On January 25 2012 19:30 zarepath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 15:15 MidnightGladius wrote:
I'm sorry if my first post came across as unhelpful, but I want to establish first principles before getting down to the nitty-gritty. I'll try to be more clear and direct.
In simpler terms, players who suggest courses of action that hurt the town's chances are suspicious, as innocents should never be making these kinds of proposals unless they have much more information than they're letting on. As it's Day 1, this is clearly impossible, so I look askance at zarepath and FakePromise, who both advocate a plan with very low expected value.
The other part of my methods take a bit longer to develop, as I need to see more posts before picking up any trends. Scummy behavior is such that it betrays access to hidden information, and then does not adjust accordingly as information is made public to the town. Players who behave in this way are either not updating their beliefs properly (tunnel-vision, confirmation bias, or ignorance are common causes), or updating them according to hidden information (perhaps a blue investigative role, but overwhelmingly likely to be mafia).
Does that explain my position more clearly? The only problem with that is you confuse your actual detective for mafia just because he operates on hidden knowledge. The detective has an incentive to operate on hidden knowledge, while the mafia has no hidden knowledge to go off of except who else is mafia, and they're not going to talk about that. Also, I would save theorytalk for when it's actually applicable. Otherwise it looks like you're just making empty posts.
"No hidden knowledge except who else is mafia". That is the most important hidden knowledge in the whole game. Of course they will not explicitly mention it, but the whole process of finding hidden knowledge is based on people slipping something they don't consciously mean to say. You can't just turn of knowledge of something, so everything you know will unconsciously go into every post you make. So if it becomes obvious that someone is pulling knowledge from some source that is not this thread, that at least makes him a person of interest.
|
If anyone wants the link to the observer QuickTopic, please PM either dreamflower or myself.
|
Hey guys sorry I have not been able to post TT. I have read the thread and it appears you all are trying to decide how to do the first day lynch. We SHOULD NOT randomly lynch someone and find people who defended him if mafia or bamdwagoned if he flips town. A smart mafia would simply bandwagon one of their own if we decide to certainly kill one person. And a smart mafia would not simply bandwagon someone of they are likely to die anyway. The best approach is simply lynching who we think is the scummiest or people inactive but not so inactive that they get modkilled.
As of right now my two people of interest are zarepath and fakepromise. Zarepath for introducing the idea which really only benefits scum if they have half a brain and fakepromise for thinking 30% of finding scum is a good bet 0_o
I should post again around 3EST I encourage everypne to post their minds. Bah I made so many errors but posting on my iphone so I really dont want to correct them
|
Okay, forget random lynching. I still think targeting someone randomly and seeing how they respond is better than policy-lynching the quiet people, but I think it's a good point that with 4 mafia, we can only miss-lynch twice.
But we need something to go on; some way of getting info. I have a few ideas but there are still a lot of people we haven't heard from. Quiet people need to speak up soon.
|
On January 25 2012 14:19 zelblade wrote:As for what to do with our day 1 lynch, i suggest that we lynch a lurker unless a better canditate comes up. Remember that we still have alot of time left before the deadline, so we should utilize this time well to discuss and find a better lynch candidate than lynching by reverse-alphabetical order.
If i wasnt clear here, i apologise. What i meant to say i that we ought to lynch a lurker if we cannot find a better targert at the end of the day, and that it should be done only if there is/are no clear targert(s) at the end of day 1, instead of using RNG (or in this case, reverse-alphabetical order) to determine who is our day 1 lynch (which i believe zarepath seems to be advocating).
|
Well, regarding the mislynches, i thought about this for a while. I think we can assume that we have blues on our side for balance reasons. But even a successful save(medic/vet), or vigi hit, will not give us an additional mislynch. We would need two of those, and i don't think we should rely on that.
But, and that is very important, this also means we can not NoLynch. If we nolynch, and don't get any saves, we can only mislynch once.
Since everyone feels like saying this, i will just emphasize it again. Talk. At the moment, we still have 6 people who have basically not participated at all, and that does just not work. We can't policy-lynch 6 people, so if you don't talk, you actively hurt us. The only persons who have any reason to lurk are mafia, but since we have 6 people without posts with any substance, at least 2 of those are doing that against their own interest.
Now, instead of pointless policy, lets talk about persons.
CosmosXAM is suspicious. First he is so enthusiastic before the game:
Really excited for this, can't wait till 9 :D
And then, as soon as the game starts, there is nothing anymore. I find that highly noteworthy. This does not mean that i see zelblade cleared, he is also pretty high on my list of suspicious persons, but if i had to decide on a lynch now, it would be CosmosXAM, since he is both suspicious AND a lurker.
|
On January 26 2012 00:14 zelblade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:19 zelblade wrote:As for what to do with our day 1 lynch, i suggest that we lynch a lurker unless a better canditate comes up. Remember that we still have alot of time left before the deadline, so we should utilize this time well to discuss and find a better lynch candidate than lynching by reverse-alphabetical order. If i wasnt clear here, i apologise. What i meant to say i that we ought to lynch a lurker if we cannot find a better targert at the end of the day, and that it should be done only if there is/are no clear targert(s) at the end of day 1, instead of using RNG (or in this case, reverse-alphabetical order) to determine who is our day 1 lynch (which i believe zarepath seems to be advocating).
Also, this post that snuck in above me sounds strange in my opinion.
I think pretty much everyone agrees that we should not random lynch, so why bring it up again to debunk it again? And other than that it contains absolutely no new information, for me this looks a lot like a post for postings sake, and not an actual contribution towards our goals. This just feels scummy.
|
EBWOP
And that (no random lynching) includes zarepath who has also already stated that he does not believe in random lynching anymore. So why did you bring him up again?
|
On January 26 2012 00:29 Simberto wrote:
EBWOP
And that (no random lynching) includes zarepath who has also already stated that he does not believe in random lynching anymore. So why did you bring him up again?
I was trying to explain the contradiction u pointed out earlier.
|
On January 25 2012 15:21 zelblade wrote:
we probably have only 2 mislynches before LYLO
On January 25 2012 19:22 zarepath wrote:
I think the strongest argument against doing this is that, because of the high mafia/town ratio, we only have 2 miss-lynches before it's LYLO, as zelblade pointed out.
On January 25 2012 23:55 zarepath wrote:
Okay, forget random lynching. I still think targeting someone randomly and seeing how they respond is better than policy-lynching the quiet people, but I think it's a good point that with 4 mafia, we can only miss-lynch twice.
I would like to stop this poor logic before it ingrates itself into the town's mindset:
Knowing how many mislynches we have does NOTHING. You don't say, oh we have spare townies we can just make this questionable lynch, it's ok if we mess up since its not lylo yet.
Also, I the idea of random lynches has been SHUT DOWN. We've discussed that it is a poor idea. We should stop discussing unless someone brings up a good counter point. Otherwise we have mafia getting away with agreement posts that are insubstantial but impress the notion that they are helping town and contributing.
Fostering discussion is not the goal.
Fostering good discussion is the goal.
Talking about topics that everyone has already talked about and agreed upon is not discussion. It is clutter and an opportunity for mafia to pretend to contribute. Please stop.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
|
EBWOP:
Fostering good discussion is the goal where good is defined as catching and killing mafia.
Everything we do should fall under this category and if it doesn't we shouldn't do it.
|
But that does not mean that you necessarily only talk about stuff that immidiately leads to a mafia kill. Generally speaking anything that increases the amount of information we have is a good thing. Even if that information is not really useful now, it can be worth a lot lateron.
Don't get me wrong, i agree with you, i just want to prevent us from going from talking about useless stuff to not talking at all.
Generally speaking, anything where there are disagreements is good, anything that just states that we are all buddies and everyone loves each other and thinks exactly the same is bad. (As long as it is related to the game)
Thus, i would propose that instead of meta-meta talk we should talk about lynchings and plans. Since noone has a plan (me included), lets talk about good lynch targets for today.
On my list, this would be
zelblade
CosmosXAM
Rest of the lurkers (TheFearedBeing, DoYouHas, SacredSystem, FakePromise, balt11t)
There are other people on whom we do not have a lot of information, but who at least have posted something so far. These might or might not be good targets too, but in my opinion those first two are the most suspicious from what i have seen so far, with zelblade being the most suspicious person who has posted so far, and CosmosXAM being the most suspicious person who has not yet posted. So lets talk about them.
|
On January 26 2012 00:45 Blazinghand wrote:
No popcorn please. Also, please don't post here until after the game ends if you aren't a coach, a player, or a host.
|
On January 25 2012 19:22 zarepath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 15:24 DoYouHas wrote:
There is no reason our first lynch should be random. We need to use the threat of lynching to put pressure on lurkers and suspicious people. This needs to start today. If we seriously consider a no lynch today all we do is encourage passive play. We should be creating opportunities to gain information and put pressure. The worst thing we can give the mafia is time. Lynching lurkers is not as great a strategy as it sounds. As others pointed out, mafia can just decide to post more, and then suddenly we're looking at lynching the less-active townies just because they don't talk enough. People who don't post at all get modkilled anyway, and seeing as how this is a newbie game, there are probably several lurkers who just don't know where to get started. I also agree that we should go after suspicious people. And I think we'll find out who they are by continuing to pressure zelblade.
From the general tone of the posting so far I agree that today we are more likely to get mafia by lynching someone suspicious rather than a lurker. If people come up with better ways of getting lurkers active I am all ears.
As for things I have looked at so far, I am not going to reiterate points made on MidnightGladius and zelblade but here are a couple of people on the lurker list whose first posts were very similar and I did not like.
On January 25 2012 13:57 balt11t wrote:
FakePromise, I feel as though saying that you are willing to take a 70% chance of killing an innocent man seems like you might have something to hide. Criminals tend to be fine with killing off innocent people, and you seem to fit that profile. Normal people would not be willing to take such a risk.
On January 25 2012 14:07 balt11t wrote:
In extension, I feel as though the proposed plan by zarepath is simply too great of a risk. Why take nearly a 70% chance of taking an innocent person's life? No, we should wait to find the lurkers, I agree with slOosh, we need to wait for a little more discussion to happen in order to make a decision.
What bothers me in the first post is the second half. He is making the statement "That seems scummy." but unnecessarily longer and strangely worded. In his second post he tones down the strange wording a bit but more troubling is his espousing of a wait and see style. We need to be making discussion happen, not just letting it happen.
On January 25 2012 14:55 SacredSystem wrote:
Zarepath's decision to lynch someone at random does sound like the calculated mind of a mobster. However, despite several conclusions that we all wish to draw, we need to wait, the mafia will all expose themselves at some point in time.
on a side note
Fakepromise agreed with him at 30% odds -_-
This caught my attention after I had been looking at balt11t. It is almost the exact same post. Lengthy substitute for scummy, wait and see attitude (though even worse this time), and pointing to Fakepromise's questionable agreement with a random lynch.
|
Interesting find, and definitively noteworthy. This points some suspicion towards the second one posting the same thing, in this case that would be SacredSystem.
However, with the speed with which we progress at the moment, i think we should seriously talk about our lynching now if we want to get it done in time. In my opinion, since a NoLynch is pretty much as bad as a mislynch in our current state, while providing less information, we should lynch someone.
As a have said before, my candidate for a good lynch at the moment would be zelblade. Also, he does not seem inclined to defend himself. This is based mostly on:
On January 25 2012 15:21 zelblade wrote:
Regarding the setup, 4 scum to 9 town seems like a lot of scum to me. This would lead me to believe that scum KP is probably 1, as anything else will probably be excessive. As such, we probably have only 2 mislynches before LYLO, unless there is a medic prot of some sort of course. Thus we need to make sure that we use these lynches well, and use logical reasoning to pin down the lynch onto the scum.
To town, we need to post more, as more posts = more contributions, and would allow us to make analysis and thus help to pin down who the scum are.
Distraction + "to town", which is very suspicious, as zarepath pointed out, and
On January 26 2012 00:14 zelblade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:19 zelblade wrote:As for what to do with our day 1 lynch, i suggest that we lynch a lurker unless a better canditate comes up. Remember that we still have alot of time left before the deadline, so we should utilize this time well to discuss and find a better lynch candidate than lynching by reverse-alphabetical order. If i wasnt clear here, i apologise. What i meant to say i that we ought to lynch a lurker if we cannot find a better targert at the end of the day, and that it should be done only if there is/are no clear targert(s) at the end of day 1, instead of using RNG (or in this case, reverse-alphabetical order) to determine who is our day 1 lynch (which i believe zarepath seems to be advocating).
Bringing up a long-resolved point to distract the discussion.
Sure, this is not the strongest case one can build, but it is day 1 after all. And in my opinion it is the strongest case we have at the moment.
And sure, there could be lots of mafia hiding between the lurkers, but there is nothing one can realistically do againt that, since i don't think all or even most of the mafia are lurking that hard (sounds stupid), and we can't realistically policy-lynch 5-6 people, so the only thing one can do about that is hope that they start talking to us or get modkilled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
