EPTI looked through the rules and i didn't see any indication either way. I might just have missed it though.
Newbie Mafia XL - Page 8
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
jrkirby
United States1510 Posts
I looked through the rules and i didn't see any indication either way. I might just have missed it though. | ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
(As an aside, the last game's activity was low enough to get me to think "Well, maybe I can contribute on that scale." lets see if i'm right i guess ;x) so commenting on what's been said thus far~ I definitely think talking about policy is worth it at the beginning, 100% to get people posting. Look at the difference between my previous game (XXX) and XXXIX; Night 1 falling on page 50 compared to page 12. Admittedly, lots of discussion in that thread was just spammy, but it really helped town build opinions on people as opposed to where very few things are said, and it's kind of a crapshoot. I honestly would rather talk about policies that I legitimately think are stupid in order to help drive conversation and help people start talking about things, as opposed to sitting back. (that all said - if we have other things to discuss then policy can go to the side.) | ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
(Of course, the best option is if we can just identify somebody scummy ^^) | ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
On April 05 2013 09:45 Rainbows wrote: My point. Keep in mind the following question isn't policy-based. Let's say we have this one guy, super emotional, yelling at people, voting all over the place. Call him guy A. Guy B is cool, suave, making decent points here and there, voting is in line with his thinking. Guy C is hardcore lurking are barely here, but won't get modkilled because he votes. Guy D is kinda wimpy, and sheeps cases but is also hard to read. Who do we lynch? Honestly, you'd hope that there's somebody who isn't any of these. Person A is driving town discussion, person B is trying to be logical, and ideally, clear in his thought processes and not trying to hide information. Person C is sort of the classic lurker lynch, and we should try to help people avoid being person C. Person D is just a newbie who isn't clear on his thinking, and should be interacted with more (imho ^^) to help said person become easier to read. Sheeping cases doesn't really bother me much to be totally honest  But being hard to read is a problem. | ||
|
Rainbows
Germany1217 Posts
| ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
Although I don't want to lynch lurkers, the reason is because I'd prefer we simply don't have lurkers lol. =0 Is anybody here or is it just me atm? Which is astounding, as an aside. In my other game, it wasn't possible for me to post twice in a row because it was so talkative heh. | ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
| ||
|
Rainbows
Germany1217 Posts
I think we should all rally around lynching Saraf, because he called me town and expressed interest in lynching someone he called probably town. ##Unvote ##Vote: Saraf The logic here, it is very strong indeed. | ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
So, a question to our four nonposters (that's JarJarDrinks, jampidampi, Warent, and nobodywonder) - What do you think of Sarif, as Rainbows just pointed out? He's only got one post, so just a gut reaction is acceptable. Just frigging post lol :3 Can't read someone that can't post. (And if Sarif feels like he needs to talk a bit more as a result; as opposed to just letting us chew on his single policy thought, more's the better  The idea isn't just to toss out the policy, it's to discuss it! (imo))+ Show Spoiler + On sarif... Rainbows, I'm less bothered about what he said and more so in that it's all he said. (I don't really intend on placing a vote until day 2, as an aside.) His first bit about policy being a nifty thing to discuss is good imho, but his second part? >_> By that logic, I'm spamming! Would the thread honestly be better if it had just remained relatively quiet? Even assuming I'm actually useless and what I'm saying isn't really interesting to anyone, even the Obz thread viewers, I still think that talking is useful, as long as it's not vitriolic and looking for fights. Discussion is good. Being an asshole, of course, is not - but discussion is definitely good. Tossing this in a spoiler in case the other four happen to not check it and give us their thoughts first ^^ | ||
|
Rainbows
Germany1217 Posts
| ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
Rainbows, you're obviously up, what do you actually think about the policy? | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
| ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
On April 05 2013 12:57 Rainbows wrote: I like you, Obzy. In what way do you like Obzy? On Rainbows vote on Saraf, I think it's Rainbows missinterpreting Sarafs post. When you are policy lynching, you are not finding scum. You're trying to get rid of something in the way people behave that benefits scum. Lurking makes you harder to read, since you won't posted your opinions on lynches/reads/cases/claims/flips. Scum can easily mask themselves as lurkers, so you lynch all lurkers so that scum can't do that. Spamming really hard makes the thread hard to read and hides important posts, so you lynch all spammers who don't actually contribute to scumhunting. Policy lynching isn't about finding scum, and I think you should accept the fact that the target might flip anything. But I'm against any policies whatsoever. | ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
On April 05 2013 09:56 Moloch wrote: You're just seeing what type of personality you can use to not be suspected, skinny guy! People who don't say a lot and just stay low take a higher priority over people that say a lot. Especially early game. If the guys who talk a lot are good, they'll be better for the town than people who don't say much, and if they do happen to be non-fatties, there's a higher chance they'll slip up sooner or later. It's difficult to slip up when you don't say anything or don't have an opinion of your own. So, in your situation probably C or D. Moloch, in this post you calling Rainbows scum in a noncommital way (bolded by me). Do you think he is actually scummy for that post? On April 05 2013 09:45 Rainbows wrote: My point. Keep in mind the following question isn't policy-based. Let's say we have this one guy, super emotional, yelling at people, voting all over the place. Call him guy A. Guy B is cool, suave, making decent points here and there, voting is in line with his thinking. Guy C is hardcore lurking are barely here, but won't get modkilled because he votes. Guy D is kinda wimpy, and sheeps cases but is also hard to read. Who do we lynch? Rainbows, what is the purpose for this post? Why should we tell beforehand what kind of behaviour we see as scummy? On April 05 2013 11:57 Saraf wrote: Can we vote for a no-lynch in this game, or must votes be placed on individuals? Saraf, does this mean you have interest in no-lynching? jrkirby, where did you go? You where here and then popped back here just to make sure your vote was valid, but you didn't say anything of value. I want your opinions. | ||
|
jrkirby
United States1510 Posts
But no one answered my question yet... Is it majority vote or plurality vote this game? | ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
By that way, you are voting Rainbows. What makes hi scummy? | ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
| ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
time to read | ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
Jrkirby, I think it's Plurality - 'Voting Rules: 5. In the event of a tie the person with the most votes first wins (or loses).' - If it was majority, then a tie could not occur, since two players can't both have a majority. Saraf - Alright, sounds good. Please share what your findings are regarding people that comment on your thoughts when you return! Jampi - Welcome! Rainbows' post looks like it's just to generate conversation without dwelling on policy discussion, but he certainly may have a different reason that he'll toss out when he reads. *shrug~* | ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
| ||
| ||
