EPT
TL Mafia XVIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
| ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 12 2010 05:56 Abenson wrote: Yep... It contains everything imaginable o.o Maybe you'll be chosen mafia this time though and that's not good XD He was mafia last time | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 13 2010 01:06 Zato-1 wrote: This has been discussed to some length at this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=47518 lol. | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 14 2010 06:06 Bill Murray wrote: I predicted today at 9 for start a couple pages ago... will i be right? Anytime today would be great for me | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
| ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
| ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 14 2010 13:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Ver has been the most sensible so far imo His accusation of bloodycobbler is based on a change in bc's posting strategy and not the loose and broad clues from Day 1. He's advocating keeping the clues in mind until they become effective later in the game: a reasonable assertion. I also think we should be using these clues to profile the mafia, rather than starting analytical arguments/trying to accuse anyone already. It seems a bit suspicious that L is already trying to paint Ace red based on the clues when all of the experienced players are saying that using day 1 clues to lynch/accuse is just stupid. Ace's posting style is a bit arrogant and aggressive for my tastes and I disagree that clues are essentially useless, but his point is fair. Clues, if anything, should be a helping point for our DT's and something used in the late-game I agree that actually acting on clues should be saved for late-game, but discussing them is helpful all game, as more discussion early game=more paper trail late game | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
| ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that using the first lynch on whichever player the clues point to most, whether or not the consensus ends up being that that player is Ace, is not a bad thing. Even if they are first day clues, and probably not reliable, we still can get some interesting insights into a lot of the workings of this particular game, and the thought processes of our fellow players. Since the current consensus on the clues seems to point to Ace, I'll use him for an example. Regardless of which way Ace flips, I don't think getting rid of him is necessarily a bad idea. If we were to lynch Ace and he flips red, we'll gain interesting insight into how Incognito's clues are going to work for this game, and we'll gain some information about those who are defending him so vehemently. If he flips green, we'll know that the clues aren't as obvious as they seem, and we could get some information from reading back over the posts of people who were accusing him. I don't give any credence to the idea that a player is sacrosanct because they have proven themselves to be skilled in the past. To my mind, keeping Ace around because "if he's innocent, the town needs him" is complete bull. There isn't a single player in this game who is so far and beyond the abilities of all the other players as to be essential. With this in mind, I think the best strategy is to follow clues as much as we can on the first day. We're not going to have enough posting history, or evidence that we can use to go through that posting history to make a lynch based on behavior, and the first lynch is always basically a crapshoot. Also, the person with the most clues pointing towards them will likely have generated the most discussion in the thread, whether that be them defending themselves, others accusing them, others defending them, etc. Lynching this person will give us one definite piece of information (their role) to use as a viewpoint when going back and looking at other player's posting history. | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 14 2010 15:53 redtooth wrote: i wish chezinu would be modkilled. don't want to waste a lynch on him but he's like a less funny 0cz3c - useless and distracting. as for mayors: none of them have presented any reason to vote for them. l10f made what appeared at first to be a troll platform. as of now, neither Ace and L should be trusted too much, especially with the power of mayor. that would leave citizen but i've yet to see either show any promise in the thread. i keep hearing good things about him but have yet to personally see it (i haven't read through the other mafia game) and the only thing i've seen so far from him is his promise to not trust anyone (duh...). i would also refrain from pushing for Ver to be mayor and voting for him despite his lack of candidacy. it's not funny and it's really, really not smart. We had a player kinda like chezinu last game, we killed him just because he was irritating as shit, and it didn't accomplish much of anything. As for citizen, I can vouch for him as an excellent player based on Incognito's last game, obviously I can't vouch for his being/not being mafia | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 14 2010 16:05 Ace wrote: I'd vote for Ver or BC because I have more trust in them than any other candidate. My rule for elected positions is to vote for good, sensible players that won't do anything radical unless something out of the blue pops up and gives me a different reason. @Hobbes: If someone keeps egging me on based on clues, then I die and flip green you should lynch the accuser. You forgot to mention that in your post. Everyone should be held accountable. If we let people point fingers and an innocent gets lynched and they get away with an "oops", then everyone is going to do it. At this rate Ver is going to win the election without actually running. I do agree that the people most vocal in accusing someone have to fall under suspicion if the person they accuse flips green, but at this stage, I don't think the best play would be to immediately lynch the accuser. If they're green, and analyzed the clues wrong, we'll lose a player, and if they're red, and pushing that hard for a clue lynch this early, there will be plenty of material to nail them on later, and leaving them in the game for a bit longer while going after other mafia would give us more of a chance to see which players tend to bandwagon with them, or which players defend them most actively when they come under scrutiny. At this point in the game I think there's still a pretty large chance that the accuser is innocent and misread clues, since we could basically pick a player name out of a hat and have the same chance of guessing which a first-day mafia is. It wouldn't be a smart red tactic to barge out of the gates vocally accusing someone based on scant to no evidence, as they are only bringing attention to themselves, with an overwhelming chance to be seen as a false accuser. If they are actually a red player making that kind of play, I think they'll blunder themselves and their allies into much deeper trouble in relatively short order. If not, they're probably innocent. | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 15 2010 08:40 Bill Murray wrote: you're the one personally attacking me here, is that not childish? you are concerning yourself with minute details from my posts... is that not pedantic? you, sir, are being childish and pedantic. A piece of advice: when everyone thinks you're being almost unimaginably stupid, and your life is in their collective hands, it's not a good idea to lash out at all of them | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote: I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I think that while the connections could be red herrings, we should lynch whichever connection has generated the most discussion, not whichever connection links to the most irritating or inactive poster. What good does it serve us to lynch someone who is connected to the clues but hasn't created any controversy, or any meaningful argument? We don't gain any information about other players, because no other players have made arguments about them. Lynching an inactive who hasn't posted a defense, or who no one has posted in defense of, is akin to picking a lynch name out of a hat, regardless of which way it flips its not leading us anywhere. | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
He's not serious. Nikoner said the same thing last game, if I remember correctly they have an SC rivalry... | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
| ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 15 2010 09:41 L wrote: We shouldn't lynch the most talked about connection; we should lynch the most certain connection. These are two different things. I don't give a shit if someone doesn't reply if the weight of the evidence against them is overwhelming. The only thing your suggestion does is allow people the option of ignoring a topic instead of dealing with it, which is VERY, VERY bad. My argument is referring to the first day, when there aren't any certain clue connections. Obviously I'm not advocating ignoring certain links later in the game, but right now, the weight of evidence isn't overwhelming about anyone | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 15 2010 09:56 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Considering Bill Murrays hotheaded attitude and erratic behavior in the previous game, I wouldn't be surprised if he posted without mafia direction. Besides, "oh i wouldnt do this if i was mafia dohohoho so i must be a townie" arguments are pretty weak. Bill Murray isn't my #1 suspect anyway. I'm confident that if Bill is mafia, he'll fuck up so massively in the next few days that we'll be conclusively sure of it. | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
| ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 15 2010 13:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: he corrected it so it doesn't count posts before the game started (before the first day post) Ah ok that makes more sense. Was confused for a sec | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
On February 15 2010 13:46 meeple wrote: I'm curious as to why so many people are abstaining... is it just because you can't decide? I personally am abstaining because I still want to vote for citizen, but since he's sort of disappeared for a while, don't want to make a final decision on that score quite yet. It's not a permanent abstain, but sort of a placeholder, since I don't want other people's voting patterns to be influenced by the number of votes already on a particular candidate when I'm not sure of my support for that candidate. | ||
| ||
