EPTI bet Harry Potter is last Horocrux and we have to kill him >.<
/in (if you can accept someone whose future schedule is notoriously uncertain)
And Bill Murray, why would you spoiler your spoiler warning
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
/in (if you can accept someone whose future schedule is notoriously uncertain) And Bill Murray, why would you spoiler your spoiler warning | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
On June 15 2010 07:14 ElyAs wrote: As it looks like the Battle Royale is not going to happen just now, may I sign up here ? :o I think you can sign in at multiple games so it won't matter at all. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
| ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
On June 20 2010 21:24 Radfield wrote: Also, I expect Mad Eye Moody to die night one..... I expect Harry Potter to die night one ;D gl to everyone. Hope lack of some people didn't make this game more boring than it should have been... Anyway, how many Death Eaters are going to be present in 20-player setup? Also, I am guessing name claim is no longer forbidden since Mafia now has list of safeclaims? (provided that you inform mafia the name - but not role - of town players) | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
No, I wouldn't like nameclaiming much since it is just 20 player setup. Name claim essentially reveals most of the PR to us, leaving detectives and medics vulnerable to NK. One could argue thst early roleclaim will allow PR to protect themselves by being nominated to mayoral roles, but then they know who are aurors too. When we are uncertain on whether the mafia has a safeclaim or not (if they do town gains absolutely no benefit from mass-claiming) I rather shy away from taking the risk. Radfield Let me also throw something in. Survivor also can joint with Mafia side since his win condition only decrees his survival. It means that should the things get shitty, you can be pretty sure he/she will be rooting for Mafia win- even though survivor is not counted as mafia #, survivor can be deadly late game since he can force a tie or mislynch with a mafia side... for example, in situation of 4-3-1 or 3-3-1. Note also that the detective investigation - Legilimency - is classified as Death Eater spell. It means that there are Mafia detective too. Fun. I believe the setup is likely to have four mafia. Also I note the way Legilimency has been classified as also discredits the idea that town spells are only availabe to town, and mafia spells are only available to mafia. ~OpZ~ Nice to see you claim pro-town. I had anticipated for someone trying to claim anti-town :p Also, how does Mafia benefit from knowing who the hidden horocrux is? Well, according to the flavour, Harry Potter the last horocrux did need to be killed by no one other than Voldemort so the person who is horocrux may also need to be killed by Death Eaters in this setup- which is another vast strike against the mass roleclaiming; I doubt Bill Murray would introduce such harsh win condition though. I will hold off nominating someone until I am pretty certain of one town read. Experience is not bad when we are picking someone to be protected, but most importantly I rather have player I have most confidence in being town-aligned. There seem to be enough good players in this roster anyhow. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
Detective: See Legilimency and Occlumency Why I felt town can use red spells too. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
On June 22 2010 03:44 ~OpZ~ wrote: *yawn* Weak attack. How does mafia benefit by knowing who it is? They don't kill him on accident. Everyone claiming, they might know who he is then. Like I said, I just want more discussion before claiming, I'm not against claiming as I have nothing to hide. Oh, and...Any other attempts? (FoS @ Hesmyrr) [FoS= Finger of Suspicion] Okay, maybe I was not as much concise as I would have liked. My post was writing down of my impressions as I read along the people's first post, and in fact I am support your argument against role claiming (what you are saying is basically what I am saying). I was curious how you got the impression I was attacking you and your argument, because this post just cries casual glancing over. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
^ Post that contributes to discussion or propose new idea. Jugan* stormtemplar** Jayme^ acrossfivejulys (nominated amber[light])^^ "I'll go ahead and nominate amber[light] for mayor since he seems to be talking sense at this point. I'd suggest not to nominate radfield because frankly he played pretty badly and was inactive for long stretches last game. Amber, why don't you post a plan you'd carry out as mayor, including first lynch?" johnnyspazz (nominated YellowInk)^^^ "YellowInk, I nominate you since you were theorycrafting ways to break the game, I bet you have a great idea that helps the town." lakrismamma*^ Radfield (nominated Hesmyrr)^^*^^^ "Also, Amber[light] seems like a good candidate. However, in the interest of having more hats in the ring, I'll nominate hesmyrr. He's been quite active in each game I've played with him(maybe only 1 though?). The key is to have someone who's very very active as mayor. They need to be willing to put effort into this game, take the lead, and hunt for mafia. That's simply not me this game, and won't be for a few months. But that way if we elect a mafia we have a much better chance of discovering it. So know this mayor elects, if you are not super active after being elected, you will begin to climb the scum list. Same goes for the pardoner. I think this makes sense." LuDwig-* JeeJee^^ Hesmyrr^*^ YellowInk ~OpZ~^^^ zeks Roffles^^^ DCLXVI ElyAs* Thegilaboy^^ LaXerCannon** Amber[LighT]^^^*** Abenson I would like to see bolded people speak up about mayoral candidate soon, seeing we only have 24 hours and all. Though it is hypocritical to discuss inactivity so early into the game, I figured it won't hurt to prod them a little. Also I'm not sure I can maintain this level of activity for future days yet, so I would like to turn Radfield's mayoral proposal down. In interest of proposing more candidates, I would like to nominate Roffles. He jumped straight into discussing spell mechanics, including whether AK was block able or not, which I think is type of discussion mafia would shy away from a little. I do not know scum hunting abilities of most players however, so I would appreciate if more people voiced who they support. Btw, johnnyspazz, that could somewhat be interpreted as buddying, nor I wonder the wiseness of nominating currently afk player just because of his willingness to break the setup, especially when 25-player setup and 20-player setup is fundamentally different. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
| ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
On June 22 2010 08:03 Hesmyrr wrote: Also I'm not sure I can maintain this level of activity for future days yet, so I would like to turn Radfield's mayoral proposal down. In interest of proposing more candidates, I would like to nominate Roffles. He jumped straight into discussing spell mechanics, including whether AK was block able or not, which I think is type of discussion mafia would shy away from a little. I do not know scum hunting abilities of most players however, so I would appreciate if more people voiced who they support. Guys, you are missing this post. acrossfivejulys -> Amber[light]. AFJ, what specific part of amber[light]'s post did you like? It is in responsibility of nominee to also give a reason for nomination so if nominated is mafia he/she can't go like "oh I picked someone in random lol". We need to know if the nomination is mafia push, or legit pro-town reasoning. zeks -> Radfield or Amber I just need a clarification in your argument. Why are you nominating conservative posting townies? I don't really get it. johnnyspazz -> YellowInk I have already pointed out this is poor, half-hearted nomination which hurts the nominated as much as the nominee. However, I still give big plus to johnnyspazz because he was catalyst that started nomination mechanics instead of some people rising up to elect themselves, which allowed townies to take more definite positions than they would have been early game. Radfield, you had one game with me (Three Kingdoms Mafia) where I had not shown any indication in my ability to catch scum, and had given up my team when simple pressure had been applied to me. There are plenty of players here, some already nominated, which are also highly active, so why particularly nominate me? Hesmyrr -> Roffles My justification for this choice is that his inquiry of questioning seemed something mafia is unlikely to do. I rather have someone I believe to be pro-town elected, since investigating mayoral position is more perilous than some seem to believe (elaborated below). Amber[light] -> Radfield or himself. I really do not like this. Although I can see why you would like to classify the town into two distinguishable categories, this also breaks the town nomination system and gives you too much control over our choice of candidates. I would very much like an explanation of why you chose Radfield as your rival candidate over other players. Secondly, wow are you stressing the fact detective needs to check you. I understand that determining alignment of mayoral positions is crucial, but you are leaving out the fact that: 1) more than one detective will likely check you since they aren't coordinated effectively nullifing the town investigative power d1, 2) you could be godfather and then claim pr with occulumency d2, and 3) presence of Mafia busdriver. I propose alternative plan. Below is the player list: Subversion Jugan stormtemplar Jayme acrossfivejulys johnnyspazz lakrismamma Radfield LuDwig- JeeJee Hesmyrr YellowInk ~OpZ~ zeks ~Roffles DCLXVI ElyAs Thegilaboy LaXerCannon Amber[LighT] Abenson The person with investigative powers in red tag investigate MoM The person with investigative powers in green tag investigate pardoner The person with investigative powers in blue tag investigate someone else. Much harder to counter, I think. ~OpZ~ and Amber[light] voted for Radfield. zeks and AcrossFiveJulys voted for Amber[LighT] Casual question to ~OpZ~... If you don't like Radfield, why are you voting for him? | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
I am fine with running for minister here. I don't think that I have any special qualifications beyond the other two candidates posed except, well, that I know I am town. But supposedly so do they, so yeah. If people feel that I would be a valuable choice in the election, I would gladly take the role to at least keep it out of death eater or even independant hands. My spellset would mesh reasonably well with an elected role, but regardless of election will need to remain concealed to keep its optimal efficiency. YellowInk, you just softclaimed for the pr position. ...Eh. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
On June 23 2010 00:21 Amber[LighT] wrote: Also I did not step up as a candidate until someone else nominated me. I am pushing for my candidacy because I believe I can lead the town to victory, and I'm really confident that I can do this. I don't understand why you're bashing me for proposing a plan if I was the MoM and pushing for my election when we agreed that people should only be pushing if they were nominated... I followed the rules the few active players agreed upon, and I believe that my plan will work. We have a lot of variables in the game, but if we can elect some level-headed individuals into office that have been posting we can start finding the DE's faster, even if the spells are going to work against us. The candidates definitely should propose plans, but it is in equal responsibility of the players to find faults and pitfalls as much as possible- and question the proposer to see if the weakness in the plan is unintentional or deliberate. The way you countered by building upon the plan - cushion style method for blue tag players - has alleviated my suspicion quite a lot, but I still want to hear about how you pulled out Radfield's name, and why. If this plan continues you and Radfield are guaranteed to be either MoM/Governor; which is something one should definitely be held accountable for should the future unfold peachy. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
| ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
| ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 01:21) I like him more than you (not that I don't actually like you, ThreeKingdoms you were my buddy!). I'm actually planning on changing my vote still, and you had the same idea as me with Roffles, but I don't know if Roffles can scum find...I know Radfield can...But I learned my lesson from the game I was modkilled for. I was active, except the last day, and missed my vote. Radfield ALSO said he doesn't have as much time to dedicate to the game, (As I've pointed out) so I don't really feel he should be a mayor or pardoner. And Amber voting for Radfield (Amber trying to be pardoner?). Wow, is this paragraph confusing and ambiguous as hell. I'm not sure what kind of definite stance you are making here. My understanding is that you are pointing out your concerns about Roffles, Radfield, and Amber. Anyway I felt you were trying to avoid making definite stance on some of the candidates, which caused me to look at your voting history. ~OpZ~: Radfield (June 22 2010 14:02) -> AmberLight (June 23 2010 05:44) -> YellowInk (June 23 2010 06:32) Naturally this vote juggling has gotten me little confused. I would definitely like to hear your reasoning behind the vote switches. At ~OpZ~ (June 22 2010 13:08) you say "I'd nominate Radfield, but Radfield said he wont be as active" and that "I don't really give two craps about the mayor, but I most certainly hope he is active." So why did you vote Radfield one hour later? Note that you have repeatedly shown distrust toward Radfield and the fact that amber[light] was another viable candidate at the time. Why Radfield over Amber[light]? As for the vote switching, I looked and he does give justification behind it in ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 05:47) and ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 06:32), but the brevity of it really makes me uncomfortable. The tactic of trying to root out scums by looking at the d1 mayoral votelist kinda fails regarding player who shuffles their vote around like this. Amber[LighT] (June 23 2010 05:50) Major alarmbells. You asked the town to either vote you or Radfield, then state that "people that are voting for him are looking scummy" when three people happen to consecutively vote for him? Hell, I can do this too: ~OpZ~, LaXerCannon and johnnyspazz all cosecutively voted for AmberLight- people voting for him sure look scummy~ YellowInk (June 23 2010 06:31) Whoa, seriously? He accepted ~OpZ~'s shallow as hell DCLXVI lynch instead of pointing out how terrible lynching player for calling someone "idiot" is? This is a good way to completely absolve the responsibility from yourself should the DCLXVI flip green. When mayor lynchs a player, at least they contribute to the town by specifically explaining why. What's his excuse, ~OpZ~ wanted to? One question I have though: You do not like Amber[light] and Radfield being together. However, amber[light] is the one who proposed the plan. In order for you to not like Amber[light] & Radfield ticket you have to suspect amber[light] of being scum. So why in the hell would you want to be only governor when your campaign against Amber-Radfield combo presumes that amber[light], who is likely to be mayor, is scum? Let me emphasize how damaging mafia MoM would be. Not only MoM get multiple vote power, it essentially lenders Aurors - and their 50% probability of learning scum's identity - useless. If you are town and didn't like "Amber[light] & Radfield combined ticket", you would have done your hardest to secure votes as much as possible to prevent both from obtaining mayoral spots instead of going all half-hearted like 'I only want votes enough to get me into gov'. Raising my suspicion meter on you. Another thing of minor note is that he made himself only viable candidate against amber-radfield combo effectively nullifying my push for Roffles as 3rd alternative, but I suppose that is expected of pr who would give himself away just for the sake of putting himself into position of GOVERNOR, for some reason. Jugan (June 23 2010 07:50) Okay, simply pointing out the weird wording of amber is fine, but why in the world would you try to rolefish after the day has ended? I cannot understand how learning the fact that Radfield and Amber[light] is mason benefit the town in this point of the game. Another thing I note is why he would interpret Amber[light]'s words to mean they are masons, when there are another role that can communicate via PM as well: SCUMS. It could be possible that Jugan automatically eliminated mafia from list of options because he himself is scum, and know amber[light] radfield isn't. Also DCLXVI, personal attacks never benefit the town. You even had guts to say you thought ~OpZ~ was town, but still ask the town to lynch him just for the sake of animosity. I would have lynched you myself at that point. I'm kinda running out of time here so I'll stop here for now. Will look over the d2 posts tomorrow. I also see the plan to iso two players; I'll do Amber[LighT] and Abenson, though I may decide to change it later. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
On June 25 2010 07:12 Jugan wrote: Or it's possible that if you eliminate mason from the list you get mafia. Look at what you wrote. It's hilarious. Are you explicitly suggesting that you were trying to coax them into confessing they are not masons? On June 25 2010 07:23 Roffles wrote: Plus, where have I accused you of doing anything? I just said I have absolutely no justification in regards to your fucking actions. Keep the conflagratory and abrasive comments coming. No shit you're not gonna reveal yourself to be fucking mafia. No one's fucking retarded. I'm just stating that from the shit you spammed, it's hard to fucking tell which alliance you're with simply because you haven't been fucking contributing shit.  | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 01:21) I like him more than you (not that I don't actually like you, ThreeKingdoms you were my buddy!). I'm actually planning on changing my vote still, and you had the same idea as me with Roffles, but I don't know if Roffles can scum find...I know Radfield can...But I learned my lesson from the game I was modkilled for. I was active, except the last day, and missed my vote. Radfield ALSO said he doesn't have as much time to dedicate to the game, (As I've pointed out) so I don't really feel he should be a mayor or pardoner. And Amber voting for Radfield (Amber trying to be pardoner?). Wow, is this paragraph confusing and ambiguous as hell. I'm not sure what kind of definite stance you are making here. My understanding is that you are pointing out your concerns about Roffles, Radfield, and Amber. Anyway I felt you were trying to avoid making definite stance on some of the candidates, which caused me to look at your voting history. ~OpZ~: Radfield (June 22 2010 14:02) -> AmberLight (June 23 2010 05:44) -> YellowInk (June 23 2010 06:32) Naturally this vote juggling has gotten me little confused. I would definitely like to hear your reasoning behind the vote switches. At ~OpZ~ (June 22 2010 13:08) you say "I'd nominate Radfield, but Radfield said he wont be as active" and that "I don't really give two craps about the mayor, but I most certainly hope he is active." So why did you vote Radfield one hour later? Note that you have repeatedly shown distrust toward Radfield and the fact that amber[light] was another viable candidate at the time. Why Radfield over Amber[light]? As for the vote switching, I looked and he does give justification behind it in ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 05:47) and ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 06:32), but the brevity of it really makes me uncomfortable. The tactic of trying to root out scums by looking at the d1 mayoral votelist kinda fails regarding player who shuffles their vote around like this. Link: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=5563227 | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
johnnyspazz immediately pointed out that this was simple regurgitation of what has been said just three posts before. Although there are instances where people summarize up the current debate just for the player's convenience, I felt need to pay more attention to this just because the writer is Abenson- no disrespect to him. I have iso'd his post before and usually his post consist of effortless one-liners. In fact I believe this is the first post from Abenson that exceeds more than three sentences. So I looked at what he has done during this game: + Show Spoiler + On June 23 2010 05:03 Abenson wrote: Alright, I apologize for my inactivity for the past 2 days. I've finally finished all my exams, and I will be pretty much free now Once again, sorry for my inactivity On June 23 2010 05:08 Abenson wrote: Alright, caught up and ready to play. I'll try not to be a shitty player like I usually am On June 23 2010 07:46 Abenson wrote: Actually, I voted for Radfield mainly because he was pretty good in the past, and I was afraid of getting modkilled. Supports Radfield for his skills On June 23 2010 07:47 Abenson wrote: Press post by accident And also to kinda make sure he is 2nd On June 23 2010 10:03 Abenson wrote: Bah On June 23 2010 10:03 Abenson wrote: Actually, Yay. Since I probably would be the one to die if it hadn't been him On June 23 2010 10:05 Abenson wrote: But meh, we lynched one of us On June 24 2010 11:01 Abenson wrote: I would have to agree with johnny on that the 3rd party could be a serial killer. After carefully reading through the whole first post in the game, I realized that there are absolutely no clues telling us how many DE there are. In a 21 people game, 4 DE might be a viable setup. Therefore I think that we should not immediately assume how it amounted to 3 deaths in the few days. Anyways, here are the possibilities I see: 1) Serial Killer killed someone 2) A random night Vig killed (unlikely, vig rarely kills on night 1 because of the risk of killing someone important on your side) 3) DE has 2 KP On June 25 2010 03:53 Abenson wrote: *is desperately thinking of something helpful to write* Is it me or does the linked post stand out as pinnacle of light among the rest? I really do not like single post from him that actually contributes to the discussion in truth fails to introduces any new opinion from him at all. I suspect it could be attempt to delay his lynch by trying to seem active- either way, Abenson is good lynch candidate unless he cleans up his conduct soon (a.k.a. contribute something new to the discussion). I don't see what is up with all the debate about player on the same list & different list. Mafia is just going to choose to analyze the players that benefit their team the most either way. In fact, I expect their choice of players to iso will be important analysis material later on themselves when we start to learn alignment of some of these players. ~OpZ~ (June 25 2010 02:26) Wait wait wait, "I voted for him because I was uncertain of Radfield and didn't want Radfield to be pardoner. But YellowInk made a scummy post...In my eyes atleast. But he was going to lynch DC for me..."? First, all of the post you bring up as scummy had been posted before you made your YI vote. Looking at your analysis you seem to have pretty decent evidence not to trust YellowInk. To the contrary, your suspicion of Radfield seem to consist of your gut feeling, or at least you never bothered to bring up why you found him scummy. So at that time there was three candidates which could take pardoner position: Radfield, Roffles, and YellowInk. If you had reason to believe YellowInk so suspicious, why would you want him to take pardoner position over Radfield- someone you felt uncertain about but at least there was no material to justify such feelings? In fact, if you found both Radfield and YI scummy why not push for Roffles to take pardoner position, especially when the fact you had previously considered the idea of having Roffles run as candidate? Since Pardoner is unprotected by Aurors and the role itself is useless to the town, Roffle's scumhunting ability would not really have mattered at all either. Also your statement that you voted YI because he was going to lynch DC... On June 23 2010 06:35 ~OpZ~ wrote: And yes, I'm aware that ruins my, Die DC Die thing. But more importantly they've both had random bouts of vote jumping. ? _________ Cutting my analysis here b/c I see ~OpZ~ has replied. I understand Radfield and Amber[LighT], but I think my point still stands. "Well I don't like giving pardoner to people who say they want it over mayor...Why? (I'm sure you know). Town doesn't want pardoner. Mafia wants pardoner. / So anyone asking for pardoner (YI and Radfield) looks suspicious to me." You agree town should not give pardoner to mafia b/c it's a position only mafia would want / YI does said suspicious behaviour and you push for him instead of Radfield or Roffles? | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
| ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
| ||
| ||
