EPTTL Mafia XXXV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
| ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
| ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
FOS LSB. analysis to come shortly | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On December 27 2010 10:27 LSB wrote: Flamwheel/Incog forgot to send me who my teammates were, can you PM me them? Thanks! what is the point of this post? acting as if he is mafia to create the impression he is not mafia? WIFOM surely, but think about it On December 27 2010 10:35 LSB wrote: I say we lynch ~OpZ~ because his town play and mafia play is indistinguishable. what is the point of this? instant attempt to form a wagon on someone who hasnt even posted yet and the game had just started? On December 27 2010 10:37 LSB wrote: If there are mayoral elections, will you help me make my campaign poster? On December 27 2010 10:38 LSB wrote: Nvm, doesn't seem like there are mayoral elections two posts to seem active and he answers his own question a minute later. point of this? On December 27 2010 11:11 LSB wrote: + Show Spoiler + I wanted to wait for the day post before posting this but w/e All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about:
Inactives: A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive. Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives. We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. The key is that we have to make sure the town knows it is not okay to just simply sit back and not do anything. This way, hopefully everyone will be active and we won't need to lynch an inactive. Plan Firstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. Generic Blue Activity plan One plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The DTs should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Medics should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. Framer Issue: Framers are much better put to use framing the important townies. So any attempt by the mafia for framing the inactives would be a waste. "should we lynch an inactive?" <-- probably knows mafia is most likely to at least pay attention to the thread enough to evade being labeled inactive. probably knows even if there are mafia inactives, he can choose any other town inactive and maintain the aura of "hey im helping out town" the rest of this is informative sure, but common sense? but the line "We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one." worries me. much better to hit an active scummy person and LSB should know this. "DO NOT CLAIM" is good advice, and i would like to say obvious, but given current history and shit it isnt =\ On December 27 2010 11:18 LSB wrote: Lets say Coagulation tells Doctor H that he is the medic. That's a claim Let's not do that this game On December 27 2010 11:25 LSB wrote: Of course. There's a few cases where claiming is okay. 1) You are about to be lynched. Don't expect this to save you, but it would be nice to tell the town what happens 2) DT checks you. The DT then messages you and say that "I know your role is [insert green/blue role here]. This is mainly used when the DT finds a red, and also finds a green. The green becomes the "DT Mouth" and tells the Town what the DT found out. 3) The Medic successfully protects you. Assuming that it wasn't a hit from the mad hatter, if the medic protects someone, that person probably isn't mafia. 4) The town thinks of some super awesome plan. The issue is when blues jump the gun and start claiming before they confirmed someone. That's a great way to get our blues sniped. (See Salem Mafia. For a short summary, look at the article in the Pony Express) 1 and 2 are fine, 3 is not - you don't claim here, you just admit to being hit - preferably to town circle if you know where it is. 4 is a catch-all sure, but claiming day 1 to a "super awesome plan" is a horrible idea. that said though, LSB is providing pure information (some of which is sketchy) and no analysis. this early it is usually fine but consider it in the light of his earlier postings? it is like he wants to be active but isnt contributing valuable stuff. On December 27 2010 11:27 LSB wrote: Check out Pokemafia. Basically the entire mafia team, except for DCXLIV and Kavdragon posted once a day, and made sure they voted. That's what lurking is. common sense information On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote: TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history? fair question! On December 27 2010 12:06 LSB wrote: Hahahahahhaha ? On December 27 2010 12:37 LSB wrote: What do you feel about lynching inactives / spammers? What do you feel that the blues should do? more "hit inactives" crap - this is bad. also maybe a blue fish? On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote: Can I write one then? On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote: That was at Incog/Flamewheel wants to write a day post. uh huh. keep this in mind with the "try to appear active but not" lens. On December 27 2010 13:26 LSB wrote: I don't believe Pandain is mafia just because he fingered Mr. Wiggles. Clearly at the time Mr. Wiggles did not contribute anything, and Pandain just voted to accent his point. Indeed, as Ver put in his town guide, spamming can be detrimental to the town. Now, I don't belive we should lynch Mr. Wiggles. It is far to early to tell anything about him, and also I'd rather lynch a lurker/inactive than a spammer. HEY something of content, cool. sort of defense of pandain and blatant defense of mr. wiggles. sadly the rationale of "inactives instead!" is scummy. On December 27 2010 13:30 LSB wrote: EBWOP Yep, thats what I'm doing. It looks like there is a little time lag between what you post and what shows up in the search function. Maybe this is normal... Haven't actually tried searching for posts this recent before. dunno how to analyze this -- information that isnt common sense (or meant to filibuster) is fine, and even i didnt know this one. id say this gets a pass On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote: + Show Spoiler + Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain yes, lets lynch people with zero meaningful posts. LSB, you up? or yes lets lynch a modkill target because those are almost certainly going to be town and we want to lynch towns, yes. On December 27 2010 13:39 LSB wrote: 5/5! And Merry Christmas to you too! you too. On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote: Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L. good idea, i like this, but why sign up and then insta modkill on purpose? if youre replaced its not like you can consider any potential wins by the mafia as wins for you -- you are considered not to have even played the game. seems like something nobody should ever do on purpose and if they do, metagaming at its finest. buuuut then we haaaave..... On December 27 2010 13:57 LSB wrote: As for new players, don't worry to much about being inactive. As long as you try to play mafia and spend some time thinking and reading the thread, this won't ever be a problem. Just post you thoughts on the person currently being accused. And feel free to ask questions, in thread, PMing the hosts, or any of the Bootcamp helpers, and I'm always willing to help "DONT WORRY ABOUT BEING INACTIVE LOL" after his entire campaign day 1 was "kill the inactives" -- whaaaat? what is this inconsistency? On December 28 2010 00:34 LSB wrote: Remember this post? 40 Minutes Later http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=179875#2 Not a scum tell per say... but still... yes coagulation got a 14 day ban on purpose to "help" his mafia team day 1, this makes perfect sense. ***************** in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing. my vote is on LSB now. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
others are probably similar | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
2. you could do whatever analysis you please? all i know is you didnt do any 3. evidently you do need to pretend to be active, since you did for ~30 posts 4. it says you are defending pandain? i dont understand what you are asking me to do 5. thank you. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
however, this only benefits mafia. mafia will know that any players who say "i checked X, hes mafia" when X is not mafia are not DTs. it will also give advance warning to any DTs who call mafia out correctly. anyone who is called out incorrectly will know the list of incorrect DTs and this can be just as good as DTs coming out -- which they should never do. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On December 28 2010 04:40 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The problem is when we focus too much on inactives we start calling people scum just because they didn't post enough when the far more disturbing trend is posting a lot/posting big posts and saying absolutely nothing helpful: like LSB? | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On December 28 2010 04:49 Pandain wrote: 1.I do not think we should vote LSB. Plainly, he has been contributing alot so far, more than most of the people already. Plainly, if he is mafia, then we'll most likely catch him anyway. We should not be lynching actives, even if we have a slight suspicion that he's mafia. Obviously if we have a good inkling I suppose we should go for it(as in team melee mafia 2 incog fingered lsb day 1) but right now there's really nothing on LSB, and I wouldn't want to lynch an expierenced player. Plus there are some problems with your analysis, but I'll just name a few. 1. If you are hit, then u should claim. LSB was right. Becuase mafia can't tell if ur vet or just protected or what. 2.You're mistaking jokes for real content. (aka when lsb said coag got banned so dr. h could join) 3.The only real suspicious thing about him is his somewhat spammy nature. The most important of which being number 3, but that is certainly not a reason to lynch him when he's already contributed alot. this worries me i already highlighted LSB's defense of pandain. now pandain is defending LSB on my FOS. in and of itself that is fine but his rationale is "if hes mafia, we'll catch him anyway" ... whaaaaaat? basically pandain is saying "so what if he acts scummy day 1, if hes mafia he will act scummy days 2-X and we can lynch him then" <--- am i missing something here when i call this horrible logic? on point: i am not so sure public claiming of being hit is 100% the smart play, but am willing to be persuaded on this strategy debate. note that even if LSB turns out correct and this is the proper strategy, it does not acquit him of scumminess. second, "mistaking jokes for real content" makes me scratch my head. can anyone just out and say "JUST KIDDING LOL" if someone calls them up on something? i think a big part of my case against him is in the spammy nature, as you call it. he posts a lot without actually posting a lot, you know what i mean? its that plus his case against inactives that bothers me. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
| ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
you know when you highlight text in a book? to draw your eyes to important things later when you study? like that | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
i think ~24/30 of this game will agree that i have contributed much more analysis to this game than you have. the 6 who wont are you and your five mafia teammates. if there are seven mafia or eight mafia then it will be 23/30 and 22/30 who will agree with this. =\ | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
| ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On December 28 2010 05:55 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Annul is being way too defensive. If somebody doesn't like your analysis or says you aren't contributing much and suddenly you go extremely active to defend the minute points is strange. I know you "hardcore defend" yourself in every game but that definitely wasn't the case when you were town in Salem. No one is really accusing you of anything but you're defending yourself, to me, like a player that is seriously up on the chopping block. I don't like that so I'm putting my vote on you for now and when I come back from work I'll see if a better target presents itself. I notice you are stressing how pro-town your contributions have been when you really haven't contributed all that much. I like your persistence on LSB. I have a neutral read on you right now but I need to put my vote somewhere. Don't take it too personally. in my mind i wasnt really "playing" salem or i would have hardcore defended myself there too i shouldnt have signed up for it but i wasnt going to modkill out of it. but here i really am not defending myself, but my analysis. my case is attacked so i defend it. its not like "hey annul did X Y Z lynch him" and i am fighting to survive. to me, the defenders of LSB are potential mafia because in my mind, LSB is mafia. so of course i want to push them off. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
if PBPA is a spam maneuver then i really need to quit this game because i must not know a thing about forum mafia point 2 is a false classification of my position. i want to lynch scummy targets, not inactives. LSB wants to fire on inactives exclusively. it is correct that where there are no other scummy targets, an inactive is a fine kill. but where there is scum, there is no reason whatsoever to leave them alone in favor of inactives, which is what LSB advocates. right now there are scummy targets and there are places to analyze that do not involve inactives. point 3, spoiler 2 is false. "yet annul brushes it aside" -- yes, i clearly brushed aside you telling us what you want to do to inactives. clearly. point 3, spoiler 3 is sort of false. perhaps they are not "spam" in the common way of thinking about it, but what you post are pure informative posts without almost any actual analytical contribution. yes, you do bring some things to the game, like the pandain/wiggles defense (and, after the FOS post, your attacks on me). but the vast majority of your postings -- as can be found in my PBPA -- are not analytical at all. point 3, spoiler 4 is unfair, because i asked you a question that you did not answer. you said "what does my defense of pandain SAY?" and i told you what it said, asking for more information on your question because there had to be more to it than that; there had to be some underlying question i wasnt seeing. you never clarified and now you seek to use this as a point. unfair at best. point 3 non-spoiler 1 is categorically false. for point 3 non-spoiler 2, show me the inconsistencies please? i will be more than willing to analyze whatever holes you think exist in my case. if i miss something its entirely an error - not an unwillingness to get on the record about a topic. show me what you want me to talk about (SPECIFICALLY) and i will. point 4-2 is fair analysis, i will give you that. i personally believe you should claim to the circle if you get hit, because giving mafia more information is a horrible idea. but you can argue that GF may be in the circle, etc etc. so theres a lot of paths to go with that. realize this: the hit claim or not claim debate has nothing at all to do with the scumminess assessment. on either side. the rest of point 4 is laughable. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
| ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
forgive the fact my linguistic style is one that uses many words. note the points of my analysis; if you can respond in a fraction of the space, good for you. i speak verbosely. sorry. at least i brought the first real contention to light, right? look at what i say, not how i say it. i never called you out for making statements in a verbose manner; i called you out for making statements that provide little or nothing. big difference. if you actually ANALYZED pandain then i must have missed it, because theres nothing in the PBPA id classify as actual analysis. if by this you mean that post where you defended wiggles then no i do not consider that real analysis. here is the only place you "analyzed" pandain that existed in the PBPA: "I don't believe Pandain is mafia just because he fingered Mr. Wiggles. Clearly at the time Mr. Wiggles did not contribute anything, and Pandain just voted to accent his point." is this analysis of pandain? really? if this is what you want me to talk about then i apologize for not discussing this further, because its not significant enough for me to have noted its supposed importance earlier. but okay. i agree, running a FOS doesnt make you a mafia. ok, analysis done. what now? my position on inactives is irrelevant. of course id prefer them to not be inactive. but the only way to actually "deal" with them is to get them to stop being inactive somehow or to lynch them. barring some model way to do the former (which isnt obvious considering the state of TL mafia), then the latter is all we have. and right now, we need to kill scum not inactives. so yes, my idea is "wait until later" as that is all we can do. note the whole "DT check inactives, watch out for framers" thing is not discussing what to do with inactives, it is discussing what DTs should do. say DT checks an inactive. okay. what next? theyre still inactive yes? now, you say to tell you what you should have analyzed. why am i going to give you a pass like this? why dont you come up with it and show town what you have to say on your own, other than "no u" all the way? the rest of your post makes no sense. that is my position established from above, so reiterating "no, it actually makes sense" wont change it. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On December 28 2010 06:41 LSB wrote: I went back and looked at what point you were reffering to. What analysis can I do within 60 Minutes of the game start? i was not referring to any point. i am referring to your entire game so far. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On December 28 2010 07:34 LunarDestiny wrote: I am following debates between Annul and LSB. There are something I don't get. Annul's conclusion in his first post about why LSB should be lynched. Annul, your conclusion for lynching LSB is because he have about 30 posts. All 30 posts, except 2, are posts that means nothing and pure informative posts without analysis? LSB, are your reasons for lynching Annul in page 17? -1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing -2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives -3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced -4. Annul posts without brining anything new I will say what I think of this later, but I want to get these two points straight. my conclusion is that, yes, PLUS his insistence on going after inactives instead of scumhunting. it would be very easy for a mafia to know his team all happen to be active and then say "hey kill inactives over all else EVEN IF scummy targets exist" | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On December 28 2010 07:40 LSB wrote: Indeed. 1/4 are basically the same thing. How about this. With a bit more explanation. 1) Makes posts that don't do much, but pretend to be contributing. Then congratulates himself of all the contributions that he did. This is a mafia manuver. See LMNOP in WaW mafia 2) Although Annul says inactives hurt the town, he has not done anything to attempt to deal with the problem. He has shot down all attempts at working together a solution without offering a reason, let alone an alternative. This is a decidedly anti-town maneuver, as leaving the inactives alone will lose us the game. See Pokemafia 3) Annul analysis is forced. This is incredibly telling. See my analysis on SR in TMM2, I was mafia and I made a forced junk analysis in order to try to take off heat. 1. "no u" defense again. this is precisely what i called LSB out on in the first place. we wouldnt even have these pages of debate if not for FOSing LSB. couldve just sat back and let pandain fall, very easy right? 2. see: On December 28 2010 06:52 annul wrote: my position on inactives is irrelevant. of course id prefer them to not be inactive. but the only way to actually "deal" with them is to get them to stop being inactive somehow or to lynch them. barring some model way to do the former (which isnt obvious considering the state of TL mafia), then the latter is all we have. and right now, we need to kill scum not inactives. so yes, my idea is "wait until later" as that is all we can do. 3. "forced" how? i couldve sat back and let pandain hang, right? why am i calling you out specificallly if i didnt think you were scum? the only way is if pandain and i are both mafia and i am trying to save him, and while i am not clear on pandain, i do know his wagon makes no sense. i realize saying this will mean i hang if he turns red but =\ you are scummier than he is right now. | ||
| ||
