EPTMini Mafia IV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
| ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
| ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
| ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
In other news, just some general thoughts: 1.Blue's dont claim unless you are about to be lynched. If you find a red, don't claim. Instead prepare an analysis on him and get him lynched without claiming. If you find green, and they're about to be lynched, express support for him, but don't claim unless its near lylo. 2.I agree we should not let inactives survive in this town. But considering we've hardly started, "inactives" is hardly the word to call them. So let's get things moving. ##Vote Nemesis On January 20 2011 22:08 Nemesis wrote: @Jackal I wouldn't say that lynching actives is a big mistake. I wasn't paying attention to what happened in XXXVI, but we should lynch scum, and mafia is not always inactive. And I guess back to the usual first day topic. Lynching inactives. Since lynching a scum is very hard in the very first day. Lynching inactives would be a very good start as it would prevent mafia from lurking. I'm going to wait a bit for people to talk since the game has just started. What is this? Clarify this for me, because as I understand right now you just said we should lynch scum, and then say we should lynch inactives. Plus I want to see more contribution. Come on people, pressure is pointless if only one person votes. Let's get things moving. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On January 21 2011 04:53 GGQ wrote: Hmm, what do you mean? Wouldn't abstaining mean it takes us longer to reach lylo? it'll take 4 deaths to reach lylo. If we lynch every day then we reach lylo after two days and two nights. If we abstain then we reach lylo after four days and four nights. Not that I'm advocating abstaining. But I'd think the problem with abstaining is that it hands the kills to the mafia instead of letting town get their turn. The problem with abstaining is that we basically let mafia have a free turn. Rather than voting, and therefore collecting vital information and discussion, no one is lynched, and we end up on day 2 being none the wiser. It's basically as if we started on day 2. Whether it postpones lylo for one night cycle is really irrelevant, as losing that vital lynch just for an extra night cycle(which won't mean anything if we don't get through that without town getting hurt), is not even an even trade. Speaking of which: Vigi's do NOT use your ability until town declares a consensus on that. We don't need a townie dead because you decided to be a "hero." Speaking of, I want people to start voting Shockkey as well as nemesis. Shockkey has barely contributed with a real post, I want to see that from him. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On January 21 2011 06:11 Nemesis wrote: Yes, I did say that we should lynch scum, but day 1, it is very hard to actually lynch scum because we don't have a lot of information available to us. Which is why I suggested that we should lynch inactives for the first day. As it has been said before, inactivity is a big problem which we do not want to see in this game. Lynching inactive first day encourages people to participate more in the discussion and be more active which makes it is easier to find mafia, as the more discussion we have as there is more information available to analyze. ##Vote Shockeyy I haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. I don't like this post either. Let's take a look at it. First off, lynching inactives itself is a bad strategy. I shall be lenient to him because even I make this mistake, but lynching inactives is a horrible thing to do. When we say "lynch inactives", we mean "lynch lurkers." We want to differentiate the lurkers from the inactives/bored. If we say we'll lynch the inactives, the inactives won't respond. IF we say we'll lynch the inactives, the bored won't really respond. Only the mafia will respond if we say lynch the inactives. Which is why you never want to end up LYNCHING an inactive, just pressuring all of them to post. Furthormore, he just repeated information without actually adding anything to it. Finally he goes for the "easy" kill. This is typical mafia to me. I now offer Nemesis as a viable option for a real lynch. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On January 21 2011 07:11 chaoser wrote: I disagree with this post. While lynching inactives is suboptimal as a strategy when compared to lynching mafia, I wouldn't say it's a bad strat. There have been games where inactivity lost town the game. And I'm not talking about people being active and then becoming inactive. I'm talking about inactives staying inactive. Town doesn't want to waste lynches on them past day one and then you get like 3-4 inactives just sitting around at the end of the game making it almost impossible to weed out the last 2-3 mafia that are hiding within their ranks. Also, you're talking about semantics. Whether we mean inactive or lurker, inactive means they ain't posting and so from the point of view of the town, it's the same thing, a bad thing. Its like our policy to lynch millers. Doesn't matter if they are real mafia or not, if someone comes up as red, its better to lynch them than not to. Saying we're going to lynch inactive might not do anything but voting and pressuring them will get them to post so your point on that is wrong too. If they are truly "inactive", as in they are away from the comp, they won't come defend themselves and we can get a sense of whether they are "inactive" or a "lurker" as you put it. I'm actually weary of people who go "omg he wants to lynch inactive, he's mafia!" Everyone knows what people mean when they say lets lynch inactive day one, it's just a way to generate discussion. Most games start with people saying lynch inactive. And most of the time they're not mafia. Why did you jump to quickly to say he's mafia? We got a whole day left and not everyone has said anything yet. Did you just say this? :p I disagree with this post. While lynching inactives is suboptimal as a strategy when compared to lynching mafia, I wouldn't say it's a bad strat. Again, we want to pressure people to POST, not lynch the inactives. There is a HUGE difference between those two. We want to pressure the inactives and lynch the lurkers, not lynch the inactives themselves. Remember, mafia aren't inactive, they're lurking. Inactives are those who are bored, who don't care about the game, who don't have time. Lurkers are the ones who are watching yet don't contribute. Differentiating between those will make or break it for the town. We can't just lynch all the inactives and hope for the best. As of right now, I want Shockkey to post, but am giving him time. Meanwhile there is someone who might be scum and slipped up. There's no point not pressuring the person at the very least. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
In mafia, there are two different extremes of people. Those who don't post, and those who do. The active, and the inactive. Mafia will usually end up taking either one of those extremes, either posting alot but not contributing(bill murray for instance), or not posting really at all(most lurking mafia.) There is a vital different between lurkers and inactives. Most inactives are town. Usually when people are inactive they are bored/don't have time. They didn't get a "fun" role, so just have decided to play SC2 instead of play mafia. You will NOT find mafia in the inactive category. Mafia aren't inactive, they are paying plenty of attention to the game. As you will see, they simply decide to lurk, which is different from being inactive. Lurkers are a portion of the inactives, but different in a vital way. While inactives don't pay attention to the thread, lurkers do. Lurkers just choose NOT to post because one of mafia's favorite things to do is let each day go by, while no one has said anything. Lurkers is where you will find mafia. Being inactive, while anti town, is not a "scummy" thing to do. Lurking, however is. That is where we must analyze. And that is where Nemesis strikes me as scummy. Repeats old information, went for the easy lynch, and just overall strikes me as scummy. I'm not saying by any means he's 100% scum, but we should at the VERY least pressure him. @Jackal, any concerns can be put aside by reading in the last paragraph of that post. + Show Spoiler + Don't just check the inactives, they're most likely bored townies. Don't just check big name players, most likely they're going to be framed/picked godfather. We should pick those who seem to be pro town, but fail to actually contribute. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On January 21 2011 11:11 LSB wrote: Firstly I'm going to point out that there probably aren't going to be any inactives this game. But the question still stands Pandain, why shouldn't we kill inactives? 99% of time mafia do not fall into the realm of inactives. We want to find lurkers, not inactives. Note I have always been ferevent about getting town talking, and this game should be no different. While we should pressure inactives to TALK, we should be VOTING lurkers. For example as of now almost everyone has given a good post with the exception of shockkey. Do you really think(given 3 mafia), that mafia are going for the "inactive" role if town always says "lynch inactives." We want to find those who seem to contribute but don't, not those who don't contribute and don't seem to either. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On January 21 2011 11:17 Nemesis wrote: Pandain all you did is define inactive/lurker. You still haven't answered how we can differentiate between them.You are just repeating the same points over and over again without really answering that question. The only thing that we can really do is prevent everyone from heading that way in the first place by pressuring/lynching inactives. Mafia will never go inactive if we threaten to lynch inactives. They really never do. Instead they will go "Just above" the threshhold of "contribution", while not really contributing. As for examples? Lurkers: Obviously paying attention, talking about unrelated stuff/not topic of debate, repeating same stuff(can fall under inactives too though so be careful), bad reasoning/mafia tells(wishy washy ness, other stuff) | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
As for pressuring them.... For example, we can threaten to lynch people. When for 2 days in a row you only say "I'm busy", that's unnacceptable, and we lynch them. As of now though there is no one I would consider truly "inactive inactive." There really the only way to differentiate is by lynching them, such as soulfire and george clooney, who wouldn't talk even if pressured. But no one is doing that now. So for now, lynching "inactives" is not what we should be doing. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On January 21 2011 11:26 LSB wrote: Go read XXXIV, or Micro Mafia IV. That or even read XXXV. I don't know what happened at the end, but I'm assuming that inactives still lost you guys the game. It doesn't matter, even town aligned Inactives hurt the game and Inactives in LYLO causes town loss. No LSB, I lost town the game. And I was really active that game. And you can't say "it doesn't matter". Again, we want to pressure inactives to vote, not lynch them. Let me ask you some questions: 1.Do you think mafia will lurk, or be inactive, and why? 2.Would you rather lynch a lurker or an inactive, and why? 3.You said you had opinions on Nemesis, what is that? | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
Arguing any more will just be pointless/lead to arguments. Moving forward, I am currently satisfied with the state of nemesis, or at least am going to wait. I have a new suspect: Hesmyrr. On January 20 2011 22:46 Hesmyrr wrote: Seconding the opinion that discussing town PR action is rather pointless, since the setup isn't themed or anything. Trying to direct their actions just open up tons of WIFOM on the later days. Is lynching inactives good idea? Hum, let me throw down the gauntlet. ##Vote BloodyC0bbler check the thread faster  Doesn't really say anything. On January 21 2011 02:53 Hesmyrr wrote: Since everyone seems to be piping up, I shall take on the role of Devil's Advocate. Note that the current situation is 8-3. Assuming nothing happens with town keep failing lynches: 8-3 6-3 4-3 That is 2 ML available to eliminate 3 mafia. If vig misfires the available mislynch decreases to 1. Holy jeez, I'd love to have been stuck with F11 setup with these odds. Random bantering aside I am questioning that whether it is wise to religiously throw away one of these valuable lynch opportunity in banner of activity. Of course inactivity is hugely anti-town (thus a scumtell) but it should not be given greater weight than ordinary accusation even in day 1. At least the latter would help draw towns discussion more toward post of actual players. Does a common mafia tell, instead of actually analyzing just gives voting list. On January 21 2011 03:06 Hesmyrr wrote: I just wanted to note that inactivity issue should be treated with less emphasis in small roster setup (Mini-mafia) like this. Will try to look for fos suspects I can post about later on. Semi contradicts previous post that inactivity is a huge scum tell, now says we should place less emphasis on it. Overall hasn't really said anything. For a more seasoned player, I would expect more out of him. ##Vote Hesmyrr | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On January 21 2011 12:17 GGQ wrote: You literally just finished XXV where two mafia were modkilled for inactivity... And we don't want to be voting those who we modkill anyway, no? On January 21 2011 17:08 Barundar wrote: Meh now jumping to another target Pandain? Pressure doesn’t work if it isn’t real, and you basically just switched because Nemesis makes one post arguing against you. I like that you are being offensive, but it has to serve it's purpose, and right now you are all over the place. Hesmyrr, do you still think your vote on BC is justified, and who else would you vote for now? I got enough out of him, the point is to pressure as many people as possible in a limited amount of time. Speaking of which, why is chaoser still voting me since I've obviously spoken. And BC, I'm expecting alot out of you this game. You're certainly the most experienced one here, yet as of now have hardly said anything of real substance. Finally, I've decided that I don't think Shockkey is scum. He's playing his norm, in fact, even has contributed more with a semi analysis of Nemesis. I think Hesmyrr is a far better person to vote considering he has barely talked at all. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On January 22 2011 04:12 chaoser wrote: You've spoken but all you've given is definitions and what we SHOULD do with no clear plans/idea on how we're going to even go about doing it (differentiate between town lurkers/inactives and mafia lurkers/inactives). You stated that your main goal is get town to be active which is a non-committal thing to do. Your analysis of Nemesis was pretty bad, pretty much calling him out on saying pretty much the same things everyone else was saying/everyone else usually says on Day 1 (Lynch inactives, blah blah blah). Though I do think Nemesis' over aggressiveness was a bit weird, I think your actions/posts haven't been much better. So I'm keeping my vote on you for the time being. I'm not just going to say "If someone does this: then I suspect them as mafia". Should I? It just seems to me that would enable mafia to easily hide from me even more. And me thinks I've gotten town active. By accusing two people, I started discussion, got people talking, and so forth. On January 22 2011 04:53 GGQ wrote: Do you really think that's a relevant reply to what I was saying? You initial point was that we shouldn't lynch inactives because mafia are never inactive. I pointed out the undeniable fact that two mafia were inactive in the last big game, proving your point wrong. Now you are trying to say we don't want to lynch inactives because they will get modkilled (which might not even happen if they're careful enough to post once or twice and vote), and you're saying it as though that was your point all along. Maybe you just weren't keeping up with the logic, but this feels sketchy to me. Also, why so uncomfortable with having just one vote on you? Your play seems nervous to me. Tevo made a very long post, and actually was quite content-full when he actually contributed. Then he died on day 2. We don't know what would've happened with his activity. Furthormore, Brockett was lurking, not inactive. I'm unsure about Tevo, he may have just been inactive as well. But as a very consistent trend those who are inactive are not mafia. While you can name two(and only really one might be inactive mafia), I can name at least 4. George clooney, soulfire, DTA, treehugger. Seeing as I doubt I'll get any more from Hesmyrr seeing as he's going to be gone, it's time to pressure a more seasoned player. I'm going to be voting Bloody Cobblar. He actually hasn't played anti town. But the thing is he hasn't contributed at all really to the discussion of who to lynch. He's talked about "forced activity" and "watch out for lurkers", but then hasn't done anything. I know your in another game, but you need to start posting more. ##Vote BC | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
##Unvote ##Vote BC | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On January 22 2011 06:23 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Thats your problem. Stop expecting vets to perform and win games and learn to do it yourself. I was asked to join this game, and I am playing, but compared to pyp I am not solo winning this game. I am here purely to help town win, but I am not doing all the heavy lifting. I told you already where the days errors were, and how to redirect them, its now up to you guys to listen or not listen. Its your call. Alright, didn't know you were purposely going to not be as active as you were in pyp3. Since I really don't know who to lynch, I'm just going to stick with the Shockkey lynch. Because while I don't think he's mafia, I'm unsure about everyone. And at the very least, there is merit in lynching lurkers, as he has himself addmitted to be one. I think he's been to "I'm town screw off", but as for right now no one else comes to mind. ##Unvote BC ##Vote Shockkey | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
##Vote LSB Yeah shockkey isn't mafia. If you really think mafia have decided to just let us have a free kill on day 1 with NO resistance, that's a bit of a silly willy thought. Posts LSB has made just have made me suspicious of him. (Then again a side benefit if Shockeyy is red, Pandain is red) He knows better than to think "if X defends Y, and y is mafia, X is definitely red" 2. I'd kill both. I've explained above in a different post. But order of Mafia Lurker>Inactive>Lurker Hasn't shown shockkey to be mafia lurker Indeed, saying things without actually contributing is a great way to find a mafia. An inactive may actually help, but a lurker just repeats nothing. HEAVILY contradicts what he's been saying this whole time. Especially the above post for instance, and several others. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
| ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
The only thing worrying me about LSB's lynch is that barundar just suddenly changed from "I'ma do two analysis on shockkey, he's mafia", to "shockkey is just the easy lynch, let's vote lsb." And normally I would be more upset with lynching an active player if everyone wasn't really talking. Thus far almost everyone has been posting a decent amount. | ||
| ||
