EPTStudent Mafia (New/Newish players welcome)
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 12:06 xsksc wrote: What do you guys think of policy lynches in general? Do you think they are a good idea, if so, why? Personally I disagree with lynching a lurker JUST because they're lurking, in a game like this anyway. The risk of hitting a townie is way too high. Lynch all liars is a great idea though. It discourages people from lying right from day 1, the only people with a good reason to lie are scum. Both sound great but in reality they don't work. Lynch All Liars.. People get lies and opinions mixed up all the time, and even when a lie is a lie, eventually you realise that there are different types of lies and lynching for some of them is a bit too much. Then comes the argument that if we lynch everyone caught in a lie, townies would stop lying, so we would not have to deal with all of this. But the reality is that you lynch a townie for lying, then you lose the game because of wasting a lynch in order to teach the liars a lesson, then you join another game and you realise that there's so many other players you have to teach that same lesson, and so on. If we start doing it in every single game, it might work after a while. But when you've invested a week in the game, you don't want to throw it away just because some townie attempted a stupid gamble. All you are focused on is lynching mafia. And townies tend to get lynched for lying all the time anyway, even without having the policy in place - simply becase when someone is caught lying, they are usually accused of being mafia. Agreeing upon whether someone is lukring or not is easier but simply lynching all lurkers is not optimal. What's important is that people realise that sometimes every active player is a townie. If your analysis leads you to the conclussion that the active players are townies, then you start lynching lurkers. That's the best we can do. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 12:52 xsksc wrote: I don't understand your part about lynch all liars. Think about it logically, if we say, "Lie and you're gonna get lynched" then no townie is going to lie, are they? It's not just to teach a lesson, scum benefit greatly from lies and deceit. I want lynch-all-liers in effect today. Also, on day 1 it's very easy for scum to post nonsense and get away with it, because day 1 can be such a mess, hell, sometimes the most active players are scum. Just because someone posts a lot doesn't make them town, lol. Look at the last newbie mini-game. Ciryandor was scum, and he posted more analysis than anyone, everyone assumed he was town and that was a big reason why town lost. If we say lynch all liars, townies will carry on lying like they always do. If we do lynch all liars, townies will eventually realise that they should stop. Activity doesn't prove that someone is a townie, of course. But if you have a town read on all the active players, lynching a lurker is great. On December 04 2011 13:01 ey215 wrote: On the lurker bit, I do think there's a time and place for lynching. If we don't have a case on someone it's better to lynch a lurker than someone active. If they're lurking then they're not contributing or giving us something to go on. Of course, if we've got a good case on someone it's better to lynch them. 100% agree, this was pretty much my point anyway. And there's a lot of similar views expressed later in the thread by others, so can we say that we've reached consensus? If we don't get a good case, we lynch a lurker. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 13:20 Velinath wrote: I would like to add that if you see what you think is a lie, it's probably best to bring it to the attention of the thread Policy or not, everyone should be doing this. Mafia are bound to slip and they will also be reluctant to talk about their teammates slipping, so this is very pro-town behaviour. If you see something you consider to be a lie, mention it. You might be wrong but it's important anyway. And it will also help differentiate between townies who are hunting for mafia and the mafia players who are trying not to attract attention. (I still think that pushing for heavy policies is pro-mafia though, it takes the pressure away from them by allowing them to follow some simple guidelines) On December 04 2011 14:36 BroodKingEXE wrote: Hey Blazinghand sorry if I came around to be a little shady. I was just trying to feed into the conversation, about the voting. How do we want to plan the lynching with the time zone difference? I feel like this will be a major roadblock as it will be 12 AM for our friends in the UK. As for my earlier comment I just wanted to say hi. Did not mean to get off on the wrong foot Town doesn't benefit from last minute lynches, mafia does. If you see someone suddenly pushing for a lynch near the deadline when there isn't enough time for a proper discussion, it is very likely that this person is mafia. On December 04 2011 14:55 ey215 wrote: As for you're statements about lynching all lurkers unless someone gives you a "DAMN GOOD REASON', well having a scumread is one. Am I good with lynching a lurker today, sure but let's not go talking about how you've got a good scum read on anyone that's posted once. Fuck, I can say you've hardly posted anything but baseless accusations therefore you're scum just trying to get the town fighting among themselves. Not to mention you're trying to get a bandwagon started on someone for either not posting because they're asleep or because of some assumed fluff. Dude, no need to be so defensive. Blazinghand is trying hard to organise the town. I don't agree with some of his ideas but they are stuff to be discussed. There is absolutely no need for a townie to react like you did. Blazing's play so far is great. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 15:22 ey215 wrote: I'm also not sure browbeating everyone into posting is going to help us figure out the scum lurkers over the town lurkers. ......what? So we all agree that lurking is bad for town. No one denies that. We need all townies to post, so that mafia are pressured into we're able to distinguish town from mafia. And then you express your concerns that if we somehow manage to get all townies to post, we would have trouble figuring out "the scum lurkers over the town lurkers"... If they don't lurk, we are going to have reads on them and figure out their alignment. No townie would suggest that this is a bad thing. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 21:21 xsksc wrote: That doesn't make sense. Lynch all liers is in effect. Every townie knows that lying will get them lynched now. You think a townie that is actually trying to win is gonna lie now? I don't think so. This is naive. But I've explained what the difference is already, so I don't see the point in repeating myself. Unless some new argument is added to the discussion, there is no point in going back to it until we catch someone lying. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 21:37 xsksc wrote: No, it's logic. Give me a reason why a townie would lie when they know LaL is in effect. Because until we actually do it, it's just empty words. I'd be very surprised if you can you find me one game where LaL has been officially implemented and followed. It just doesn't happen. If you want it to work, we need to act on it, instead of just saying that we're going to act on it. Until then, some townies will continue lying simply because they think they can pull it off and be the hero who catches us some scum. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 05 2011 00:02 Tunkeg wrote: Of course. Some of the answers I have asked I have summarized in my opening post. But I will be more spesific about my thoughts on players alignment and who I at this moment would lynch if I had: + Show Spoiler + Alignment For a starter I don't think the scum players have been all that active yet. Adam4167 Neutral. Got to little info on him, only 2 posts. Abit scummy that he makes the first post after the game starts, and then do nothing (almost) when the discussions get going. Grackorini Neutral. Not a whole lot of posts here either. Mainly policy posts, but I agree on his point of view here. And I am leaning town here. Velinath Neutral. Leaning town. Alot of posts, some of them I see as pro town, but also alot of fillers whic I see as pro scum. xtfftc Neutral. Abit to many policy posts for my liking. The other posts are ok/good. Especially this last post where you called me out I see as very pro-town (Unless you are scum and think my ramblings are bad for town  )xsksc Scum. If I had to pick three scums right now xsksc would be my third pick, I'd say more based on a hunch and not so much reasoning. It is his way of gaining trust, while not really providing any pressure to anyone or other pro town activities. jaybrundage Scum. "Veteran", posts to little and with to little content, should know that thats anti-town. ey215 Town. Even though coming of as very defensive, his posts so far says town to me. He is balancing out Blazinghand. Blazinghand Town. Aggreessive play, scumhunting. May be spreading his votes around to much, but for now I see him as the most towniest. BroodKingEXE Neutral, leaning scum. He is posting far to little, but I think it is because he is new. Hopefully if more people challange him with direct questions it will be easier to get a read on him. He is the fourth scummiest though. ElectricBlack Neutral. One post, hard to say anything. Needs to post more or be considered a lurker. Hassybaby Scum. Another veteran, and this one have not posted yet. [b]Bbyte Neutral, leaning town. Not many posts yet. But seems open and are answering questions given to him. Trust and lynch At this point I trust no one, I know to little yet. For lynch I would go for either jaybrundage or Hassybaby at this point. They need to step up their game or GTFO. Okay, I like you. I agree on Blazinghand (although some of his stuff is a bit meh), I have no read on Hassy (he hasn't posted yet...), and I didn't like jay's first post (it was a first post though). I liked xsksc's straight to the point opening - no messing around being lazy or trying to blend in but directly kicking off a discussion. He hasn't done much since though. I didn't like how he jumped in defence of ey215 when what Blazing did was perfectly fine, and he sounds like he didn't want to understand my arguments about lal for some reason. I wouldn't call him mafia yet but he's on my FOS list. ey215 is my strongest mafia read for now though... Having to call out someone on scummy behaviour [b]two times just a few hours into a mini game doesn't bode well for that person. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 05 2011 04:06 Grackaroni wrote:In fact from what I've noticed is that people who are willing to outright make a connection with another player is usually town. (palmar/wbg in XLVII) Also Sandroba/Syllogism. On December 05 2011 04:49 ey215 wrote: Ok, just got back to the thread and I'll respond to things as I see them. I agree that we've reached a consensus to get rid of a lurker. That means lurkers, it's your time to step up and contribute. The post I agreed with said " If we don't have a case on someone it's better to lynch a lurker than someone active". This is the crucial point for me. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 05 2011 05:28 ey215 wrote: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0An_BMZ9t6APFdHJQZktwcEo3a1dfNURxbDk1TWE1VWc&output=html Can someone click on this and confirm I did it right? I would like everyone to be able to use it if they wish, but I don't do much with google docs. It works but I think it's better if you have ¤tpage=All at the end of each link  | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
BKE hasn't been active enough and I still have him on my lurkers list, so I want more from him before I go behind a lynch. The others on it are Adam*, Bbyte, ElectricBlack. They all worry me but we've got good overall activity levels (to some extent thanks to Blazinghand), so they won't be able to stay in the dark for too long. All he's done is talk about the policies, refuse to see the counter-arguments, reprimand Blazinghand for putting some extra effort * Adam posted something rather anti-town earleir though: I am all for lynching anyone who scum slips or is caught in an outright lie, as they're almost sure to be mafia. There's two problems with this quote. The first one is that this is exactly what mafia want. They want to focus on someone saying one stupid thing and lynch that person. Ask your coaches if you don't agree with me: lynching someone over a single "scumslip" tends to be main reason why towns lynch an innocent on Day 1. The second is that he mixes a "scum slip" and "an outright lie". We had a lot of talk about LaL and a lot of you disagree with me. You want a strict policy on it and although I think it favours mafia, it can also help town, so it's okay. What is not okay is trying to tie "scumslipping" to the same policy without holding a proper discussion on what we consider to be a scumslip and what we consider to be someone overreacting over bad wording. This is very pro-mafia as it gives them an easy way to push for lynches. Uh, while I was writing this bit Grackaroni came up with a strong target (and he gains greeny points for doing so). I'll have to go through his, Adam's, and jay's posts again before I make up my mind on Adam though. ey215 I'm still not happy with and it wasn't just his defense that made me suspicious. But perhaps I am tunneling him a bit too much indeed. Unless he proves me wrong, he's going to be my main target on Day 2. My main lynch candidate for now is xsksc. While I am very suspicious of ey215, he is around and has put some effort to defend himself. xsk, however, posted some stuff at the start of the game and is happy to ride on the early town vibe he left in some of us without giving out any actual reads. On December 04 2011 21:12 xsksc wrote: Also, you make it sound like I've not been scum-hunting, which is a little unfair I think. I got the thread going, which gave us the content we need to analyse with. I've also noted how certain people are interacting, how people responded to pressure, how people feel about policies, etc etc. It will all be useful when it comes to deciding the lynch. Just because I haven't made a "dis guy hasn't posted 10 hours in so he must be scum" post, doesn't mean I'm not scum-hunting. Most of his posts are about lynching lurkers (and liars) and when being called out by Tunkeg for not doing any hunting he states that he's been doing analysis.... just not sharing his reads with us. This just won't do. ##Vote: xsksc | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
Could you elaborate on Hassy and Adam? Add some specific examples if possible. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
I'll make sure not to throw away my votw for an unlikely candidate by voting for someone who wont get lynched like I did in xlvii and I encourage everyone to do the sa,e. Also, remember that last minute changes tend to help mafia. Out of the two best candidates I find Adam's dwfence much better (he is at least giving usomethimg to analyse), so I'll probably go for BE. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 05 2011 23:48 Adam4167 wrote: I missed this post earlier through all the xsksc/EB drama. Xtfftc, are you encouraging bandwagons with the section I have bolded? I cast my vote in Jaybrundage's direction, even though I am the only one that's taken even the slightest bit of interest in him besides Tunkeg, because to do otherwise would be at odds with my analysis and reads. Good townie's should not be casting their vote based on the probability that the person will get lynched, they should be voting on whomever they have scum reads on regardless of the current vote situation. Yes, Adam, you caught me: I'm encouraging bandwagons........................ Voting for someone who isn't going to get lynched is very pro-mafia behaviour. I did this in XLVII - I didn't like the main targets, so I tried to push some others (one of whom turned out to be mafia but that's was irrelevant at the time because he wasn't going to get lynched), then went to bed before making up my mind who of the main candidates to go for and basically ended up throwing away my vote. I got torn to pieces by the veterans after the game ended. WBG also tried to push for my lynch after the vote solely because of this - and he had every reason to. If you are mafia and you see that the main lynch candidates are town, it is very easy to vote for someone else in order to avoid being scrutinised after the flip. When you have to justify your vote for one of the main targets, you have to take sides, which allows others to have a better read on you. Also, if you're mafia in this situation, you can vote for one of your teammates to prepare yourself for later if he gets lynched. I wouldn't be surprised if it turnes out that you are bussing a teammate to gain some town cred, so I'll be looking closely at Jay as well. You just earned yourself a lot of red points. Not only for using terrible logic but also for trying to scare town for voting for someone who will get lynched. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 06 2011 01:49 Grackaroni wrote: @He voted for xsksc earlier on the basis that he was not doing much scumhunting, your case is now fairly outdated and xsksc has been participating a lot in the thread. I'm curious if his recent posts have made you stick to your original feeling or changed your mind. On December 06 2011 01:50 Grackaroni wrote: EBWOP: @Xtfftc (lol) As I said earlier, he looks (looked) a bit better (beteer, lol at my spelling when using my phone) but not anymore, his OMGUS and sudden change to being very aggressive looks pretty desparate to me (especially considering that he reprimanded Blazinghand for being aggressive earlier). He's my main mafia read with Adam now (considering that EB did very well after he finally decided to play). Adam's defence earlier looked good but the post aI just replied to was veeeeery scummy. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 06 2011 02:46 xsksc wrote: xtfftc and blazing, I'd like your thoughts on Tunkeg if you have a chance soon, thanks. Tunkeg and Blazinghand are my town reads I am most comfortable with. BSE as well, I just can't imagine him being mafia. I am also pretty sure about EB being town now. However, his play screams "smurf", and that scares me. | ||
| ||
