EPT/in
Election Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
/in | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
 Sheth fightinggggg! | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
| ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
On December 12 2011 00:32 ProfessorBadass wrote: You sure you want to say no to us? ![[image loading]](http://i42.tinypic.com/2qdxvmd.jpg) Man, you have to tell me where I can get shoes like that. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
Can'tw ait for this game to start. 22:00 for the game start, righright? | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
| ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
LALiars - I am stuck on this. As stated before, if a Blue has to lie to prevent their potential unveiling, this could be a beneficial thing to town, but, by that time, I think town would be able to use voting in their own way to keep the blue safe. For instance, if a needed blue is revealed, we can simply vote them to Mayor and keep them safe via Bodyguard. We can take advantage of the two protected, voted positions. Am I understanding this wrong? LALurkers - Lurking is also anti-town. In the games I have played (limited experience) mafia who lurk, and are forced to the surface because of a Lurker Policy, can slip up very, very easily. Forcing discussion is never a bad thing. The more that is discussed, the more that can be analyzed by the townie populace, and the better decisions can be made. As prplhz said before, I will not be looking into previous games to gain inflection on how useful someone is. I want to know how the mayor will work for us now, not how the Mayor worked in previous games and how they hope to work now. I still would like to see who the potential mayor candidates stand on policy ideas, as well as some analysis from already fleshed out posts/future posts. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
On December 12 2011 14:51 GreYMisT wrote: One thing that strikes me about radfield this game is how he immediately tied himself to arctocod in his election post. saying that you should vote for me, but his guy is also a good choice, so he will probally get pardoner anyway, but still vote for me. while an argument could be made that he is trying to show all the new players who to vote for, something sets me off about this. He should theorectically know he is town, and therefore should be pulling out all the stops to get people to vote for him, not endorsing other candidates he doesn't even know the aliengment of. Because of this, i am uncomfortable voting him for mayor at this time. I agree with this. Radfield tied himself quickly to another player. I have no scumread on him right now (nothing he has done really screams "mafia" to me) but I think we should hold on voting and bandwagoning this early, regardless. How would it look if Arcotocod flipped mafia after Radfield tied himself too him? Again, not claiming I have scum-vision. Just making a point that "itchy-trigger-finger" voting might be a bad thing. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
On December 12 2011 22:58 Radfield wrote: I think LAL is pretty terrible. It does two things wrong: One, it gives mafia a legitamate topic to discuss early game, when in fact we want them discussing elections and lynches. Two, it gives mafia a reason to push townies who may lie, even when the circumstances are not particularly damning to the townie. Every lie needs to be treated on a case by case basis. Townies lie ALL THE TIME, whether LAL exists or not, so it does not make sense to implement the policy. Not to mention, voting based on policy after Day 1(or even day 1) is terrible for town. We vote on content, not policy. Hydras are only as good as the time they have to invest in the game. I agree that a Palmar/Syllo hydra is a potent force, but I don't think that a hydra by definition is better than a single player. If I was hydra'd onto an inexperienced player, I fail to see how that would be stronger than me by myself. Note on the Pardoner: Every game the pardoner exists people talk about how scary the pardoner is if in mafia hands, but this is NOT TRUE. This is where policy is actually helpful. The pardoner MAY NOT use their pardon, ever, end of story. Even if you are a townie pardoner, and think whomever is getting pardoned is town, you STILL do not use a pardon. The reason for this is that if town reaches a majority, pardoning that player throws town into chaos, regardless of the alignment of the player pardoned. Palmar has stated several times that he will not vote for a player just to get a lynch(in majority lynch scenarios) if he thinks they are town, and this is a good gameplan. But that does NOT transfer over to pardoning players who you think is town(not that palmar thinks this). It is never worth it to break town atmosphere and toss it into chaos in order to save one townie. The Pardoner NEVER uses the pardons. Period. If a pardoner ever uses a pardon, we lynch him the next day(or vig him that night if we are able to). For this reason the pardoner is not dangerous until lylo(or close to it). Only once we get to lylo does the pardoner become dangerous. This is why it is essential that if we have a pardoner of questionable alignment, we get rid of them before the endgame. However before that, on day 1/2 and probably 3, they are not worth worrying about. Lynching lurkers is a somewhat viable strat for Day 1, particularly in a game with many players who are unknowns. However I am strongly against it in this situation. With a mafia KP of 5/2 rounded up, it is hugely beneficial for us to pick off a mafia day 1, and I have never seen a lurker flip mafia on day 1. So I think we should hone our lynch onto active players, even at risk of killing an active townie. The risk vs reward is really high in this setup. This quote doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but maybe I am reading it wrong. The purpose of putting active experienced players into the elected roles is to keep them safe. That's it. There is no reason to keep someone safe who is either highly inexperienced, or only moderately active. Arctocod flipping mafia would say nothing about my alignment in strict terms. One, I tied them to myself on policy, before even seeing them post. Two, the likelyhood of us both being scum is quite low. If anything Arctocod flipping scum makes it more likely for me to be town. Furthermore, if we are both mafia, there is very little incentive to tie ourselves together. Honestly though, at this point the only thing that ties us together is that we are both vets. Correct. I could have easily made my first post as either town or mafia. Basing a read off of the first post in the game is most definitely jumping to conclusions. Arcto, Drpobear I dont know, Gigas so far so good. A little too early for me to be making reads though. Going to address the things Radfield responded to with my post(s): On December 12 2011 22:58 Radfield wrote: I think LAL is pretty terrible. It does two things wrong: One, it gives mafia a legitamate topic to discuss early game, when in fact we want them discussing elections and lynches. Two, it gives mafia a reason to push townies who may lie, even when the circumstances are not particularly damning to the townie. Every lie needs to be treated on a case by case basis. Townies lie ALL THE TIME, whether LAL exists or not, so it does not make sense to implement the policy. Not to mention, voting based on policy after Day 1(or even day 1) is terrible for town. We vote on content, not policy. I don't understand your reasoning on this. Seeing as how you are a veteran, I will bow to your decision however and drop the issue. Arctocod flipping mafia would say nothing about my alignment in strict terms. One, I tied them to myself on policy, before even seeing them post. Two, the likelyhood of us both being scum is quite low. If anything Arctocod flipping scum makes it more likely for me to be town. Furthermore, if we are both mafia, there is very little incentive to tie ourselves together. Honestly though, at this point the only thing that ties us together is that we are both vets. Please don't think i'm accusing you of anything. In my mind, if we were to discover that Player B was mafia, and Player A associated with Player B, than Player A would have a higher likelihood of being mafia. Again, maybe that is my inexperience, but that is how my head would process it. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
On December 13 2011 00:57 Radfield wrote: I'd much rather you understand what I'm saying. Which part doesn't make sense? And just because I'm a veteran doesn't mean I'm right. I bet there are plenty of vets who disagree with my statement on LAL (and they might be right!). I'll be gone for about the next 9 hours. Might be able to pop on around dinner time though. Sure. Hopefully we can clear this up quickly. In my opinion, lying does nothing to benefit the town, save rare circumstances in which a blue town role needs to keep their identity hidden. If we can bring issues to the fore-front with honesty and integrity, we would be able to root scum out quicker than if everyone was throwing off-hand lies. I can understand you're feeling on the case-by-case basis; I think it's pretty self-evident that most things in mafia need to be treated on a case-by-case basis; In this way, Policy is a bad word to use since it shows an unwavering thought process regardless of potential outcomes. Seeing as how we are almost down a day already, and I agree with your statement about giving the mafia a way to tie up valuable time spent discussing this topic, I thought it better to drop the whole thing and defer to you're rational as a vet, and let sleeping dogs lie, as it were. The whole point of bringing policy questions up in the first place was to try to get discussion to try to start some analysis. Maybe it's not a stereotypical move by players on the first night - we can chalk that up to my inexperience if you want, I think it was just my personal way of getting discussion started. Does that clear things up a bit, Radfield? | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
On December 13 2011 03:08 Spaackle wrote: For the lurkers in the thread, maybe a couple questions would get some activity: 1. What do you think of the No Pardon, No Exception rule? 2. Give your specific impressions of the campaigns so far, especially the major ones. Remember, the more you get into the game you're playing, the more fun it is! :D I don't beleive I would classify as a lurker, but I will chime in with these posts regardless. 1. I think the No Pardon train of thought is good. However, as I stated before, this blanket "No Exception" thing scares me. Case-By-Case basis, I believe, would be better. If there is a blanket statement that says "if X happens, Y must always be the result," and a situation blindsides us where we will need to use the Pardon power, than I think it could be useful to use. That being said, if you are elected to the role of Pardoner, and you use it freely even once without sufficient cause, expect a vote from me for a lynching. 2. I am going to tie this in with my vote. I feel that Radfield would be the best person to be saved from a mafia kill. I feel that he fleshed out his ideas and I get a town vibe from him, even after we had our banter back and forth, and I give him my support, at least for now. His willingness to defend his position, take the posts and respond to them, while also asking questions himself, has solidified my vote for him. Extra Note: I read a page or two back about posting votes in your thread, especially when it gets down to voting for lynching. I thought this would be a good idea, as well as officially voting in the Vote Thread. I think it might add some weight behind the post if it's all together. I can't speak for everyone, [and I know this is simply filler post] but I just wanted to say that I will probably follow this trend. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
On December 13 2011 06:16 evantrees wrote: 1. What do you think of the No Pardon, No Exception rule? I like it the case of a mayor swung lynch bugs me a little though. have to go out so I'll stop there for now. Something doesn't sit right with me here. Come post, like, 5 minutes after Sheth calls him out for being a lurker, than covers and says he's going out. And I didn't even understand the meat of his post. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
On December 12 2011 14:51 GreYMisT wrote: While it isnt suspicious to agree with someone, notice the way in which he did it. He states that we should hold off voting right now, and then for some reason says "How would it look if Arcotocod flipped mafia after Radfield tied himself too him?" I cant think of a town reason someone would post this, but forcing people vote later in the day, so delay information and give themselves time to come up with votes is a mafia agenda. Also the sentence I quoted seems to be trying to do what radfield said scum would try, which is to make it so arctocod and radfield dont end up in office together. there is no town perspective for posting that. I simply didn't think it wise to start throwing votes around right as the game started. If you think that's mafia agenda, I apologize. I was originally wary of Radfield, but after our talks later, I felt that he was acting generally in a pro-town manner. Also, if I didn't want Arctocod and Radfield to go into office together, why would I already have voted for Radfield as my election vote? Like I said, I was skeptical at the beginning of Radfield's motives, but I have since warmed up to him. GreYMisT wrote: The above post was the next to catch my eye. after reading this post, basically the only thing he is saying really is "i wanted to start discussion" but notice the way he defers to radfields judgment upon being questioned, and then when questioned about that backtracks on himself. In my experience town players know what they believe, and dont have to worry about pleasing others. Overall his posts between and after those have seemed very artifical, cold, and thought out to me. he seems very worried about not offending anyone, and never outright accusing. a town player won't do this. But mafia would Did you read the whole thing GreYMisT? It was a pretty precarious situation. I deferred to Radfield's judgement because we were spinning tires on something that wasn't extremely productive, IE: deciding what a good lynch policy was. Later on, when Radfield asks me to explain my thought process, I did. Not quite following your backtrack upon backtrack upon backtrack. I do know what I believe, which is my ideas on Lynching Liars (which we are again talking about, somehow) but since it was a moot point at that time, I decided to drop it since it was unimportant. I felt that whole situation was wrapped up fairly by the end. As for accusing people, I'd like to get some fleshed out thoughts before posting half-witted accusations against someone, and up until a few pages ago, we were still discussing the possibilities of who the election candidates were. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
This being said, it now makes more sense in my head to NOT vote for two extremely active players who are running for office, rather leaving one out of an office. If they are both scum, and experienced, town is in trouble. Leaving a lesser experienced person in office may be helpful, where if both offices turn out to be scum, we have a better chance of catching one. This was a valid point. You said we shouldn't have had two people in office at once. Cool. In the next post, you even defend your stance that we shouldn't have those two experienced players in office, by saying have someone questionable in office as Pardoner. Ok, so assuming we stick to this play on No pardoning, no exceptions, the only advantage either of the offices gives is immunity on night 1 from getting hit. This just helps us keep the vets alive, am i right? Radfield seems the most organized and willing to work with town, even if I don't like his infrequent posting. I would also like Arc, as having two players is very nice to keep safe (as having double the chance for a slipup if he is scum) Than you 100% switch your stance to wanting both Arc and Radfield in office. Hmmmm, ok...I could see it, but you're calling *me* wishy-washy? Fine, fine.. If Zeks is scum he would have probably made up his mind right away who he wants in office. This makes him seem town as he is trying to feel out the candidates. Also, more have stepped up in this '12 hour' window you've talked about, so I can't blame anyone for changing their minds You stated if Zeks was scum, he would have voted right away who he wanted to vote for in office. It makes him seem town because he wants to try to feel out the candidates. I think that was exactly the same play I made early, trying to get a feeling for the mayoral candidates. According to that line, I should be pro-town. For the lynching scenario: 1. Lynch a lurker, guarantee losing a towny 2. Lynch someone active, either hit scum or lose an active towny. So far i think only greymist has the only analysis that is actually backed by logic Spackle, your analysis on Dropbear is 100% theory, and I would not like to lynch based off that MrZentor's reasoning behind going for Zeks explains nothing either, what does 'having the hydra only helps town' mean? This being said, I'd tentatively vote for Jistu. Worst case scenario, we lose a towny either way. But with the amount of active posters, i think it's worth the shot to try for hitting a red. but than you go ahead and say that the Anti-Jitsu analysis was backed by logic - logic that is counter-acting your own logic. Also, by my count, the following people (up to Comprissent's) to tentatively vote for me are GreyMist, Radfield, Nisani, and Comprissent, in that order. You also say that the lynching scenario is either Lynch a lurker, and guarantee losing a town (I don't see how you can guarantee to lose a town) or lynch an active player, with a chance of either way. How about we look at some post analysis instead of just picking out of a hat? Comprissent is pretty wavy in my eye. Like to see some thoughts from others. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
There are a few people that are accusing me of being mafia. The first to do so was GreYMisT. He came up with some pretty decent things early - but I had assumed that Radfield and I had corrected the reason I had backtracked my claims. I recently posted a scumhunt topic against Comprissent, and he responded to it. I didn't feel it was full-hearted, but it didn't even attract so much of a response other than Comprissent himself. I assume people don't want to look too deeply into it because i'm a "newbie," or because they think i'm scummy. Since Comprissent is slightly wavy to me, I will vote tentatively, especially since I have yet to truly catch up on current events. This is for two reasons. I feel that Comprissent could use a little pressure on him, and I want to see what his response is. Secondly, I have a Psych final tonight and it's been a rough day. I need to have a bit of time to catch up and post some responses before I the night phase, if I make it back by than. I will more than likely keep my Election vote on Radfield. Sheth seems to be floundering a bit when under pressure. Not sure if this is a scum read, and I know it's obviously a re-hash of what people have already said. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
I think a good choice of Pardoner would (incoming bandwagon) Deus or ProfBA, for the same reasons listed. I still think I have some hits on the guy I voted for lynching, and he only posted one, small, lazy defense post. Still think i'm the only one suspicious of him, and not too sold on some of the other targets, save maybe Nisani. Arcto looks at Nisani and votes a Nisani lynch, and than gets silenced/kidnapped, ect. ect. Something to note? Not sure. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
On December 14 2011 12:00 MrZentor wrote: I like how Comprissent comes in and votes one minute before it's too late. -.- Maybe someone will actually get some additional analysis along with mine. :/ | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
| ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
On December 14 2011 21:26 prplhz wrote: @GiygaS, Jitsu Did you guys have anything to do with the withdrawal? No. I had nothing to do with the withdrawal. For the record, I think if we run into the same situation next time, we should manipulate the votes in such a way so that the 'withdrawn' player still has the second most votes, and our alternate vote is 3rd in the line. That way, if the post is simply shadow games, our desired number two pick is still selected, with a backup ready in the wings in case it's not. I will echo my previous sentiments on Comprissent. He came in and did a good amount of voting at the end of the day phase, yet still has terrible posts and really doesn't seem to be contributing anything except another vote. I know you got Finals man. I do too. As for others, going to look thru filters now. | ||
|
Jitsu
United States929 Posts
On December 15 2011 10:11 GreYMisT wrote: From phone: there are a lot more people in this game who are making more sense than you atm risk. Why ask for medic protection? Especially when you have contributed nothing to the game so far. Maybe he is trying to pull medic protection off of someone that would be more heavily influencing in the game? "Protect me, protect me!" ***mafia hit more useful player***. Maybe. + Show Spoiler + On December 15 2011 09:44 VisceraEyes wrote: Arcto made it pretty clear that he didn't know who it was from - asking everyone to 'pretend to know what he's talking about' so he could determine who sent it. Okay, I see what's happening now. Might as well address this right now, before someone starts a train on me. Since GiygaS already stated that it was him, I felt that trying to get Arcto the proper information at that time would have been a fairly important result of whatever was on his mind. Because of this, I blatantly lied in the post (totally against my earlier post) of Lynch all Liars (don't want to get back into it) to confuse the mafia up a bit. Yeah, I backtracked myself. I think the positives would have outweighed the benefits. | ||
| ||
