Responsibility Mafia!

On December 19 2011 16:02 prplhz wrote:
Just a little pre-alignment disclaimer: I'll possibly be somewhat unavailable during parts of December 24th and December 26th because of birthday parties.

On December 20 2011 06:15 prplhz wrote:
Feel free to put in OP.

Ver's filter
ZBot's filter

1. Foolishness's filter
   
2. RebirthOfLeGenD's filter
   
3. wherebugsgo's filter
   
4. kitaman27's filter
   
5. syllogism's filter
   
6. SamuelLJackson's filter
   
7. Jackal58's filter
   
8. Liquid`Sheth's filter
   
9. GMarshal's filter
   
10. Meapak_Ziphh's filter
    
11. Mr. Wiggles's filter
    
12. Palmar's filter
    
13. Chezinu's filter
    
14. chaoser's filter
    
15. bumatlarge's filter
    
16. BloodyC0bbler's filter
    
17. LSB's filter
    
18. GGQ's filter
    
19. prplhz' filter
    
20. VisceraEyes's filter
    

RebirthOfLeGenD's filter works alright, it's just that he hasn't posted in this thread yet.

On December 20 2011 14:17 SamuelLJackson wrote:


It's essentially the same start to the game as the random voting stage that takes place on mafiascum (you play there don't you?). It's something to kick the game off and generate discussion.

bum your first post is beyond bad. You're deciding that we should be the subject of any impasse in votes with justification which is the exact opposite of RNG (while still trying to disguise it as RNG). I hope you put more thought and logic into your next posts.

On December 21 2011 03:57 SamuelLJackson wrote:
I dunno. I thought that maybe he could have some super secret hidden purpose for trying to claim Traitor like that.



There is no argument that this post had any other purpose than to claim Traitor. That wasn't what I wanted to know, I wanted to know why Chezinu was claiming Traitor. At the time I didn't want to outright call it out in thread in case he had some hidden purpose but clearly he didn't.

GMarshal for all your talk on working on analysis you sure haven't contributed any opinions besides your "irrational hatred."

/Curu

On December 21 2011 01:52 LSB wrote:
Just knowing the roles doesn't mean anything.
I can tell you there is probably a cop, doc, sk, vig, ect ect. What does that help you with? Night actions I guess.

There is a big difference between knowing who has who's role, and just knowing the list of roles. For example, if we knew that there was a traitor, we wouldn't do much. However if we knew that Chez was the traitor, that would be an easy day 1 lynch.

On December 21 2011 10:19 Palmar wrote:


Best post in the thread yet.

On December 20 2011 15:30 L wrote:
Alright, straight off the bat people are saying that we need good posts.

No shit.

Not only is the concept of the game surrounding the idea that poor play will be punished, but there's also the notion that we've got relatively few players. in the game. 5 to 15 or so. This means that best case scenario, we can win day 5 through lynches alone, but that's a rather long timeframe to close out a game. So poor play seems to be some form of game accelerant, and the 'poorer' the play, the less in our favor it seems to be.

So! What do we do? Post with content and condense your points. Keep your short posts to yourself and clump them up to make substantive comments. I'd say that posts between 6 and 15 lines are large enough to be substantive, but short enough to be read. But that shit is obvious. There's a bigger question here, however, which is what we're going to do with the first vote.

RNG is probably the worst possible idea; gives us next to zero information regarding how people argue and its practically an excuse for people to not post anything because there's no element of responsibility attached to it. Either way, we're going to want ideas down on the table asap. And not like dicks, either. Cut it out bum/prplhz.

On December 20 2011 18:59 L wrote:


Like what, exactly? Also, please don't post one liners. They inflate the thread size and make it tedious to read through content later.

RE: RNG

RNG doesn't force people to make a move one way or another and provides less information regarding people's inclinations than having someone pick a metric for a day 1 play to be made. The "shoot the inactive" metric was the standard when games were substantially larger, people talked less, and the metric itself was generally not held onto, just used as a prod to get people talking. As far as I'm concerned, RNG just cedes the first day's information content unless someone with a particularly interesting role gets selected.

Please tell me how a random target provides more information than one who we can pick? It seems like by definition that RNG eliminates at least one layer of information: the choice. And there's no real benefit to the tradeoff in terms of preventing someone from hiding their kill attempt: If someone wants to get someone in particular put under the gun, they can fake a RNG call to make them the presumed target.

If there's anything pro-town about the RNG plan its that it removes any fear to assigning a presumption of lynch to start discussion off. I don't see why there isn't a better metric to use than 'none' for that purpose. And even then, it doesn't seem like the attempt actually fostered the discussion you're saying it would, but maybe that's because the current RNG specified target hasn't been around in the thread. Either way, it seems like an empty placeholder topic. The previous placeholder topic, inactivity, served a practical purpose. I fail to see what reliable benefit comes from this one.

So, the obvious question becomes which metric SHOULD we use. This is the question that RNG ends up proposing because it runs on the assumption that a) A lynch is better than no-lynch (I agree, in general) and b) that discussion surrounding the RNG could lead to a better target. I agree with a), but think that b) implies that we focus ourselves on determining a characteristic which outperforms RNG. This is why I think the plan is stupid; because IT ISN'T ONE. I'm super exhausted, but I'll think up some criteria for a day 1 lynch tomorrow.

RE: The hydra

I have no idea what/who this is, but I think I happened across it twice reading the thread. Is this someone's nickname? I haven't kept up with the last few (months of) games, so hook a brother up.

RE: Me

Sleep time. Peace!

RE: Post formatting

This is a very handy format and will make it easier to zip through pages to find discussions on a certain topic. Feel free to use it. Not sure how well it'll work when quoted, though.

On December 21 2011 04:56 L wrote:
RE: LSB

You realize you *kinda* already did with your previous post, right?


That section in particular makes a statement about triggers, and in particular says that town has triggers in an affirmative manner. You state this directly. The odd thing is that your post is structured to make it look like speculation, but you made an affirmative statement. This wasn't "Its possible that town has triggers too" it was "town has triggers too".

The reason why I said *kinda* is that Chez said (and I haven't gone to the OP post yet to confirm) that mafia know some of the town roles. If that's the case, they might also know about some town conditional roles and be able to claim that they exist with certainty.

So you're either mafia or you have a triggered role.

And onto different matters:

RE: Hindered comment from BumatLarge

Yep. That's a good way of putting it. I haven't played in a shitton of time and I have no idea who most of the players are or if they'd benefit from extensive day 1 analysis. I also don't know if any of these triggers would be set off by some kind of explaining, or how the day 1 meta works anymore. Given all those things I figured it would be smarter to start off slow.

So, if you push my accelerant idea, it would mean that at least some of the triggers activate powers that kill people. That doesn't, however, mean that there isn't the possibility for other triggered abilities. That should be pretty obvious. This was also an implicit roleclaim on my part which should only have been obvious to people with triggers themselves.

But then you asked me to push more on the point, and stated that you were sad that I hadn't. This leads me to believe that you also have a triggered role and all of the above was obvious to you, but that my explanation might activate your trigger, or that you wanted a claim out of me.

And that's berry interesting because asides from chez claiming traitor, it seems like all the people who have put information about their role into the game implicitly or explicitly thusfar have triggers to their role. This means we're going to hit a situation wherein we're going to have fucking ugly dt and medic claims with triggers and shit to sort through.

FUCK.