EPTSleeper Cell Mafia II
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
| ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
 | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
| ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 26 2012 10:40 bumatlarge wrote: Depending on power roles, I'd say there are about 4-5 mafia? Leaning 5 and town having some blues. First things first, please do not do this. Consider: Mafia do not know who their partners are. Therefore, high up on the priority list of the mafia is figuring out who the other members are. We need to not let this happen easily. The mafia have access to several pieces of information we do not, most specifically the number of mafia in the game. Players popping out and saying they think there are X amount of mafia are immediately getting a note in my scum book. Why? It's one way for a mafia player to indicate he is mafia to the rest of the crew, without raising suspicion. Makes sense? So no speculation on mafia numbers please, at least not right now. Second, mafia have very limited forms of communication this game, and from the looks of the Inception agent role, we can assume that town has some way to view their messages. This means mafia have to be extremely careful with what they write, so blatant things like lets kill X tomorrow are probably out. So mafia need a means to try to indicate to their brethren who should be getting hit. Imagine I am scum, I want to make sure that my buddies don't accidently send in hits on players I think are scummy, I want them to send in the hits on people I think seem like sure town. So what am I going to do? I'm going to repeatedly hammer it home in thread that I think Player Z is sure town. If there is general consensus among the group that player Z is town, he is a great target for mafia to lump in on. We need to ensure this does not happen. Therefore I propose that NO ONE call anyone else town. Players are either scummy, very scummy, definitely scum, OR not scum. That is all. If you think someone is almost for sure town, you still just have to call them 'not scum'. Benefits: Stops mafia from finding clear night-kill targets, and increases the chance of them shooting themselves. Cons: Possibly leaves us low on town leaders. Certain players may spend too much time going after obvious townies. Likewise, we should not be making medic lists. If you think a particular player should receive protection, that's probably cool, but no listing 3 or 4 people. In this game, that's just giving mafia a clear list of targets to shoot at, which is exactly what they need(a list). Medics in this scenario should be protecting whomever is most likely to die anyways, as there is no WIFOMing your medic protect around. Third, and this is straight out of resistance mafia, no talking about mafia strats. We simply do not talk about optimal mafia moves, or likely moves, as that is simply a way for mafia to galvanize their actions together. In a game with minimal mafia interaction, we need to ensure that they cannot use the thread to disseminate information So this game we talk about townie strats and townie moves, not mafia ones. On the flip side we do not call people likely town or town, we call them not scum or varying degrees of scum. Thoughts? Agreement or Disagreement? | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 26 2012 11:03 iGrok wrote: I don't know what extended majority is, but - At the end of the day, whoever has the most dies. If there's a tie, whoever had the most first dies. I'll try to provide a votecount a few hours before lynch, but don't count on it - that's your job. It's called plurality lynch i believe, and it is most certainly not extended majority. In plurality lynch whomever has the most votes at the end of the day dies. So in a 10 player game if 8 people have 1 vote and 1 guy has 2 votes, the guy with 2 votes gets lynched. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 26 2012 12:35 Jackal58 wrote: Nice post. Wtf is that booger doing in the middle of it? Not sure I follow. The idea is that you shouldn't be calling anyone town or probably town. You should either call them scummy(or some degree of scummy) or 'Not Scum'. ie: Don't reveal the degree to which you think someone is town, as that is a way for mafia to communicate, and a way for mafia to galvanize their hits onto townies. Or were you asking something else? | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 26 2012 13:05 Jackal58 wrote: Alright let's do it this way. I'm not going to say this is stupid. I'm going to say it's very smart, kinda smart, smart, or not smart at all. Dude this is fucking stupid. Why is it dumb. Mafia need to vote in order to make a night-kill. Each mafia member gets two votes. If there is no obvious town consensus on who is town, then that makes the mafia vote much more difficult. If we have a couple players who many of us are saying are obvious town, then mafia are obviously going to all vote for those players. If instead we just have a large list of players who are 'not currently scummy' then that means the mafia votes will be far more spread out. There will also likely be a number of mafia in our 'not scum' group, which means the odds of mafia shooting themselves are far greater. It ups the odds of friendly fire, and lowers the odds of having players die who are obviously town. It's hard to spot obvious townies when you are mafia, though this game may be slightly different in that respect. If it's dumb, tell me why it is dumb. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 26 2012 13:15 redFF wrote: I see no voting thread so I assume we vote in here ##Vote Radfield I don't like first post walls that take up lots of space while managing to say very little. That's funny you say that. I had several very clear points I was making, and they took a bit of text to make. Please point out the fluff to me. More-so than many other large game-starting posts I have made, that one had very clear direction, focus, and specific tangible goals. It has become a fad in TL Mafia to make claims that large posts are devoid of content, so please point out where I am lacking content in that post. Show me that you are not just part of the fad. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 26 2012 13:22 redFF wrote: So stop talking about it then. So far you have one post and it's talking about the one thing you're telling us not to talk about. This post just looks so fake with the whole "don't tell them about something that's in the op come on man we don't want to help out the scum look at me im really town blahblahblah" In fact ##Vote Navillus Agreed. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
I don't scumhunt extremely early on in the game, as my reads (and yours I imagine) are terrible during that timeframe. I scumhunt at my own pace, and have a decent track record with it. You do your thing and I'll do mine. because saying someone is town or leaning town is the same thing as saying someone is not scummy. It's convoluted and pointless and an excellent way for you to distract town from scumhunting right out the gate. Having several people state player X is very likely town is NOT the same thing as having several people state player X is not scummy. It's a minor thing anyways though, and I agree it's not worth a huge amount of our time to argue about it. It IS however a worthwhile tool to deny mafia information. My point is not to revolutionize and change the way this game is played. Obviously we need to scum hunt according to pretty much all the normal metrics. However, there are a few minor tweaks we can make to optimize town play, so why wouldn't we do them? | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 26 2012 13:27 redFF wrote: Nobody cares you made your point. What do you think of radfield's "plan"? Why are you so dismissive of it? Typically mafia are the informed minority, but in this game they are the uniformed minority. I'm trying to use what tools we have to limit their ability to become informed. Likewise, mafia can typically plan and co-ordinate, yet they have severe handicaps this game, and we should do what we can to keep those in place. Why are you so eager to give them their advantage back? | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
My paragraph was not meant to be a warning(though I suppose it is to some degree if there are braindead mafia), it was me trying to make a point that we want to avoid talking about the varying degrees of how pro-town a player is. Notice that even with all the explantion I put in, MULTIPLE people have not understood what I was talking about and think I'm making some sort of semantical argument. Apparantly unlike you Meapak, I ALWAYS search for townies, especially early game. So does Foolishness, Palmar, syllogism and I'm sure many others. Mafia is a process of elimination for me: find the townies so I can narrow down my potential suspects, then focus hard on whomever is left over to determine who are scum. In almost ever game I play I post my reads of how townish certain players are, my whole point was that we shouldn't do that this game. On January 26 2012 17:26 bumatlarge wrote: I've always been a fan of not saying who I think is town, and just saying who I think is scum. I think that's what radfield is trying to say. I do agree with meapak, that one glaring middle section in radfield's post is suspicious, I think it's more of him over-emphasizing his point to a degree that he actual talks about the exact strat he is trying to prevent. I think the major offender is this: "We need to ensure this does not happen. Therefore I propose that NO ONE call anyone else town. Players are either scummy, very scummy, definitely scum, OR not scum. That is all. If you think someone is almost for sure town, you still just have to call them 'not scum'." It makes the whole warning completely void when you push that, rather then simply not discussing your town reads. Again, I don't really follow here. Why is that quote the major offender? The reason I take time to write in paragraphs and explain things multiple times with examples is because no one listens to you if you don't. Go read any game where Sandroba has played, he has consistant solid advice, yet gets ignored because he writes it down once without explaining it in depth. This happens less now that he has a reputation for consistent solid advice, but look at the game iGrok claimed balrog: Sandro broke down in about 2 sentances why leaving him alive made zero sense(because mafia could roleblock his kill etc blah blah), but not a single person listened to it because it just got spammed off the page and he didn't do a good enough job explaining the WHY's of what he was posting. There is no point having good advice if you can't get people to understand you. (And people still don't understand what I was writing there) Anyways, On January 26 2012 21:56 Cwave wrote: Although Radfield's his posts screams scum i agree on the point that someone who get's a label town from us all is just very likely to get votes from the scumteam. We all have to prevent that, more so early on. Later on, we hopefully get some reads from our DT on scum. Just to recap here Cwave, you think my post is super scummy, yet you fully agree with the points I was making? Also, please explain why you wrote the last sentence. On January 26 2012 22:47 Jackal58 wrote: I agree with the assertion that we shouldn't label somebody as definite town. I disagree with Radfields ploy of calling town "not scum" That's what I called stupid. And I stand by that. It's stupid. It's a semantics game. redFF- Why do you call Radfield town in your first post and then vote him in your second? Wtf is up with that? I have no problem with voting Rad - I got scum vibes from his first post - but what you did red looks like you're trying to talk to a scumbuddy. You STILL don't understand Jackal. It has nothing to do with semantics, it has to do with people not coming out with lists like this(which I and many other people do each game): Almost Certainly Town X Y Z Likely Town A B C Leaning Town 1 2 3 Null H-P Scummy Fee Fie Foe Fum Likewise, it is also about stopping people from saying things like: "Hey Jackal, what do you think about Meapak" "I'm almost sure he's town at this point" Instead you simply say, "I don't think he's scum", or if you prefer, "I think he is town". You leave out the degree to which you think a player is town. Get it? + Show Spoiler + I'm going to stop talking about this now, because it's not productive. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 26 2012 20:50 Refallen wrote: /confirm Started a little earlier than I would have liked, would be a bit less active these few days. I will still make it a point to read and post though. What is this arguing about semantics about calling people town/not scum? Wtf is this? I think what Radfield is trying to say is to not publicly call out people as townish, and rather focus on calling people out as scum. Focusing on negative posts than positive posts, that's what it is. And rad, meapak has a very good point. It seems like you're warning your fellow scum, how do you respond to that? Hi Refallen, don't go so soon. Why did you bring up the point about people arguing semantics? No one is arguing, some people are simply misunderstanding my post. But you seemed to understand my post, so it should have been apparent to you that there was no argument here. I think you were just trying to flesh out your post. Also, you phrase your last sentence as 'your fellow scum' which indicates to me you think I am scum. Do you think there is a decent chance I am scum based off that 'warning'? I responded to Meapak's questions, how do you feel about my response? | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On the bright side, Cwave was kinda bad during election mafia too(he tunneled me all game), and threw around pretty random accusations. Tragically it's par for the course so far. Very possible his 5 words thing is a scum-slip, but also possible that he pulled it from hesmyrr's post as he said. Jackal, I'd like to see you post at least 5 or 6 more times during Day1. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 27 2012 00:15 Hesmyrr wrote: Agree with no town read strategy, but looking over redFF's posts anyone could have validly brought up the "no scum" point so his behaviour is null-read for me. For example bumatlarge mentions it too and statement goes unchallenged... because it was less aggressive? I've seen too many times where people are lynched for arguing against town popular opinion. Also, ##Vote bumatlarge his first post is just bad like many pointed out. Surprised no one decided to lean over him for it -_- In fact, Radfield, why did you not vote him then (therefore encouraging more discussion)? lends more credence to your big-post-intended-to-coach-scum theory. Cwave. What bad wording specifically? I didn't vote him for several reasons, mostly because I think voting early and often hurts ones credibility. However, I DO think Bum is a good lynch so far. Lets break it down: * He made a post referencing that he thinks there are 5 mafia members. As I pointed out, this is one way for mafia to communicate. However, players do this all the time at the start of games with hidden mafia counts, so it is hardly damning. On January 26 2012 13:22 bumatlarge wrote: I get the "calling people town" gig, but how would mafia figure out who each other are based on speculation? I don't see anyway I could hint that I'm scum without townies seeing it, or that townies could just fake? Mafia are going to find mafia based on reads rather then hints I would think. And above those, broadcasts are going to give them an edge. Seems kinda pointless. I would be curious as to what GGQ and jackal would know to look out for in the first game, but jackal was LOL, and GGQ for all intent and purpose was a townie. If you're looking for hidden breadcrumbs, this one jumps right out at you. Read that line, out of context it actually says "I could hint that I'm scum" He also calls my suggestions pointless, even though it seem he understands them. He also makes a random sentance about wanting Jackal/GGQ's advice while simultaneously mentioning that the advice would be pretty worthless. These are all pretty minor things, but added up they constitute a slight case. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 27 2012 02:08 Jackal58 wrote: You gonna number them for me? I don't know why you guys are voting for Cwave. He's right. That doesn't mean Radfield is scum but Cwave is correct in that if he is Radfield is slowly assembling parts of a key. And Radfield probably is scum. Yeah I can keep track if you like :D You have a tendency to coast as scum. This is something you surely agree with. I'd like to see you not coast. On January 27 2012 01:57 Hesmyrr wrote: Cwave is silly, but he feels Agreed. Blazinghand what other games have you played with Cwave? | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 27 2012 05:48 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Radfield, why did you use a different scheme of enumeration in you example list? Answer this. I don't know. Do you think there's something more sinister about it as a result? | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
I think cwave isnt a weak town player. Why not? Also, the way he jumped on me does not point to mafia motivation. I think Cwave legitimately saw my post as an attempt to communicate a code(albeit a useless code) and leapt to his feet crying foul. It fits with his meta from Election mafia. Mafia have very little motivation to call out someone they think might be sending messages. It puts both them and their potential buddy in the spotlight. Consider this vader. If mafia restriction is not 5 words, then mafia now are almost certain Cwave is townie and a good person to push to lynch(As an aside, just like # of mafia, no one should be speculating on # words or characters). It's very possible in my mind that you are scum and pushing him precisly because of this  This is also why its a bad plan. Setting out on day 1 with a game plan of never allowing 'leaders' to emerge is an amazingly bad plan. How often does one or two players end up contributing way more than others? This plan would be to ignore those types of players and to silently cheer them on. This is a ridiculous argument. In no way does anyone get ignored and in no way do leaders not emerge. Leaders don't become leaders because a bunch of people call them town. Leaders become leaders and THEN a bunch of people call them town. Just keep your townreads to yourself, at the very least early on in the game(Day 1/2) | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
| ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
Wigles Wrote: Yes, because mafia can't use abbreviated language unless someone posts a public key, which you did. If you had just posted with the same letters or numbers, then it's no longer a key that can be used to shorten scum communications. Now they just went from only having a binary designation, to having gradations to communicate their reads to their team, which isn't exactly useful for the town. You're right, and I kinda wish I hadn't posted that. However I doubt it will be particularly useful for mafia. The only reason I posted it in the first place was to try and illustrate my point, which several people thought(and still think!) was just about semantics. On January 27 2012 09:51 Jackal58 wrote: It appears to not be in play. The OP states they each send a message and they each receive all broadcasts. It still appears to me that Radfield was breadcrumbing info in his post regarding More scum Less scum. I can think of no other reason to state that the way he did. ##VOTE: Radfield. Can you please point out what you're talking about? I'm worried that you're still talking about this paragraph: We need to ensure this does not happen. Therefore I propose that NO ONE call anyone else town. Players are either scummy, very scummy, definitely scum, OR not scum. That is all. If you think someone is almost for sure town, you still just have to call them 'not scum'. Do you honestly not understand the point I was trying to make? And where is the so called breadcrumb in this post? And to what effect? | ||
| ||
