EPTStorm Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On February 20 2012 10:11 Palmar wrote: Signups are now complete. Some people have asked me about the activity requirements. It's quite simple, there are none because there shouldn't have to be any. If people aren't playing to their win condition, their faction will lose the game very quickly. The issue with this is that you have rules for things that are less game ruining and it's not even clear you can force replace or warn people for inactivity without a rule in place. If you don't want a specific activity requirement, the rule should say that you reserve the right to ban/replace people who clearly aren't putting in enough time and effort. The issue with this is, however, that you have to apply the same standard to mafia aligned players. e: morning | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On February 20 2012 18:32 Palmar wrote: I would not expect anyone to sign up for my game if they expect to be busy. You know how I feel about claiming busy in games, I consider it cheating and never do it myself. I don't think TL Mafia is ready for me to enforce that opinion on my games. And not to mention, it's not like the normal activity rules actually solve this issue either. It makes no sense to sign up for a game if you won't have time to participate. I have made it very clear, perhaps more than any other host, that I expect you to play to your win condition. You know, just as well as I do, that there is no indication that the activity requirements actually help at all with inactivity in games. This time I'm experimenting with a new method, which is basically making the game unforgiving and then repeatedly hammering the idea that players need to actively participate to actually stand a chance. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this won't lead to a more active game. But there is a problem, and this is my attempt at fixing it. Making the game unforgiving just punishes everyone else more, rather than encourages these players to participate. It is reasonable to assume most of these low contribution and activity players do not care about winning as much as players who are the opposite. As such, losing the game isn't much of a punishment and it doesn't even make sense considering it's not targeted at just the players who are the problem. One solution that doesn't involve harsh activity requirements and bans is just to have longer days. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On February 20 2012 21:18 Mattchew wrote: This game is mostly invite, and has a ton of experienced TL mafia players. I could see your case for an open format or newbie game, but for people that know what they are doing this should be no issue. If you don't post and let yourself get lynched as town or mafia without reason, you should be modkilled and banned. Invite games are actually often worse as players feel they are obligated to accept the invitation despite not having sufficient time to participate. Also I think there are experienced TL mafia players who do not always put enough effort into games. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
We aren't going to policy lynch, "information lynch" or doing any other lynches which sole intention isn't to lynch scum. As you should know, the setup is supposedly quite difficult and I know the initial setup had the possibility of town losing after a single mislynch, though it has been tweaked since then. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
I am currently more intrigued at the people who have let policy discussion run so damn rampant for even this short a duration of a game who (in my mind) should know better. In L, as town, he spent much of day 1 discussing topics that were not related to scum hunting at all and he should know that these topics get brought up every single time early on. He also does not single out anyone and despite disapproving the lack of focus on finding mafia, he doesn't really attempt to steer the conversation towards that. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On February 21 2012 17:15 VisceraEyes wrote: Syllo what do you think about the back and forth between chaoser and WBG? It seems genuine, so I doubt it's scum v scum - I can't decide if I think one of them is scum or if they're both town  Looks fine to me, but I'm not going to post my town reads unless I've a specific reason for it and regardless just the interaction isn't enough to determine both alignments. Also I'm curious about the initial flood of Tyrran votes. Were they all based on my pre-game comment about not being satisfied with his performance in another game or did you all really happen to share that opinion? Pressuring is fine, it just seems a bit strange and artificial. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
Besides that strange behaviour I don't think your play has otherwise looked suspicious, as you were very active and relatively fearless. Obviously the fact that you immediately got a bunch of votes from people who are unlikely to all be town also speaks in your favor. Back to BC, I also find this comment a bit strange its what? 5 hours into the day? I would like to believe redff isn't this horrendous as scum to be caught this quickly. However that is wifom with someone of his experience. The only read I have on him as of now is Bad. Bad town or bad mafia. This reads like coming from someone who doesn't care about (or want to) finding mafia and isn't internally consistent. Why would you like to believe that redff isn't mafia and just bad? On one hand he says redff is experienced (as in good) so he may be playing like this on purpose as mafia or something like that and then he goes on to say that he thinks redff is bad. Which is it BC? Do you respect redff's scum play or not? | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
And Tyrran? I'm fine with with the content of your few posts, but you aren't off to a good start activity wise. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:03 Tyrran wrote: I'm still at work rigth now, but to make it quick : I dont have any scum read yet. I'm leaning town on several people. I'm wondering about syllo rigth now. He claims to know something we dont about the setup, but doenst share it. I'm not sure if this indicate town or scum. Uh, I already shared it; it was merely the fact that the setup originally had the possibility of town outright losing after 2 mislynches, but it was tweaked since then. You can still draw conclusions based on that, for instance it makes the existence of a serial killer much less likely as typical it would make the game last a bit longer than that. Did you think this through or did you genuinely think that I mentioned knowing something about the setup and then refused to share it as a brilliant scum move? Oh I guess you weren't sure what it means, that's probably worse. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:44 layabout wrote: I honestly cannot beleive that we are a good 20 hours into the game and you have not even found 3+ scum. These excuses are beyond weak, and are far from what i have come to expect from Dirkzor the townie. In other news if anyone has any more shit to fling i would ask that you hold it like a man, or fling it quick so that we can clean ourselves up and catch scum. I am curious about Jackals apparent attempt to "start a bandwagon" by calling toad scum and not elaborating. For me the the town motivation for doing that would be to provoke reactions from players that he could analyse and perhaps find scum. For instance if somebody were to sheep him for no real reason, they would be more likely to be scum (since a townie shouldn't do that but getting away with a sheep vote would be good for mafia). I think that such an action is unnecessary as town but beneficial as Mafia. My problem with this play is that + Show Spoiler + I hate calling people scum for no reason, since it can convince players that people are mafia despite the complete absence of evidence. It is comparable to publicly announcing your town reads on day1, giving mafia additional reasons to shoot at players that you think are town or exploit your read(s) to manipulate you He could have been trying to get Toad lynched based off of nothing, by attempting to create a dumb bandwagon when the game had barely begun. This is all jackal has done (although we are not far in and he has a tendency to lurk) other than add to the childish bickering/insult hurling so far. I certainly have not found "3+ scum", have you? Give me your top 3 scum reads then. Of course, perhaps it's something you expect from dirkzor, but I'm not sure if that is grounded in reality either. Any thoughts on BC layabout? | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
##vote BloodyC0bbler | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On February 22 2012 05:18 Dirkzor wrote: Oh right... you asked about that... I just didn't answer because it was a stupid question. The first 3 posts was bad. And i said they were. That was the critisism. Nothing more. I was trying to be sarcastic but i clearly failed. Is this addressed to me? My post was not about you and I have not asked any stupid questions and certainly not from you; the only post addressed to you was about your lack of activity, despite being active elsewhere. | ||
| ||
