EPTComplete and utter newbie at this. Should be fun!
Newbie Mini Mafia IV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
Complete and utter newbie at this. Should be fun! | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
(again) now with +3 hours of experience from SNMM VII! | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
On February 25 2012 12:22 gumshoe wrote: I gotta say, the hosts are quickly becoming my favourite part of this game, I am almost sure that grey mist made a strong effort to bring in night fury just to make sure I had no chance of getting hawk lynched. I don't think my scheme to crush dreams within the last three hours of the game is going to work this time. =( | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
This is my first full game of mafia (excluding my temporary replacement into SNMMVII). I agree with the soft early deadline concept, but I would like to add a bit more. A general consensus is nice to have and provide extra time for new information. But to dampen last minute switches, maybe we should impose a "lock in vote" within the last 30 - 60 minutes to the deadline. This gives everyone sufficient time to think and be confident in their choice and casually inform the rest that they are firm in their choice. Thoughts? | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
On February 26 2012 12:33 Janaan wrote: I don't know if that's really neccesary. That close to the deadline, people won't usually change vote unless either something major comes up or we were already headed toward a no lynch. It's possible, though. Thoughts, Chocolate/DYH/anyone else out there? Good point. May I add that the lock in can be announced at any time prior. Doesn't have to be that close to the deadline if you are sure of yourself. This helps in the event something new does show up in the hours after the soft deadline and the lock in gives a second round of confidence in the choice. | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
On February 26 2012 12:54 gumshoe wrote: are we agreed on no no lynch? Sounds good to me. | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
On February 26 2012 12:56 gumshoe wrote: Also I would really like everyone to post the time they will be active, Ill be on probably 07-12 est then 17-22 Weekdays: Evening/Night mostly... I work during the day but I can be semi-active on a slow work day. Weekends: Completely random at best. Tomorrow afternoon good, evening/night bad... next weekend no idea yet. I'm in EST btw. | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
On February 26 2012 13:13 Janaan wrote: NightFury, what's your view on lynching lurkers vs. a slightly scummy looking player on Day 1? Lurkers might be a better choice since they don't contribute much to begin with... also promotes activity. Slightly scummy is okay but can be a bit of a toss up? Depends on how strong the read is? | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
On February 26 2012 13:57 Steveling wrote: About this deadline thing I'm not too sure. Sure it may help in the first day, but when we will have multiple cases and people posting defenses and whatnot from different timezones, I don't think it will be too practical. I don't think it'll hurt though. If there are multiple cases and defenses then it is not the most useful. But if there are very few but focuses cases, it will allow us to maintain focus at the issue at hand. The secondary lock in helps as a measure of confidence and will always be useful even if there are tons of cases and the first deadline is not the most practical since it happens afterwards. | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
Also the first deadline lets us have everyone vote at the minimum instead of leaving people without a vote cast. | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
| ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
But first... On February 27 2012 04:52 Steveling wrote: We have two people playing on the same account? What? Why do we allow this? Possibly since it's a newbie game and probably isn't the most serious or rigid of games. Maybe the new player isn't completely comfortable playing solo yet? No idea. Getting more people into the game as a whole is very nice to have though. | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
I propose that we resolve the most pressing issues today and worry about the less vital ones for night 1 if needed. It seems like the lynch or no-lynch day 1 is the most pressing issue at hand. I'm beginning to think that a time based voting system won't be critical on day 1 if we can all agree to a specific day 1 strategy. This way we can focus on the task at hand and get good discussion and worry about the finer details of other issues during the night so we can all be ready for day 2. It appears, in general, that the consensus for lynching a lurker for day 1 is acceptable. Looking at risk/reward - lynching a mafia on day 1 has great rewards whereas lynching a lurker townie isn't the biggest loss (still a loss nonetheless). Therefore, I'm still on board for no no-lynch day 1 and going after a lurker. I propose we set a soft deadline today for confirming a lurker target. The game has been going for less than 24 hours and I know people's weekends can be a bit random when it comes to availability. I think, at most, we should give a full in-game 24 hours to at least post a) anything and b) some form of contribution. Once again, great for getting discussion rolling and looking at how people interact with each other. In the event everyone is present and participating, we can have a full discussion on how we handle day 1 as well. While this can be discussed later on if needed, I am still a fan of one or two stage soft deadline voting. I know there are caveats, but I personally think everyone should have some responsibility in the game. It'll keep players active which is always great. Janaan, I know you mentioned that a second deadline may cause chaos is there is a bandwagon for not following the system. But if we can get everyone to agree to the system, it will be everyone's responsibility to follow it and they will be responsible for their own actions should they break it. If people are going to be busy (which is completely valid), they should at least inform everyone in advance. I would prefer people communicating with everyone rather than just falling off the face of the planet (although shit does happen which can be unfortunate). Thoughts/Opinions? | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
| ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
On February 27 2012 06:06 Janaan wrote: I think I've already made my position clear on this. I also think that setting any kind of deadline 24 hours before the actual vote deadline is too soon. As already stated, I'm fine with somewhere around 8-12 hours before, but any earlier, any vote we end up agreeing on, especially if it's a lurker lynch, is bound to change. After some additional thought, I do agree with 8 - 12 hours prior is a good soft deadline. However, given time zones and commitments, I can see this being a possible issue (at least for me, other people maybe not). 8 - 12 hours puts me at work when the soft deadline shows up on every day but Sundays. Therefore I know I have to at least vote the night before, which puts me at 22 - 24 hours prior to the real deadline. I'm thinking that 22 - 24 hours in my case is too soon just as you stated and new arguments/evidence can arise. Note: I can be around a computer at work if things are going slow enough, but probably not enough time to flesh out a full stance is something new is presented over night. Not very reliable in any case. Now I might be the only one in this sort of situation and probably why I am fond of a second stage since it does help people whom the soft deadline is at an non-ideal time and their last chance to send off a vote is too early. How are we going to look at vote switches after the soft deadline? Would you find them acceptable if they're supplemented with good reasoning and not too close to the deadline (ideally for me would put me at about 4-5 hours before the real deadline)? Anyways, I'm 100% willing to just stick with the one soft deadline, but if anyone has any suggestions to how to improve this - I'm all ears. If we want, we can keep discussing this today or wait for night 1 to iron things out. Also with all that said. I'm heading out in about 90 minutes for most of the evening. I should be back at night to catch up. | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. His full post goes more like this: On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote: It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence. I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: He later goes on to say Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: Oh and this: I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: Wrong. NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: Then there's: Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
| ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
Chocolate: I still cannot tell if his play was actually scummy or just poor play/mentality. I still want to hear from him about his adamant lurker policy into jumping on FF though. Cannot tell if he's in collusion with ghost since they both have different approaches. Ghost: Similar to chocolate but with an adamant lynch someone policy. Pushing a lynch on anyone comes off more scummy to me than chocolate, but they're both up there. Likewise, cannot say if those two are in collusion. Would also like to hear from him about his aggressive lynching. Igabod: Hasn't really done anything and just lurking. Would really like to see him start participating. FourFace: Not worth the time and effort right now given how he has been posting. Ghost and chocolate are the most suspicious in my opinion based on their actions. I'd favour lynching ghost over chocolate as I think chocolate has just been playing poorly and ghost comes off more scummy. I really hope that either of them can adress the cases against them since it may clairify the situation. Igabod is just straight up lurking from what I can tell. So what it comes down to is that we should go after a definite lurker or one of the other two suspicious players. I think ghost's aggressive lynching mindset is more toxic to the town and scummy than the alternatives. Igabod, while a viable candidate, isn't going to slip off anyone's radars for his inactivity. Nor will people just suddenly warm up to him if he comes back without extremely good reasoning and/or contributions. I'd personally rather lynch an individual who may be negaitively influencing the town over someone who is just being inactive and not directly influencing town. Chocolate's play was somewhat toxic, but I'm not convinced it was genuinely scummy. ##Vote: ghost_403 Unless an exceptional defense comes up shortly, I am unlikely to change my vote. | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
@ghost: After looking into your statement, you have addressed my concerns already. While I do not necessarily agree with your initial play style - you are being active and can address statements and inquiries. On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote: Hi guys I'm back. Hopefully I can format this correctly + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. Chocolate is super scummy to me right now. Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong. NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. I got off the "lurker idea" because obviously it wasn't that good. I just wanted people to perhaps panic and get them to start posting. My idea was that votes DO=pressure, because noobs tend to panic a little when they see they are getting voted on. I said our vote will probably end up on a lurker because frankly that's what happened in my most previous game: most of the people lynched were either lurkers or scum, and most of the cases were on either lurkers or scum. I switched to fourface because I wanted him to keep posting, to see if I could get a good case on him. Obviously, he has continued, but hasn't adressed my points. I think he'll get replaced though so I'm going to hold off on voting for him for now. I'll try to make a case against someone shortly. That's my schedule, there isn't much to say about it. I'm in HS, and my parents make me get off the computer and my phone at 9 on weeknights, so I won't be online for the last hour of voting. + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote: @Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) His full post goes more like this: A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. When I switched to FF,as I said earlier, I was trying to get him to post more. It didn't work, because he hasn't posted any real content since then. + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote: I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). If there's anything I missed please point it out to me so I can address it. Okay. Why do you want people to panic and start posting? Getting people to panic is not a great idea because it can easily cause a lot of confusion. A townie panicking can make themselves appear suspicious and draw a lot of attention. Building a case off of panic doesn't make sense since the information you obtain may not be reliable. Yes, you could possibly cause scum to panic and get something - but how do you differentiate this from a townie? Also you mention this is to target newbies? How does experience dictate which role they have? I feel this strategy to begin with is extremely flawed and should not be a viable option. In hindsight, going after FourFace with that strategy was a bad idea (maybe his insanity defense was just a panic defense). But you don't even listen to your own philosophy. You wanted to build a case against him by making him post more. But you don't even present a case of your own - you just outright vote for him. I did take a look just now at your previous game with SacredSystem (only looked around Day 1 btw). Once again, the plan didn't even work. I would like you to explain how this plan worked in your eyes. He wasn't inactive. The vote wasn't even against him - he started off against someone's analysis about random lynching. He was town! Same thing with the person you immediately voted for because he didn't mention anything (he claimed he was at school, perfectly fair). Also, you were mafia in the previous game. I don't necessarily want to try to use posting meta in this game but now this is a bit too much. If you're mafia, the idea of causing someone to panic and gather a lot of attention benefits the mafia team. It leads the town down a useless path unless the person can defend themselves well... but a newbie panicking may not perform that too well. The big question I have for you: why are you using the same strategy to cause newbies to panic if you're truly town? How can you differentiate townie panic versus mafia panic? As of right now given the new circumstances - I do not believe you are town. ##Unvote: Ghost_304 ##Vote: Chocolate | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
##Unvote: Ghost_403* ##Vote: Chocolate Sorry ghost, typo'd on your name. =( | ||
| ||
