EPTNewbie Mini Mafia VIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
| ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
| ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
Imo, lurkers should be lynched if we don't have any solid reads to go on and we need to pressure lurkers to step out of the shadows. About liars, I'm interested how lies usually manifests in these kind of games. I mean, how often can you really know for sure that someone has been lieing? If someone is obviously witholding information or lying, I guess they would likely be scum and I would probably support a lynch(obviously depending on the circumstances), but what is the chances of actually getting that sort of hard facts? I would imagine that catching somebody red handed in the act of lying is something that occurs very rarely in Mafia. So, basically, lynch liars if it's obvious that they are lying and that their lies are hurting town, but don't focus on trying to catch people red handed. I don't think the chances of doing that is very big. And also, english isn't my native language as some of you reading this maybe already have figured out. I apologize for any typos and grammar errors. GL HF everyone! | ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
About keeping people from freaking out and start killing each other, I think that's pretty much a part of the game. People make bad reads, and innocent people get lynched. Let's just try to make sure no one is lurking and go from there. The most important thing is to have a ground for analysis. | ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
| ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
| ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
[B]On April 12 2012 08:55 BroodKingEXE wrote:[/B Lies usually manifest when there is a heated argument between Mafia and Townie. If you see a lie call it out, it forces a response from the person in question and gives us a better sense of their alignment. Its not the lie that matters it's the response we want. I see, I'll keep that in mind. | ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
It's pretty funny that you actually just mentioned that this tactic ended up back fireing in your last game(it's even the same guy!) In Newbie Mini Mafia VI (the first game I played), Kohbee essentially put out a random vote on HiroPro to get discussion going, but it kinda backfired and Kohbee was almost lynched Day 1/lynched for good Day 2, wasting 2 days of town activity. (Spoiler: Kohbee was Cop in that game). | ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
On April 12 2012 09:13 KharadBanar wrote: So for the sake of pulling more active people into this thread I'm going to do something Kohbee did in Newbie VI to spark some discussion: ##Vote: HiroPro I have no clue whether he is actually scum or not (he was in Newbie VI) but at least it will get him to talk. | ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
On April 12 2012 09:37 BroodKingEXE wrote: He should be open about pressure voting! If he is going to pressure vote shouldn't we know as a town? That way we know that KB is thinks Hiro is not scum and that he isn't throwing his vote around randomly (like a scum). To be honest, I just read "A General Guide to Mafia" and on the subject of pressure voting it says: "Never reveal that you are pressure voting, as this destroys its effectiveness. Refrain from saying that you are “pressure voting” or “policy voting” So what I was thinking was that it would be better to wait for a while, since it's pretty natural for people not to have posted yet, and putting out a vote later when the person you're pressuring have actually made posts which you can use in your pressure-attempt. I can't imagine that you would feel very pressured by the kind of pressure vote KharadBanar made. Thinking about it, what you say makes sense though. I guess throwing votes around seemingly lighly is a pretty good way to get lynched yourself. | ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
| ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On April 12 2012 15:57 Xatalos wrote: /confirm I strongly disagree with people saying this discussion has been "idle chat" or "pointless discussion". There's only so much you can do 7 hours into the game, but what I've got from these posts has been VERY useful: in fact, after reading all the posts in one go, I'm already ready to cast a vote (not just a fake pressure like KharadBanar). The person I want to lynch the most right now is: ArcticFox. Here is what I got from his filter so far: On the surface this looks like friendly advice to fellow townies, but this is EXACTLY the kind of posting I did on A Game of Thrones Mafia as a Mafia Framer. His attitude seems like he wants to appear useful, but he doesn't really say anything useful - the opposite of actual townies who want to be useful, but don't care as much about their appearance. The overall feel I get from this post is "please don't lynch me, I'm being useful!" First of all: why discuss about blue roles at all? This is the same mistake I did in A Game of Thrones Mafia - we kept talking about blue roles in the Mafia chat, so subconsciously I mentioned possibilities about the blue roles even in the normal thread. And what do you mean with "idle chat is not good"? So far this "idle chat" has been very useful (certainly much more useful than silence or the trolling/flaming we had in A Game of Thrones Mafia...). Also, you keep mentioning policies, which is something Mafia loves to do - you can appear somewhat useful without actually contributing anything. There he goes again, talking about blue roles. It's too bad it probably ends now after I mention this, but I would have wanted to see how many times he can talk about blue roles / blue reads during the game, since this is the second time already in only 7 hours... And if you think Dittert is Mafia, why not vote for him or even put any real pressure on him? It looks like you just want to fake pressure an obvious target (a suspiciously acting townie) or put some distance between yourself and a fellow Mafia (if he gets lynched, you can claim you "pushed for his lynch" all along). You look like you want to make a policy lynch, since you keep talking about policies, but still try to appear as if you "want" to lynch a Mafia player (if something too obvious comes along and you have to bus your teammate). I got a pretty solid Mafia read already in just a matter of hours, so this discussion is definitely not "useless"... ##Vote: ArcticFox Other people I'm going to keep a close watch on: Dittert, yomi. Neither have contributed to the thread, but still tried to appear "active" enough to avoid being lynched. yomi even had a strange OMGUS reaction to BroodKingEXE after being suspected, without ANYTHING to back up his counter-suspicion. Also, this: Exactly the same kind of tactic I employed in A Game of Thrones Mafia... You want to apologize for your mistakes and noobish play (why would a townie ever need the urge to make a public apology?!) to make people think of you as a noob townie. I can feel the fear and hesitation pouring from this post. I would also want to hear your opinion, Acrofales. You were VERY active and talkative in A Game of Thrones Mafia, but so far you have been inactive. What do you think about my case on ArcticFox? Do you have your own Mafia reads that I might have missed? Both the blue-talk and the policy lynching-talk seems a bit odd. I guess you could agrue that ArticFox could be blue himself, but it doesn't strike me as very natural behaviour to talk so much about blues if you are one yourself since you would desperately want to stay hidden. I'm not quite as confident about this as Xatalos seems to be, but to me this seems to be the best analysis so far. Some people have been critical towards Dittert and his RNG-talk. To me he comes across more as a nervous newbie(no offence, I'm pretty much a nervous newbie myself!) than scum. I think he's sincere about the claim that he was actually after sparking discussion rather than actually pushing for RNGing. | ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
On April 12 2012 22:17 ArcticFox wrote: + Show Spoiler + On April 12 2012 08:49 vonKlaust wrote: I don't really think that we're meant to have a special plan to sort out scum from townies day 1. I think what we're doing now is good. Just keep the conversation flowing, force people to take stances and pressure them to talk. About keeping people from freaking out and start killing each other, I think that's pretty much a part of the game. People make bad reads, and innocent people get lynched. Let's just try to make sure no one is lurking and go from there. The most important thing is to have a ground for analysis. On April 12 2012 08:54 vonKlaust wrote: Alright people, start typing! We know you're out there. So far only a handful of us have posted. On April 12 2012 08:56 vonKlaust wrote: Just noticed that the game had been going for 50 minutes. Lol, maybe I should be a tad more patient. His filter is full of useless junk such as this. It doesn't clutter the thread as much as KB's spam, but it's still just enough to look like you're contributing without actually saying much of anything. The bolded part is pretty damning. It's not part of the game to freak out and kill town. We're here to kill scum. On April 12 2012 09:19 vonKlaust wrote: I'm not sure I support pressure voting this early. Especially when you're so open about the fact that you're pressure voting. The game has been going for like an hour, and it's pretty natural that some people haven't posted yet. Also, stating that openly that you're voting for pressure kinda nullifies the effect, doesn't it? On April 12 2012 21:36 vonKlaust wrote: Ok, I must disappointedly admit that I feel pretty lost. Acts confused about what's going on and doesn't take a solid stance on anything. The only stance he's taken on anything is feeling like Dittert is a confused newbie rather than scum. On April 12 2012 09:47 vonKlaust wrote: What Willz wrote was pretty much what I was thinking. Again, no thought of his own added here, but simply piggy-backing into what willz has already said. He's done a really good job blending in so far. Which is exactly why I'm suspicious of him. Care to weigh in vonKlaust? Actually, I'll just ask you the same question: who do you think is scum, and why? @Xatalos -- It's too early for me to actually vote, but these are my current suspicions. When I am reasonably sure that I have a scum instead of just suspecting, I'll actually set my vote. Actually setting a vote this early tends to allow an easy bandwagon, which is something I don't want the scum to have. Oh yes, I care to weigh in. His filter is full of useless junk such as this. It doesn't clutter the thread as much as KB's spam, but it's still just enough to look like you're contributing without actually saying much of anything. First off, yes I wrote two meaningless oneliners right in the beginning of the game. + Show Spoiler + On April 12 2012 08:54 vonKlaust wrote: Alright people, start typing! We know you're out there. So far only a handful of us have posted. On April 12 2012 08:56 vonKlaust wrote: Just noticed that the game had been going for 50 minutes. Lol, maybe I should be a tad more patient. Sure, those comments were not necessery or helpfull but I wouldn't really call my filter "Full of useless junk" because of that. The bolded part is pretty damning. It's not part of the game to freak out and kill town. We're here to kill scum. I think it's pretty clear that I meant that it's inevitable that innocents get lynched, and that there will be people who makes bad reads, and people bandwagoning those. At least that has been the case in the games which I have participated in. Acts confused about what's going on and doesn't take a solid stance on anything. Well, I AM confused. And I can agree that I come across as somebody who doesn't take solid stances. I don't know alot about this game, and I try to be humble to that fact. I say what I think, but you're likely not gonna see me write something like "I am perfectly comfident this is how we should play this game" or "I know for a fact that X is scum". That's just not how my brain works. Again, no thought of his own added here, but simply piggy-backing into what willz has already said. If you actually read what I wrote the post before: + Show Spoiler + So what I was thinking was that it would be better to wait for a while, since it's pretty natural for people not to have posted yet, and putting out a vote later when the person you're pressuring have actually made posts which you can use in your pressure-attempt. I can't imagine that you would feel very pressured by the kind of pressure vote KharadBanar made. Thinking about it, what you say makes sense though. I guess throwing votes around seemingly lighly is a pretty good way to get lynched yourself. You might notice that this is pretty much what Willz wrote. He posted when I was writing, and thus, I didn't see his post until after I was done. When I read it I thought that he put it much better than I did, and therefore I added: + Show Spoiler + What Willz wrote was pretty much what I was thinking. In case I did a bad job making myself understandable. Please note that in the post I made just after Willz' post, I was elaborating what I wrote in an even earlier post. I was not just copying what Willz were saying. He's done a really good job blending in so far. Which is exactly why I'm suspicious of him. What does this even mean? He doesn't seem suspicious, and that's why he is suspicious? I don't think my filter looks as bad as you're saying. It is true that I haven't accused anyone, or said something like "This is definitley what we should do". But that is simply because I don't really know what to look for in scumhunting(escpecially this early), and I have no idea what to do day 1. Hell, if everyone hadn't trashed Ditters RNG-idea, I might aswell have concidered it. I have just been trying to keep the discussion going. On the topic of scum, I'll repeat what I said in my last post. I don't really know and I'm definitley not ready to set my vote, but if I had to go for anyone right now, it probably would be you. | ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
On April 13 2012 01:00 Dittert wrote: @yomi Can you explain your vote for me? I checked your filter, and you never make a substantial claim against me. Also, FWIW, you're the first ACTUAL liar I've found. You claim to be the first person in the thread to attack me, but willz and Arctic attacked me first. This is what I meant when I in the beginning of the thread said that you should be careful with your accusations. Could you please put forward some actual evidence for him lying? If not, could it just be that he didn't take notice of the other attacks? | ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
| ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
On April 13 2012 03:43 Xatalos wrote: He didn't only agree with me, he posted some additional potentially suspicious quotes from ArcticFox. That's why I didn't focus on him at that point... Mafia usually jump in sheepishly to vote once a very easy lynch target has been found, not as early as he did. Still, he hasn't done much else for this thread, and I'm watching him closely. That's the risk I'll have to take. However, nobody was really pressuring anyone when I woke up and read the thread, so I figured I had to make the first move. There's no certainty that ArcticFox is Mafia, but given the information I have, I don't mind lynching him at the moment. This is fallacious. Of course it's better for the crooks to try to put forward some solid evidence together with joining a lynch than to just, as you put it, sheepishly vote once a very easy target has been found. Not only does it make the chances of the target actually getting lynched, but it also makes them look towny. I can accept that you would rather focus at ArticFox, but this explanation is NOT sufficient for dropping your suspicions on Iamallison To me this looks like a potential scum slip. | ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
On April 13 2012 03:20 Xatalos wrote: I agree with you that the response from ArcticFox was good. It still doesn't mean he is town. You, like Willz, fail to see that metagame was only the starting point of my case, not the "meat" of it. The major part of my case was his flow of useless posts about policies and blues, neither related to Mafia-hunt but easy to talk about for Mafia (without giving town any new information). However, by no means is ArcticFox a "must-lynch" for me - just that he is my preference at the moment. Also, you have to admit my case on ArcticFox has generated a lot of useful discussion and possible Mafia slips (we can't know them all yet, as some of them will become more clear once some player's alignments are revealed). I'm all for pushing another lynch target, since everyone voting for ArcticFox would make it too easy for Mafia to blend in. Seeing players' reactions to different lynch pushes will be very helpful. I went back to research Xatalos filter after this incident: + Show Spoiler + http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=14321137 And found this piece of text. This strikes me as pretty awkward. Not only is he trying to justify his case by saying that it generated discussion, but he also proposes to push another lynch target, not because he thinks that ArticFox is a bad lynch, but because "It would make it too easy for Mafia to blend in". Of course pushing for lynches generates discussion, but that does not justify pushing bad lynches. Of course you can use votes to pressure, but your vote against ArticFox don't really come across as a pressure vote to me. Also it feels a bit wierd that you seem so decisive while still saying stuff like "By no means is ArticFox a must-lynch for me" and "I'm all for pushing another lynch target". Especially when you earlier in the game wrote stuff like: There's only so much you can do 7 hours into the game, but what I've got from these posts has been VERY useful + Show Spoiler + http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=14315170 I suggest everyone to read my case on ArcticFox and vote for him. I'd put his chances of being Mafia at 70-80%, which is extremely high for me considering it's this early. + Show Spoiler + http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=14315248 It feels like you're trying to get out of the lynch-train you created in the first place, while still maintaining ArticFox as a prime suspect. As far as I can tell, you didn't really ever back down from your claims. You just went defensive when people started to criticize your case. | ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
| ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
| ||
|
vonKlaust
Sweden158 Posts
| ||
| ||
