EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXI
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
| ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 10 2012 07:55 Probulous wrote: LoL op is 4 neebz0rz y i read that?!?My dear newbie, welcome to Newbie Mini Mafia XXI. For your comfort I have written a through OP which has some very important information. If you wish to play, please read it  ... Just kidding, I promise not to be that guy that makes you regret hosting the game. I do have a lot of questions though, mostly about the roleblockers. If the jailer roleblocks the mafia roleblocker, who in turn RBs someone else, I assume the jailer takes precedence? And vice versa, if the mafia roleblocks the jailer who roleblocks someone else? Does a RBd veteran still survive a hit? That one's a stretch but just theoretically... What if the vigilante hits the roleblocker and the roleblocker blocks the vigilante? Also, if the mafia is down to one and is jailed, is KP still 1 even from jail? I think I need a PEMDAS equation here or something. And also, in case I die early, could I be switched to an observer to neutrally observe the rest of the game? Okay, I'm done  | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
I assume it will be apparent whether you have been roleblocked by the jailer or the mafia? Will you provide any more information on the role list - such as whether or not it is randomly generated and whether each role is unique or duplicates are possible? | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 10 2012 12:01 Crossfire99 wrote: If it is a particularly heated discussion then I don't even think you could catch up on all the posts in 20 minutes I only played in 3. This would be my 4th. According to my last game, I believe it was decided that the wording in the op says you can sign up if you have been in 3 or less games. This means that this game can be my 4th.  IMO, observing would be a better choice, join back in on 22 if you wish. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 11 2012 07:39 Probulous wrote: Did you edit that in? I read/scanned the OP 4 or 5 times and missed it every single time.What part of read the OP don't you understand? It is in the OP. It should be read. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 14 2012 01:34 YourHarry wrote:Can framer throw blanket over himself? Can vigilante kill himself? I was able to think of at least one situation where vigilante should kill himself Could you enlighten me on this one? | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
So, day 1, no one knows anything eh? Let’s get the conversation rolling and pull the lurkers out to get the mafia talking. The town benefits from clarity, transparency, and direction, so I’ll try my best to encompass these into my posts. Please call me out, for whatever reason, if you notice that this isn’t the case. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 08:59 Evulrabbitz wrote:Since it's newbie games I feel people haven't really gotten a feel for their preferable playstyle and thus I deem meta analysis worthless. I have to disagree with you here. We saw firsthand how hapa crushed hopeless last game with a thorough meta-analysis. This means it is at least worth something. Having said that, I think it will be less useful this game since those who saw what happened will be more careful to avoid similar mistakes. And some players (like me) have no history to analyze. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 09:35 Hapahauli wrote: I agree with you in that meta is very fickle, and best used sparingly after more important tells. I was trying to say I thought it did have some use, though. A consideration I had in analyzing game XX was a ‘what if’ in the other direction. What if the meta accusation against hopless had been wrong - the potential swing in the other direction could have been huge. A townie lynched, and quite possibly another townie the next day because of the incorrect case. Very risky and not a perfect method, and it did end up being wrong later, but some usefulness. Hey folks! I rolled Vanilla Townie (again) - let's lynch us some scum! One of the lessons I learned from the last game (Newbie Mini Mafia XX) was how fickle meta-analysis can be. My case against Hopeless was mostly based around him mis-representing evidence and fingerpointing. The Meta was the icing on the cake. Also note that my cases/meta arguments against two players (Release and JingleHell) were ulitmately wrong. While meta has a place as supplemental evidence against players who are not self-aware of their own history, Otherwise, it lead you on a goose chase after a player who's in a bad mood in a particular game. To re-iterate, meta is icing on the cake. We should always look for suspicious behavior and mafia-motive before even considering something like meta. Calling people out already, I love it!Suspicious behavior like the bolded part below: That's a really subtle way to point out your newbieness. That's some mafia behavior right there. FOS calgar You make a very interesting inference there, hapa. You infer that my lack of mafia history on TL equates to newbieness. I have in fact played many games of Mafia before and am not a newb. I don’t plan to use newbieness as any kind of excuse for my actions. I agree when taken out of context (--snip--) it could be interpreted how you did, as a subtle suggestion of ‘newbieness’. But I meant to use it as a supporting fact as to why I think meta will be less effective this game. Here are my thoughts: this is a newbie game, after all, so bringing attention to newbieness is only useful insofar as creating an excuse/cover for anti-town play. “forgive me for acting stupid and spreading confusion, I’m a newb LOLOL”. If there is no suspicious behavior to cover up then it doesn’t have value as a cover. Moreover, I think that the ‘newb cover’ strategy has been way overplayed. Kind of like the lurk-and-hope-no-one-notices-you strategy. I would imagine any mafia trying to use such an obvious excuse like that would only be drawing unwanted attention. In other words, a very poor game move so early that intelligent players would not make. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:21 JingleHell wrote: You guys may end up being be right but I'm not expecting anything to come easily. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Very quiet first night so far, though, so not much to be done really.I fully expect to see at least one player go too obviously "hard-counter" to the scum-tells in the various guides. If we don't get at least one high-profile scum, I'll be shocked. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:35 JingleHell wrote: I think you're reading into my words way too much. I mean them as plainly as possible - I'm not aiming to have any subtle ulterior-motive second speech going on. I agree, make something happen or lose. Difficult when people are not posting, though, agreed? Thus talking to try and instigate said discussion, agree? Should I rather become silent - no, disagree. I'm trying to be as productive as possible - and at least giving other people a little bit to go on and analyze to make decisions for themselves.See, that's suspect in and of itself. "Wait and see" is trouble. Make something happen or lose. And just your bit about not expecting things to come easily, just sounds like you're hoping to plant seeds of doubt early, so that you can point to it later when you go WIFOM crazy on us. What on earth are you talking about here? Why are you predicting that I will point to seeds of doubt later that I haven't even laid?What I said in my last post: 1: you guys may be correct that mafia will reveal with obvious tells. 2: i'm going to give them more credit than that though 3: very little dialogue occurring currently. What you say: you're going to turn on us with your seeds of doubt. Not very logical, imo. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:50 JingleHell wrote: Interesting that you say that, considering it (and the the rest of my post) has instigated a discussion with you. Hence you reading into meanings of words whereas actions suggest otherwise. "Yes guys let's wait and see and not accomplish anything meaningful so that mafia can win easily" --> discusses. The first is what you suggest my motive to be, with just those 3 words, but does it not contradict the second? This goes back to my point with hapa - it seems very unintelligent to give yourself away so early. I think this 'tell' you're picking up on is unintentionally distracting from the real issue."Wait and see" is mutually exclusive with "instigate discussion". And I mean exactly what I say about seeds of doubt. You could easily be working with a scum ulterior motive. Saying you don't expect things to be easy is basically just invoking WIFOM without saying anything, in a way that could be used to cover things you say later. I'm just trying to promote discussion since it's slow right now. I don't even think this conversation is really about anything, other than you being suspicious of my words in ways I didn't intend them to be meant, so why would I point to it later? Seems like accusations, voting, and who suspects who would be much more important down the line. I'm not following your line of reasoning there.Remember, in this game, it's about finding a way to cooperate in an intentional atmosphere of mutual distrust. We have to find enough grains of information hidden within the subtext of the conversation to negate some portion of the scum's information advantage. Everything you say or do has to be treated like there's the potential for an ulterior motive, until and unless you're confirmed townie. In summary - I seem to have stepped onto the hot plate, so to speak, but I'll accept that to generate discussion. I think you can read into just about anything as much as you want. I just don't think there's actually any substance here. I hope that makes sense. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 12:15 JingleHell wrote: No, I'm not contradicting myself. You're just not making sense. I pointed out that you said something that's at best bizarre and at worst scummy, so now you're trying to twist it into something completely different than what it was. The real issue you're accusing me of being distracted from is the real issue of finding and lynching scum. In what way is pointing out dangerous statements distracting from that? There's not going to be much substance to any conversation at this point. There can't be, with nobody weighing in. So, when there's almost nothing to discuss, you talk about what you can talk about, so that if there's a case down the line, you're in a good position. Also, it's very shady to say "the scum wouldn't do that". We can't know what the scum would or wouldn't do yet. It's all guesswork. It always will be until we have information. In fact, just pointing to "Well, scummy behavior would be X, see how I'm not doing that" sounds scummy as all hell, since the only people who know what the scum have planned are the scum. I'm really curious though, when there's no votes (I hate the risk of early bandwagons), and if you think this accusation is such a pointless distraction and so on, why are you squirming around so much under this very light pressure? Well, it seems as though I can only dig my hole deeper. I'll section my paragraphs to respond correspondingly to yours. I'm not trying to twist anything at all. I'll rephrase my argument as you say I'm not making any sense. Here is my take: This started because of the "bizarre and at worst scummy" lines 'wait and see' and 'not expecting it to be easy'. The root of this suspicion is that you believe these lines hint/suggest/promote anti-town behavior (I am mafia and have blown my cover in 3 hours - sorry I have to giggle at this). Discussion is pro-town. My posts caused discussion, so based on the previous, it was pro-town, in some sense at least. Do you agree with that? That was the point I was trying to make. Whatever message you see behind the words, there is discussion between us now. I'm not trying to twist anything and I stand by my previous words. Part of the reason I said I didn't expect it to be easy is because I specifically remember reading in a TL thread here that mafia had historically usually won these types of games. There were some notable exceptions where that wasn't the case. I can't remember the thread (someone may know or I can dig if you'd like), but that is where my rationale is coming from. I agree completely here. Pointing out dangerous statements is not distracting, in any way, from finding and lynching scum so you are correct in that regard. There isn't much substance to talk about. I agree with you here again. I see that you're barking up the only tree there is right now. I just happen to think that it's the wrong tree. That's all I mean by saying its a distraction. I don't mean to dismiss it though, so if you're unsatisfied I can try to answer more thoroughly. I disagree with you here on point 4, strongly. We can use logic to assume that mafia will behave rationally and in a way to maximize their chances of winning. This includes not posting silly giveaways that you can spot instantly. Maybe I'm just giving people too much credit here? I am speculating as to potential strategy based on what would give them the best chance of winning. Thus, when I say that it would be silly for mafia to reveal themselves in several hours when they could have lurked, I think you will agree with me, no? I'm really curious though, when there's no votes (I hate the risk of early bandwagons), and if you think this accusation is such a pointless distraction and so on, why are you squirming around so much under this very light pressure? A very interesting question jingle. Before I answer, let me ask you a question in return. Why did I continue posting, instead of saying good night and stopping after hapa was satisfied with my answer? Especially when 5/12 have not posted yet (yes, I'm tracking, I think it's useful to know). The simple answer is that I'm just trying to talk more. Not squirming, just talking. Squirm has a connotation of guilt. What makes you think that I am squirming? I've done my best to calmly and rationally use logic here. I understand where you're coming from and see your points. I ask that you try to make an effort to see from my point of view. Off to sleep now. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
The only reason you're in this discussion is because Jingle thought what you said was (or could be interpreted as) scummy. He explicitly prevented you from waiting by pressuring you now. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 10:26 tube wrote: I found this post to be rather odd. It doesn't seem like you're putting any time or thought into your posts - just what randomly comes to mind. You said lurking isn't a good idea but that's what you've managed to do so far. I feel the same way about your intro post.in a game this small where everyone said "i will be active" i dont think lurking is a good idea for anyone, esp mafia IGMEOY | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
One – I agree that tube has graced us with terrible posts. It seems like he may not entirely understand the game. His post history outside the game is mostly similar one-liners with little effort so that seems to be his overall posting style. His behavior is decidedly anti-town as it stands. Two – Nice of you to grace us with a single post, iamperfection. I feel like this may have been somewhat buried so I’d like to bring it back to people’s attention. I want to call to attention poor logic and assumptions. On July 17 2012 00:42 iamperfection wrote:It means i got me eye on you google is kind of usefull. Your logic:Although calgar's premise is wrong. I think a mafia member is more likely to put much more thought into their posts then a non mafia member. From my 1 game of experience in which i played more of a lurker role as a mafia member the other 2 members put a ton of thought and effort into their posts. Even as going as far as having the coach review their posts before posting them to see what they thought. Hmm, so my premise about his anti-town behavior is wrong, based on your limited observations of being mafia last game? What?! First, that’s a terrible sample size. Second, it’s fallacious to assume that anything in your previous games has any relevance on how people will act in this one. Poor logic and mafia-like. What relevance does your specific last game have at all to our situation here? You are by far looking the more sucpicious right now. The accusation on tube is telling to me. After the heat on you it seems you like you know want to set up a policy of lynching lurker or people that do one liners. Instead of drving the attention on one person it appears to me you are trying to get us looking at a whole group in order to confuse the town It looks like you just scanned my post quickly and attacked it as “trying to shift suspicion”. Did you even read it or consider what I meant? It seems like many others agree with me about his anti-town behavior. It seems you’re defending anti-town behavior of tube here. FOS Calgar Also, i think there is a possibility yourharry post was an attempt to get attention away from calgar smaller FOS on YourHarry Why are you suggesting that I have some grand strategy of people to lynch? It looks to me like I made one very specific post about a single player. Yet I have plans of setting up a lynching policy to "confuse the town". Putting words into my mouth - very suspicious. Your post strikes me as if you were mafia and were planning how to enter the game late. You decided to jump onto someone’s reasoning bandwagon to try and avoid attention. Why do I say this? You make no effort in original thought. To me it looks like you scanned the thread, looked at who had been attacked, and said “Oh yeah I agree, FOS on the same two guys as jingle”. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 17 2012 06:30 Evulrabbitz wrote: Meta analysis is analyzing the post history to compare patterns of previous games to the present. Potentially useful.Calgar; Explain yourself. If it isn't obvious; In the first statement you say that meta is worth something, in the second you previous games have no effect on this one. I misspoke when I said "anything" when attacking iamperfection. He's not referring to meta here, though. I mean, more specifically, that I considered his particular example to be poor and irrelevant. Because he's talking about a strategy that different people used in a different game to try and justify why tube is acting suspicious/anti-town currently. The difference is that meta compares the same person across two games whereas he is comparing a strategy used by mafia (and two players not in this game) to this one. A comparison he makes to defend tube as not being mafia-like, because mafia would put more effort into their posts. Clear? | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 17 2012 06:45 tube wrote: Our advice seems to be falling on deaf ears, here. Why don't you read my summary of iamperfection again, I think it was very suspicious and poorly written post on his part (and his only one, to boot).didnt i beat both of you to it well looks like mufaa is also convinced that my active lurking is a scumtell despite the fact that i already said i dont suspect anyone and again i dont see a reason to bandwagon me for not being careful with accusations You say you don't suspect anyone but it doesn't seem like you're even trying, either. You aren't helping town out at all so town is naturally going to be suspicious. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 17 2012 07:05 tube wrote: No, you were right. I was just suggesting that since you had no suspicions you could see what you thought about mine. As a way to try and become a more active participant. Also, your posts are slightly difficult to understand because of awkward formatting. Could you try using sentences and punctuation?yeah i dont see the need to put the effort into quoting each argument and pointing exactly where somebody is trying to make an accusation out of thin air when if people just looked at them they would realize there is statistically an 8/11 chance that whoever they're accusing is town because their argument was empty to begin with, in that people just pick out innocuous tidbits of a post and try to make it seem like something a mafia would say (sometimes even extrapolating to create an even less believable post, you being the repeat offender of this one) ? i was wrong in my response to evulrabbitz or what is this about? | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 17 2012 07:30 tube wrote:Also, if you think putting words into people's mouths is suspicious, take a look at JingleHell's early posts against me that sparked the entire bandwagon. He does it multiple times by saying that I basically said so and so and therefore was clearly playing against town. Ah, your first real post of the game - congrats! There is a difference in the two, though. Jingle (and others) have made you talk. Discussion has been generated and you are using punctuation and sentences now. iamperfection came in, dropped a rash accusation, and disappeared. No discussion, no benefit to the town. Different, no? | ||
| ||
