EPT/in
Newbie Mini Mafia XXIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
/in | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
1. It encourages discussion, whether or not the player is scum. Discussion should be good for town. 2. Scums tend to lurk. Case in point: XIX 3. Having an inactive town around is a potential mod-kill that could mean losing the game, e.g. in LYLO. | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
| ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
Thanks for schooling me last game. Although I did point out that you didn't start the game with one of your long ass analysis on why someone is scum, until I pointed this out. And even for the rest of the game, the frequency of your long ass analysis was significantly lacking compared to the first game we played together. This time, I have my eyes on you. | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
Alright. A bit of policy talk first: Blindly doing anything is a poor decision. If we're going to catch the correct people, it has to be based on reasoning and not the potential threat of a lurker. By the end of D1, we should have some read on most of the posters. It's much smarter to make a comparatively informed decision regarding someone we have interacted with than a random selection from those who have said very little. Policy lynching is not blind. It is a tested method to encourage discussion and is generally a pro-town strategy. This is different from lynching anyone who forgets to post one day. Further, if we allow lurking - and by allowing them to live, we are allowing them to lurk - there cannot be much "reasoning" to basis your "catching the correct people" on. [quote] I think policy lynchings (or safeties) are a bad idea in general. It not only limits the amount of logical reasoning involved, but it gives scum the means of avoiding suspicion, hiding in the holes we've created for them. Force them to defend themselves and we'll force information out of them.[/quote] On the contrary, policy lynching forces people to post. And with posts, there can be discussions and logical reasoning. With lurking, these things come by scarcely. Policy lynching is not a mean to an end. It is a strategy to enrich resources that townies can use. And I experienced first hand that the experienced player(s) support policy lynching lurkers. In the long run, it can be argued that this is also beneficial to the TL mafia community as a whole. Steer the TL mafia culture, where players are expected to actively participate. [quote] I think it's best if we avoid short claims like this without elaboration. Is the scumslip supposed to be that they both defended Golbat when Lvdr spread incorrect information? Or is it the spreading of information that is questionable? I could see arguments for both. Though it may be my inexperience showing a bit, this post seemed vague and despite your request for discussion only led to my confusion. Why call for discussion and then not clarify your own position? In this situation, Golbat seems to be simply defending himself from an accusation while Hapahauli was correcting misinformation. As for Lvdr, I don't think a mistake like this is enough to peg him as scum. If he makes a similarly misinformed statement later it would arouse my suspicions, but for now I'm considering him just about equal with everyone else.[/QUOTE] Your rest of the posts... there are way too many conditionals and wishy washy stuff. You see arguments for boht. You think your inexperience may be what's causing you to be wrong in your judgment. All to end in a wishy washy conclusiong - Lvdr is just as scummy as everyone else. Vote mkfuba [/b] | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
| ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
Vote Promo | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
On August 06 2012 18:54 Promethelax wrote: I'm pretty sure this post is a joke but this does not show a town mentality ##FoS: that dude, Harry or whatever + Show Spoiler + I'm high as balls. I don't know how much of this makes sense. If you need a translator ask tomorrow This is scummy. Discuss. | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
mkfuba wrote: If they're both equally scummy, then wouldn't there be an equal chance of each being mafia? In that case wouldn't we gain more information from the flip of an active player than an inactive one? We keep going around in circles. The point is that by carrying out policy lynches, we will get active participation from all players. Thus, the goal is force everyone to be active. It is true that we may be able to gather more evidence from a flip of an active player, but especially in the beginning of the day, that also means that we have to forgo subsequent discussions by lynching an active player. Dandel Ion wrote: Why would you ever do that? Fix you post in an EBWOP instead. Now you come across as wanting town to have more work with analyzing you (seems pretty scummy to me), and also like a moron (not helpful for town in any way). I'd like to know what you were thinking there, just for reference. The reason why I didn't fix was because the post was still readable, and being unable to make edits meant that I have to make a duplicate post with no additional info. But I agree with you that I should have done that anyway. I should also use the preview function. | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
On August 06 2012 11:30 mkfuba07 wrote: Alright. A bit of policy talk first: Blindly doing anything is a poor decision. If we're going to catch the correct people, it has to be based on reasoning and not the potential threat of a lurker. By the end of D1, we should have some read on most of the posters. It's much smarter to make a comparatively informed decision regarding someone we have interacted with than a random selection from those who have said very little. Policy lynching is not blind. It is a tested method to encourage discussion and is generally a pro-town strategy. This is different from lynching anyone who forgets to post one day. Further, if we allow lurking - and by allowing them to live, we are allowing them to lurk - there cannot be much "reasoning" to basis your "catching the correct people" on. I think policy lynchings (or safeties) are a bad idea in general. It not only limits the amount of logical reasoning involved, but it gives scum the means of avoiding suspicion, hiding in the holes we've created for them. Force them to defend themselves and we'll force information out of them. On the contrary, policy lynching forces people to post. And with posts, there can be discussions and logical reasoning. With lurking, these things come by scarcely. Policy lynching is not a mean to an end. It is a strategy to enrich resources that townies can use. And I experienced first hand that the experienced player(s) support policy lynching lurkers. In the long run, it can be argued that this is also beneficial to the TL mafia community as a whole. Steer the TL mafia culture, where players are expected to actively participate. I think it's best if we avoid short claims like this without elaboration. Is the scumslip supposed to be that they both defended Golbat when Lvdr spread incorrect information? Or is it the spreading of information that is questionable? I could see arguments for both. Though it may be my inexperience showing a bit, this post seemed vague and despite your request for discussion only led to my confusion. Why call for discussion and then not clarify your own position? In this situation, Golbat seems to be simply defending himself from an accusation while Hapahauli was correcting misinformation. As for Lvdr, I don't think a mistake like this is enough to peg him as scum. If he makes a similarly misinformed statement later it would arouse my suspicions, but for now I'm considering him just about equal with everyone else. Your rest of the posts... there are way too many conditionals and wishy washy stuff. You see arguments for boht. You think your inexperience may be what's causing you to be wrong in your judgment. All to end in a wishy washy conclusiong - Lvdr is just as scummy as everyone else. Vote mkfuba | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
On August 06 2012 22:44 iamperfection wrote: Care to enlighten us on why? Also you didnt vote right. He is sure that my post was a joke, but still suspects that I am scum at the same time. Scum Harry may intentionally mess up the quotes to make it more difficult for town, in which case I won't be joking. Town Harry would accidentally mess up the quotes and joke about not fixing the quotes. So it seems to be a forced argument to show commitment and throw fake "reads" out there. This is scummy because scums have harder time coming up with genuine reads because they have to build a case on someone they know is town. | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
##Unvote ##Vote Promo | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
| ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
I usually maintain that logical flaws is not a scum tell, because townies also make mistakes. But when the mistakes are borderline unreasonable, it is difficult for me to accept that such townie making the mistake is doing it because he is being forced to make a case against someone. | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
By the way, I encourage everyone to start voting more. FOS is OK but voting is more active way to incite discussion. Especially, early in the day, this is a good idea. Also, it's easier to keep track of who was voting who when we look back at earlier day. With alignments of players become known, being able to analyze who had their votes on which players is helpful. And it's not like we are stuck with the people we vote. | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
| ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
On August 07 2012 09:35 Dandel Ion wrote: You start off with the unreadable post, instead of fixing it you make a joke. Yes that point is old, and we've been over it already. Then you vote without giving a reason: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=355874¤tpage=9#169 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=355874¤tpage=9#170 Just to jump onto somebody else right after (note that none of either players you accuse have posted inbetween): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=355874¤tpage=9#174 Both players have also FoS'd you before that, so you respond by voting for them. When pointed out by the powers that be that you are voting wrong, you go back to voting Promethelax instead http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=355874¤tpage=9#177 I'd like for you to make sense of that, for I cannot. Your play is confusing to me, because as town, I don't see why you'd do that. That's how I play. When I make a read, I post it. Sometimes I ask others to guess the reasons behind my vote. And sometimes, reasons behind my suspicions can seem trivial, especially in the beginning of the day. And as Hapha pointed out, I throw in different theories out there and see what people think of them and which one sticks. And they do a good job generating plenty of discussions early in the day. To be fair though, the second link referenced by "Just to jump onto somebody else right after" was actually me fixing my previous post regarding my suspicion on mkfuba. I guess that means you didn't read my original "messed" up post, because the contents were identical. And it seems that iamperfection seems to be blaming me for us losing the XXI game. I admit that I did not have a very good track record in voting or even in my reads that game. Though, I did suspect that calgar that game was town, which basically got ignored, understandably. I got some coaching though, and I think I am improving. You may disagree, but let's see how I do this game. I have a confidence in myself this game. Just trust me  | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
In the course of less than a day, it is interesting to note that I went from the most obvious scum reads to town reads. I think we agree that it is scums are inherently motivated to jump on the easy target, that I was. People who were on my initial badnwagon were: iamperfection, mkfuba, lvdr, and dandel ion. I also think that scums are likely to quickly jump off the wagon once it becomes apparent that the wagon is not going anywhere. In this respect, iamperfection has been steady in his suspicion of me, even amidst of counter accusations from Hapha and others because his willingness to lynch me day 1. (Though, it could be argued that he didn't have much choice because suddenly changing his stance may make him suspicious). The most interesting thing during this "Harry is scum" to "Harry town development" was Lvdr's quick change of stance against me. While iamperfection was under heavy attacks from multiple players, Lvdr avoided much attention. Instead, Lvdr witnessed much dismay fall onto iamperfection's for trying to lynch me for being a "bad" player. I guess this must have intimidated Lvdr, because his stance suddenly changed from reading me as scummy to town. If you remember, even when Lvdr was initially attacking me, my meta reads based on my last game - that I play incoherently as town - was already available to Lvdr (via Hapha). What I find more amusing is the fact that Lvdr says two contradictory things in the span of two posts (15 minutes) regarding his reads on me: For the record, YH and golbat are likely townie reads in my opinion. Golbat is average suspicion, and YH is inscrutable. In summary, Lvdr's initial jumping on the YH bandwagon and his sudden change in his stance against me, when the meta information was already available at the time of his initial suspicion, makes him scummy. His lack of consistency in the recent posts, without much reasoning, also makes him a likely scum candidate flailing under pressure when Hapha and iamperfection had asked him to explain his reads. ##Unvote ##Vote Lvdr | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
| ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
Sorry if this post seems like I am casting doubt on coaches' integrity or competence. I really am not. I just want to eliminate any cause for possible doubt at the end of the game. If mods and the coaches don't think this concern is trivial, I am OK with it. After all, it is just a game. However, being able to go to either town or scum coaches for advice without having to reveal their role, I think, could be a small but nice modification to the rule of this game. | ||
| ||
