EPT
/in
Newbie Mini Mafia XXVIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
/in | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
It takes #/2 rounded up votes to lynch somebody. In case of a tie, the person who got there first gets the prize. Mathematically, this means that with 12 players, you only need 6 votes to lynch someone since you do not round whole numbers, only fractions. Is that the rule's intent?I'm suspecting that the rule is implying a majority lynch based on the "rounded up" statement. Given my suspicion is correct, the formula should be either ((#/2)+1) rounded down, or ((#+1)/2) rounded up. Those formulae all require more than half the votes in order to lynch someone, so as to define a majority. F.ex. 7 votes with 12 players, 6 votes with 10-11 players, 5 votes with 8-9 players, etc. /end math nitpick. (I'm suspecting this is because you game hosts are all copy/pasting the rules from a template somewhere, a template that is in itself ambigous). Edit: Although I suppose that's why you added the "in the case of a tie" part. Which would make my suspicions incorrect and my argument pretty silly. So if that's the case, just ignore me! Edit2: On the other hand, using the rule as suggested in the OP could lead to a scenario where a day starts with 3 scum and 3 town, where the only way for town to win is to "instavote" a mafia member(and where mafia can do the same, but with the advantage of a QT during the night leading up to that scenario). Is a mafia game generally not considered over once town no longer outnumber mafia during the day? I'm not familiar enough with the reasoning for the different lynching rules, so I'm asking more out of curiosity than anything else. | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
Although to be fair, I was just extremely bored. I don't think anyone would have noticed unless that very situation came up.  | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 22 2012 07:26 thrawn2112 wrote: Obviously because that doesn't include a math formula? :Dwhat is wrong with just saying majority But to be completely honest I don't care for the required number of votes either way. Initially I just thought that the same thing had occured as in my last mafia(but in those rules there was an example that directly contradicted the rule, which made the rules hard to understand). I didn't realize that your "in the case of a tie" addendum took care of that until I had posted my initial unedited message. Then upon closer inspection I realized that the 3 vs 3 scenario would be pretty awkward, since it would allow town to win in such a scenario(which felt weird to me). I would be completely fine with the rule as initially stated, but with an addendum that town loses when they no longer outnumber scum during the day. Since having an entire 48 hour cycle just to wait for the guy that mafia voted on to get lynched would be pretty silly. One could argue that the rules suggest that scum has already won, but as stated the rules only say that scum wins when they outnumber town or nothing can prevent that from happening. With a rule like that, it becomes a race to the F5 button every new day, since there is a way to prevent mafia from outnumbering town, by all town through some miracle instantly voting a mafia member. This of course requires that all town already know during the night who the remaining mafia players are, but in such a case, the only deciding factor left in the game is which faction can the most quickly spend all their votes after the day post. Edit: Also, with the formula you have now, the "in the case of a tie" addendum is no longer needed, since there can never be a tie that could result in a lynch due to the majority requirement. I'd say "in the case of a tie" is more something akin to plurality lynch, where you don't need a majority and where ties would be more likely(due to the possibility of votes spread across more than 2 candidates). But then you'd get back to requiring a rule to prevent the silly F5 scenario I posited above. | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 22 2012 07:38 thrawn2112 wrote: Like I said, I'm bored. :Dhmm i was trying to troll prplhz and not you with that question but damn lol | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
| ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
| ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 22 2012 07:42 marvellosity wrote: That's what I was about to do! Then I found a new mafia game to distract me! I blame prpl! go make yourself useful in my obsQT xD  | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 22 2012 19:05 Blazinghand wrote: But in your second example, while C was the first one to have the exact end vote, A could have had 2 votes before him. Assuming C and E voted for A before A and B voted for C. If taking your example to the extreme case, a possible awkward scenario such as the following could happen:The rule I use in my OPs is this: Pretty unambiguous imo. I don't run plurality, but if I did I'd use this wording: Which would work pretty well. If you're not in favor of double lynching you could do this: A and B votes for C(2 votes), then C and D vote for A(2 votes), at this point C is set to be lynched. But then E could vote for C, putting him at three votes and then retract his vote, suddenly making A the one to be lynched even though nothing has really change from before E. In fact, the only thing that happened was that briefly, one more person was willing to vote for C, but instead A gets lynched? | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
Edit: And by lurkers, I mean people lurking through reading, not people who plan on lurking while in-game! | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 26 2012 15:55 DarthPunk wrote: That would be all well and good if I could actually find it!Blazinghand wrote an AMAZING guide also. You should all Definitely check it out. Got a link? :p | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
Thanks! | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
So in any case, I'm Alsn, I like logic. My previous mafia games so far amount to a single one, a game where I was NKd N1 as Vanilla Townie. My filter for that game can be found here. Other than that I have only ever played SC2 Mafia in any significant amounts(a game while using the same core rules, plays extremely different due to the time constraints and limits on discussion). If you are interested, I was also active in the /obs QT discussion of NMMXXVII which can be found here. So, with that out of the way, I read the first few posts and saw that this game continues the trend of lurker policy lynching. I agree that there needs to be pressure on scum to actually post, since without scum posts to analyse all the scumhunting in the world will almost certainly only turn up townies(due to lurkers generally being null reads). That said, I followed Tl Mafia LVII wherein there was a lot of discussion about lynching "trolly meta" players and I would like to take that one step further. Kush, while I realize that you have a posting style which by its nature is very confrontational and inflammatory, I feel that unless you actually provide some concrete analysis without using almost purely OMGUS argumentation that it is in town's best interest to just straight up lynch you right away. Simply put, unless your cases actually provide substance then I think you will just be a late game liability for town, mostly giving everyone a null read and potentially forcing people to make a town or scum read on you without having much of an idea what you are. So to sum up, kush, I can definitely forgive you for your "style" of posting but I will not under any circumstance forgive you for posting shitty content, just like I will not forgive anyone else for doing so either. Understand that I'm not singling you out as a target, I'm using your history as an example for what I consider scummy play. Now, on to actually read the thread and see if I can respond to something. | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
FoS kushm4sta kush, in order for me to let up, I want you to stop it with your ridiculous knee-jerk play and actually point out why you think other people are scummy as opposed to why you yourself is so obviously town. While the following idiom is quite ironic in a forum game, actions speak louder than words and you defending yourself is just that, meaningless words. Start proving to everyone that you are concerned with finding scum instead of worrying about your silly streak. That being said, I think everyone else is jumping the gun here, kush is an extremely easy target to pick on, especially since he almost never seems to think before he posts. The scumslip that Darth and others pointed out can definitely be seen as damning. However, I am not inclined to agree with the following post from Darth: On September 28 2012 13:46 DarthPunk wrote:I am not flaming Kush. I am legitimately scum hunting. The contrast in this situation, to the one with shiao, are so stark that there is no point even bringing it up. You will know when I am flaming when you see it, and even then it is not really that big a scum tell. I can tell the difference between Scummy town and actual scum, and it is not 'illogical' to be able to do this. Kush right now is not scummy town. He has slipped HUGELY. He is conforming to his previous scum meta. Seriously... There is no explanation for his town read on me. The only reason he would say that is if he was scum. This last part seems to overly simplify the matter to me. The only reason? I myself can see a few reasons, but I would like kush to reply himself before I comment further as I don't want to give him an easy out. I can state for the record that unless kush shapes up considerably, I'm all in favour of lynching him. Simply because him playing like his normal self would be a liability for town later on due to his inclination to just defend himself over hunting scum. However, I definitely want to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him to actually try and show that he has town's best interest in mind. So until then, while I definitely would like everyone to share their reads on kush so far, that is not enough for D1. We need to start exploring different possibilities because if we decide to lynch kush and he flips green, spending all of D1 talking about him will put us back at square one minus two townies. I'll make another post within an hour or two on another topic as I think I've made myself perfectly clear on where I stand on kush, but right now I need breakfast. | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 28 2012 15:36 Z-BosoN wrote: I don't care who you've played with. You make it a point to say your view on lurkers. You defend him for absolutely no reason, when his views implicitly contradict yours. If you were townie, I wouldn't think this to be a priority for you. I am not focused on lurker discussion, I am focused on the inconsistency you've presented. The issue of "Lurker policy" is not what is at hand. The issue at hand is why you are bothering to defend him (and now kush) instead of letting them defend themselves. It feels extremely forced right now, as townies are supposedly scouring the thread for blood. That's why the FOS. Regarding your "case", it seems to me like the only think you've got going is my general usefulness. And I already said it in form of a question, but now I'll answer it more bluntly so you can't dismiss it: I am instigating discussion. Read all my posts and see if that's what I'm trying to accomplish. Z-BosoN, you say you are instigating discussion, yet you attack debears for sharing his views on your attack against SDM? In fact, you go as far as to say that debears is in the wrong for even joining the discussion? I find his concerns quite legitimate since your attack on SDM's introduction post seem quite forced to me. Thus I can perfectly understand how he would call you out for it, yet you explain yourself with an inconsistency? Even worse, you are essentially encouraging a player to not say anything at all on a subject while that's actually very good for town! Debears defending someone - and I'd like to state for the record that I do not agree that that was what he was doing, it seems much more to me like he was attacking you than defending SDM/kush. Him taking a stance like that is contrary to what you would like us to believe actually very pro-town, since if/when one of them flips, he is on record as saying that. Your own argument however, essentially summed up with the following lines from the post quoted above: The issue at hand is why you are bothering to defend him (and now kush) instead of letting them defend themselves. It feels extremely forced right now, as townies are supposedly scouring the thread for blood. That's why the FOS. That argument right there is what I'm talking about, you essentially say that he should have kept his mouth shut instead of calling you out, yet at the same time saying town should be out for blood, which is exactly what he has been doing in my view. So in essence, you are actually encouraging people to not chime in on things they find odd. Intentional or not, that's just very anti-town behaviour. Also, you might say that debears did the same thing I am not accusing you of in the following quote: On September 28 2012 14:43 debears wrote: The difference here is that debears is just pointing out that he thinks Darth is rushing to a conclusion and that he shouldn't tunnel vision so hard. You, Z-BosoN used the "let him defend himself!" argument almost as a way to shut debears up.@darth ... I'm not defending him as much as I'm trying to tell you that you are going overboard right now. You don't have to rush in annointing him scum. I find that very scummy, so FoS Z-BosoN. In particular, I would like you to clarify why you felt the need to bash SDM's introductory post. It does not strike me as very odd that one would like there to be more than just lurker policy to talk about after declaring that he is going to be away from the thread for quite some time(sleep + uni would probably mean something like 15+ hours). Is it so wrong to wish for there to be other things to discuss? It seems to me you are just jumping on anything you can find in order to try and look town. Give us some real analysis, give us some proper motivations behind your posting that isn't contradictory. | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 28 2012 20:13 kushm4sta wrote: Like I said, actions speak louder than words. I'm inclined to believe you if you actually start acting pro-town but if you keep prioritising your own life over the town's well being, I'll go ahead and straight up lynch you just like that.@alsn chill i will scum hunt but atm im busy defending this douchery | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 28 2012 20:54 DarthPunk wrote: That he is inconsistent and accuses people without backing it up with proper reasoning.So. Without a wall of text. What exactly is your case on Z- Boson? | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
Also, you might say that debears did the same thing I am not accusing you of in the following quote: Should obviously be: Also, you might say that debears did the same thing I am accusing you of in the following quote: | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
Summary of my case: I feel that Z-BosoN is attacking people for the sake of attacking them and in a way that seems to be discouraging healthy discussion. As pointed out by my argument he seems to want debears to just shut up and not share his thoughts. Him attacking SDM for a post obviously made just as a "Hello, let's have a nice game" type of post before heading off to bed just reinforces this idea to me that he is accusing people for dubious reasons. | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
The issue at hand is why you are bothering to defend him (and now kush) instead of letting them defend themselves. What I'm opposing here is the idea that debears did something inherently wrong in calling out Z-BosoN. It's like he's implying that SDM/kush are let off the hook by debears calling out Z-BosoN. I think Z-BosoN(or anyone else for that matter) should be perfectly capable of pointing out later that he(we) does not consider SDM/kush to be off the hook regardless of whether or not debears is accusing him of something. | ||
| ||
