EPTRight? I guess we can run all the way up to the deadline before lynching, but if that's a bad time for folks then we can sort of shift around the time we're trying to get majority votes in.
GSL Open Mini Mafia II
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
Right? I guess we can run all the way up to the deadline before lynching, but if that's a bad time for folks then we can sort of shift around the time we're trying to get majority votes in. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
| ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
Small mini, and we're going to have to work to keep things active and make sure everyone is involved. I don't think we need some kind of warning requirement before hammering, because everyone needs to be active and you shouldn't be waiting until you might or might not get hammered to speak up and make a defense or actually post. Everyone should be on notice from D1 that we're instant majority, just like you signed up for, and you need to actually participate. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 26 2012 11:29 strongandbig wrote: it's not a discussion starter. it's a gambit. find palmar's post on it. it only works if at least a few townies go along with it though. anyway austin all that stuff you said was reasonable but not helpful. what is your opinion on that statement. I know that post from iGrok's game. But it "working" is it generating discussion, you get people talking about the random lynch. It's kind of worn now though, and I don't even think it's a great thing to suggest when we're instant majority (voting system puts a lot of responsibility on some votes, random lynching removes all responsibility). I'd prefer that random lynching be put aside. If we want to talk setup, we could do something more productive, like see if we've got a time EVERYONE can be active. I'm usually on and semi-active from...8:30 EDT until about 5:00 EDT, unless busy at work. Active some evenings from about 5:30 EDT onwards, but can't promise to be around every night. Can everyone give a rough idea of the time they're usually most active in? If we don't have a time period that works for everyone, we're going to need to nail down how we want to deal with having ... almost effectively two (or more) towns that are active at different points. On September 26 2012 18:24 phagga wrote: The bolded part is a good setup for scum to hammer a townie without warning. Are you scum, austin? Nope. Moreover it's equally useful for a townie to hammer a scum without warning? A townie to hammer a townie? I don't know everyone's scum play here, but I'd imagine we have a few who blend in and try not to stick out. Hammering someone makes you stick out. Hammering someone with no warning whatsoever makes you stick out. If scum want to stick out and be visible, I don't have a problem with that. We've got 9 players. We've got a couple different timezones represented. We can't be waiting for someone to have hammer-1 votes and then ask them to pick things up at that point. The time zone thing is really going to affect our ability to build votes on players and find a time where the majority of thread could even be around to hear someone try and defend themselves. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 26 2012 17:23 Sinensis wrote: I've been thinking of Boxer as a mayor type role. Claiming Day 1 is bad cause then Boxer probably dies night 1 and ESPORTS along with it. It's better to save it for later in the game when we're in a pinch. Actually, I think this could be a nice point to get some discussion. Boxer claims. Need to go read GSL 1 to see how they played out that game if the setup rolled Boxer(s). Sinensis can you pin down "later" to something more specific and give your thought process on why you'd want later claims? | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 26 2012 21:58 austinmcc wrote: Nope. Moreover it's equally useful for a townie to hammer a scum without warning? A townie to hammer a townie? I don't know everyone's scum play here, but I'd imagine we have a few who blend in and try not to stick out. Hammering someone makes you stick out. Hammering someone with no warning whatsoever makes you stick out. If scum want to stick out and be visible, I don't have a problem with that. Are you actually worried about scum hammering townies without warning? Do you think it likely that townies would hammer someone without warning? | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 26 2012 23:10 Ottoxlol wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 26 2012 22:27 phagga wrote: I don't see how discussing time zones or activity times is gonna bring us anywhere. just check the timezone of everyone and note it down, I'm even gonna help with you that (because I already made it for myself): 1) ShiaoPi (Taiwan) 2) Bluelightz (Indonesia) 3) iamperfection (US) 4) austinmcc (US) 5) strongandbig (US) 6) Ottoxlol (Unknown) 7) thrawn2112 (US) 8) Sinensis (US) 9) Phagga (Switzerland) Further discussing this topic only gives scum the possibility to appear active without contributing. I agree with Sinensis that Boxers should not claim early. Boxers claiming only gives good targets to scum (as Sinensis explained), gives scum more knowledge about the setup and gives town the amount of blues with powers, which is all bad. Town should not rely on blues to scum hunt anyway, so not knowing if there are any blues to help is preferable. I'm EU, but on somewhat closer to us sleeping schedule fyi. I think we should give reasonable time for discussion to flow before lynching, we have 72 hours, fast lynching mostly favors scum in the beginning imo. s&b, Why would scum freak out with random lynch? Sorry if I interpret random lynch in a different way, but that would give them a free pass to vote without any reasoning. austin: Why would a Boxer claim be any good for town atm? I don't think it would atm. I didn't advocate a D1 claim. It's not an IC role since there's no mod-confirmation, but I hope that if we've got a boxer it's not something that gets claimed only in case of mislynch. Depending on how our lynches go, there's some value to just claiming it D2 or D3 and giving us a little insight into the setup, a possible confirmed townie, etc. Before anyone says Boxer claims give scum insight into the setup, they already have way more than we do. They know whether or not they have an RB, so for scum, this setup is a random role between only TWO options (either the two RB options or the two non-RB options). Town has no knowledge like that at this point. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 27 2012 04:42 Sinensis wrote: SNIPPED This is the other post I got a red flag from and that's because I personally don't believe it's worth it for Boxer to claim D2 or D3 for no reason. Hypothetical situations if Boxer claims: The best that could happen is that we luckily have a medic, Boxer is safe, and there is no role blocker leaving us with a confirmed townie; there is a 33% chance of this outcome. The other possibility is that there isn't a medic and Boxer(s) are vulnerable; there is a 66% chance of this outcome. All things considered I think if Boxer is among us he needs to stay anonymous until he can save himself/someone else by claiming. I know I mentioned earlier this game having value in "confirmed townie," but the more I think about it, the less I like that and the less value I see in boxer claims at...any time? Is a boxer claim really going to save someone? It's the easiest fakeclaim in the world, "Guys I'm blue but can't do anything so there's no actions you can confirm." "Guys I know that other guy also claimed boxer, maybe we're in the 2-boxer setup." I guess we'll see how this plays out, but now the whole claiming boxer thing feels weaker at any point in time. It's essentially claiming "Guys I'm town" except with the potential to give town some info about the setup? You suggest that a claim would be best in the setup with a medic who can keep Boxer "safe." But do we care if a/the boxer(s) die, moreso than we care about a VT dying? | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 28 2012 00:33 phagga wrote: @austinmc, you have only been talking setup so far. Any thoughts on iamps vote on thrawn? Any thoughts on other players? iamperfection's vote reads town to me. Not because of the reasoning behind it (drawing connections at this point is not particularly helpful, but doesn't really serve to do anything scummy either), but because it's time to start taking stances and getting votes out. If we're not getting a lot of discussion and action out of nowhere, then starting to drop votes may help push that along, which would be pro-town. On September 28 2012 00:26 Ottoxlol wrote: I am suspicious about SnB mainly because he still did not answer why would scum freak out at random lynch. Maybe I am wrong but I asked him to explain it to me: I see random lynch as an advantage of scum and he suggested it in the first place. I still feel the whole random lynch discussion "is dumb." People know the intent behind it now and, as explained in iGrok's mafia, it's really only a tool that you can use without explaining your intentions. The usefulness of the suggestion diminishes if people know that you're most likely suggesting a random lynch for discussion. That does a couple things for me. It makes me disagree with Ottox here, because answering why you support a random lynch undermines the suggestion's usefulness (if it has any). So I don't care that SnB didn't answer certain questions early. I disagree with SnB's statement that a random lynch suggestion might make scum nervous (it shouldn't be making anybody do anything right now, at least not on TL mafia), but that doesn't tell me about SnB's alignment. This post On September 27 2012 22:02 Ottoxlol wrote: I don't understand this one, its the same as SnB, you had 3 posts before this one, one is a question, the other 2 are excuses. How can you call out others on things you do as well? is my least favorite of the thread so far. How can you call out others on things you do as well? is a poor response. Thrawn already noted that On September 27 2012 22:55 thrawn2112 wrote: Just because something is hypocritical doesn't mean that it's invalid. But it's even more than that. Bluelightz just drops an FoS on Ottoxlol, and one on me as well. Ottoxlol's only complaint is that other people can be accused for the same reasoning. Which is fine, but absolutely not helpful. Other people doing the same thing gives us nothing. Why is that okay? Why aren't we ALL scummy for doing that same thing? Just because a bunch of people are sucking doesn't mean it isn't justified to call one or two people out on sucking. Bluelightz then votes Ottox, and we get this post: On September 28 2012 00:15 Ottoxlol wrote: A couple things here.+ Show Spoiler + On September 27 2012 23:56 Bluelightz wrote: Are you just dodging my question? Oh, ##Vote: Ottoxlol. Proper defense please. Did you answer to that post? No. Who is dodging what then? I don't feel like there have been anything to take a stance on, random lynch was stupid, there was talk about Boxers claiming that was stupid too. I don't think that the way is to pick someone at random (me) then start voting because I did not hunt scum/ post a lot, meanwhile SnB, Bluelight, iamperfection, SInensis, phagga or austin posted similar to me in quality and quantity. I don't see why is it ok to vote for someone because he's just asking questions and has nothing new to add in the beginning but if it is so please I ask it again, SnB and Bluelight why would you vote me over the others?
So, ##Vote: Ottoxlol If he's so concerned with why he's being voted instead of half of town, then he needs to separate himself from half of town. Instead, he's going to On September 28 2012 00:32 Ottoxlol wrote: I will wait for him to post, then we will see wait for SnB to post some answer. Waiting for an answer is a bad course of action, especially with our start so far. Waiting for an answer from ONE PERSON is a bad course of action. Ottox seems to be saying that if SnB gives a certain answer, he'll get a vote. If he gives another answer then...he won't? And Ottox is just fine to do nothing and wait until that happens. No good. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
In terms of his actual filter, I find this curious: On September 27 2012 09:10 ShiaoPi wrote: Sinensis Also why did you call out austin for saying the random lynch idea is "stupid"? Iamperfection said it too, I did as well. So why do you FoS austin? Only for the Boxer thing? If so that would come down to personal belief as I think there would also be a time when a Boxer claim might be useful for town. Sinensis's response On September 27 2012 10:50 Sinensis wrote: This is what I said about austinmcc reguarding "Random lynch still dumb.": I don't know if I can explain myself any more clearly than that. The reason I didn't pressure you about it is because you did exactly what I did, you asked SnB to explain himself and he did. That made you look like you had a town agenda. But here's ShiaoPi's post about RNG lynch. On September 26 2012 22:52 ShiaoPi wrote: Well that was a quick read. Some thoughts in no particular order first: -random lynch is stupid. no need to discuss it imo ... Now some directed stuff: @SnB: Why did you suggest random lynch? I do not want to hear why Palmar does it in whatever other game he played. I am interested in your arguments. ... The rest of ShiaoPi's post there had nothing to do with his thoughts on RNG lynch. I don't care if Sinensis wants to call me out for saying random lynch is dumb and not explaining why I think so. But ShiaoPi's comment was "random lynch is stupid. no need to discuss it imo" and Sinensis thinks The reason I didn't pressure you about it is because you did exactly what I did, you asked SnB to explain himself and he did. If I'm FoSed for calling a random lynch dumb and shutting down discussion, I find it odd that ShiaoPi wouldn't be for doing the same thing. Yes, he asks SnB to give his own reasoning for supporting the lynch, but...there's still an explicit statement that the possibility of a random lynch doesn't need to be discussed and that it's "stupid." So Sinensis, two things. Do you have any thoughts on other players at this point? You've been really me-centric in most of your posts. If calling something dumb and shutting down discussion is scummy, what do you make of ShiaoPi's comments there? While he does seek answers from SnB, he also explicitly states that RNG lynch merits no discussion? | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
iamperfection, why should I vote for Thrawn over other players here? Why is he scummy, beyond him spouting off some association junk? Is doing that really more scummy than anything anyone else is doing? ShiaoPi, I'm interested in the answer to this: On September 27 2012 23:43 thrawn2112 wrote: You say there's not enough in my posts that are scum motivated for you to vote for me, so obviously you must think some things look scum motivated. What looks scummy? strongandbig, do you maek thinks on things? There's not much to go on, but I've got you as relatively townie so far. I just misread you under the same circumstances (low post count, general townie feel to posts), so I'd like to see some more thoughts from you. Can you give some more thoughts on Ottoxlol? Am I scummy for not posting a billion things? | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 28 2012 04:42 Sinensis wrote: @Austinmcc: This is the second time I've posted this, I'm voting for you until I get a response. In my FoS post against you I pointed this out. This post implies you don't mind the last person to vote hammer voting. Most of us have expressed we are against this because all it does is cut discussion short. I am against it and I think your reasoning parallels "too scummy to be scum" logic. You still haven't responded to my criticism about this. ##Vote: Austinmcc SOMEONE is going to be the hammer vote. In every vote. It's going to happen. Being the hammer vote with no reasoning given is going to stick out and make you look quite bad. Maybe I have more faith in TL towns, but I'd assume at least SOME reasoning is going to be given with a vote. Giving no reason in a full-size majority extended lynch often raises eyebrows and is frowned upon. Giving no reason for a vote in a mini this small when you hammer someone would raise all eyebrows. So ... I'm not worried about people hammering with no reasoning. They're going to stick out. They're going to get scrutinized. Yes, it would cut discussion short. But I don't think anyone is realistically just going to pop in and drop a hammer vote with no reasoning. Maybe someone will prove me wrong about that. But until then, I'll have faith in my fellow townies and assume it's not going to happen. Why should I be worried, then, about hammer votes with no reasoning? No townie should be doing that, period. So it's the exact opposite of "too scummy to be scum." It's "hammer voting with no reasoning is so scummy you're scum." That's why I don't care if someone does it. Because anyone doing it is basically claiming scum, and everyone in both alignments should know that. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 28 2012 04:57 Sinensis wrote: So lets say someone hammer votes today with no explanation. Are you going to vote for them tomorrow? "hammer voting with no reasoning is so scummy you're scum" is hyperbole. But it's NOT a good indicator of towniness. It's more than enough reason to really scrutinize someone, and poke at them pretty hard. I'm still unconvinced that this is actually going to be a problem. Have faith. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 28 2012 05:03 Sinensis wrote: That was a yes or no question. Not a dodge with short answer and claim none of this matters question. Then no. So scummy you have to be scum is hyperbole, it's not guaranteed to garner a vote. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 28 2012 05:34 Ottoxlol wrote: So you see, then I wasnt entirely clear with my defense, its not about "why didnt you guys choose someone else, don't kill me", its more about TELL ME why did you choose me over the others. That is not a defense. That is you requesting that we give you more information. You may think you need that information in order to mount a defense (I don't know what I'm being accused of, so I can't respond), but that doesn't quite fit with "All these other people are doing the same thing/being scummy" because you're basically saying "We all look bad," which is absolutely not a defense...it's an admission that you don't look good followed by nothing to make you look good. Especially when you don't give any particulars and you're just content to summarily state that many others are acting similarly. The way in which you "defended" yourself a is a lot of what looks off about you, because you're just casting a little bit of doubt on most of the thread in what you're doing, rather than pointing out what you've done that's not scummy, or going and making a case on someone that you DO find scummy. Nor do any of the other people on the list seem to be waiting around for one player to comment on one thing so that they can do anything. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
| ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
There'd be some outside random generator. Palmar, when actually suggesting this, had a site set up. Based on the time, it kicked out a name at random, iirc. Everyone could go to the site at x time, and whoever it picked at that time would be the lynch. Nobody had to report in anything special, you couldn't game the system by going to an RNG website and just roll 30 or 40 lynches and post a screenshot of whatever one you liked best. It was verifiable by everyone in the game because they could check the site at x time, but wasn't controlled by anyone in game, so you knew it was actually popping up a random name. On D1, as far as I can tell, scum usually can get themselves better odds on not getting lynched than pure chance gives. In that case, a random lynch is scary because they can't plan for out, can't get out from under it, and don't have any control over the situation. Town's just gonna kill someone and it's got a whatever out of whatever chance of being scum. I'll look over things again tomorrow morning and make sure, specifically check some other games of Ottox, but right now I don't think he's scum. Going to unvote for now, and will find a new target unless his past games give me a bad feeling. The entire lack of a defense and lack of any effort at actually putting one up doesn't feel scummy to me. Other thoughts on that? I've had that feeling all afternoon, but was hoping maybe there would be more action created, votes or unvotes, or other candidates filtering up. It didn't generate too much, but oh well. ##Unvote | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 28 2012 07:50 strongandbig wrote: There's a higher chance that they get lynched that way on day 1 and if they get chosen their partners can't save them. It's an unexpected and unpredictable situation where they have to react quickly. On September 28 2012 08:34 Ottoxlol wrote: @SnB then I don't understand random lynch at all. I thought it is like we go to a random website roll 1-8 then put our votes in-> ofc scum wont do it properly so there is much less chance to lynch them On September 28 2012 10:58 Ottoxlol wrote: As you can see I am already concerned with that I am not sure if I understand random lynch and that I don't like it if its the way I think it is. This was my 5th post. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On June 11 2012 04:09 Palmar wrote: Anyway, I've thrown the site up, http://palmar.org/mafia/random.txt it's not set to autorefresh, so to get the latest result you need to refresh the page. Every minute crontab will run this script: cat /var/www/mafia/playerlist.txt | sort -R | cut -f2- > /var/www/mafia/random.txt And that's the result you're seeing on the page. Now just screenshot at random pre-determined time, and voila. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On September 28 2012 12:01 Bluelightz wrote: austin, would you kindly respond to my accusation? Sure. On September 28 2012 00:42 Bluelightz wrote: My stance for today: austinmcc, because his post's are about hammering/setup, and only about hammering/setup, he hasn't attempted any scum-hunting at all, which is scummy because discussing about hammer/setup brings us no closer to victory. As well as, in his most recent game - Rockband Mini Mafia - he atleast already had suspicions on someone, not like here, when it's already 48 hours and more into the game. ##Vote: austinmcc This bit? I know I was also FoSed in a post with ottox and I, but it seemed like that was for mostly the same reasoning. I don't take issue with what you're saying. Like...I can't refute that I was not doing other things. Nor did any of that discussion end up as a jumping off point to any activity. Rockband and this have been different games. There we had early movement and activity, gave me lots to look through. Here not so much. I've been poking around some today, and will be tomorrow. It's up to you to determine whether you find it scummy that I've been more active recently or not (I would suggest a town read, but ymmv). | ||
| ||
