EPTLooney Lynching Mini Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
| ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 07 2012 02:07 marvellosity wrote: ET signs up and he's the last one, typical don't worry, I'm here to play  | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 08 2012 07:40 marvellosity wrote: eh, i meant i wanted to play with you ^^ oh I thought you were signed up already lol | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
I agree with what Sandroba has been saying thus far. While I see the sensibility of HiroPro's plan (everyone votes on each matchup, 1 vote max), there are a few issues with it (which sandroba has stated somewhat). 1. It gives "credibility" to people who are knocked out early, while not forcing them to do anything significant. A good good good example of this problem was in Liar Game 1. Basically half of the people were immune to the lynch depending on a Yes or No vote; while town tried to make the immune people accountable for their actions, because they have no fear of the lynch they really have no pressure on them to do anything at all. A hilarious example is sandroba himself; despite being widely called scum since D1, because he was immune to lynch through flukes, he stayed alive for days manipulating people here and there. If we force everyone to vote on everything, the knocked out people can make random reasons for their votes and look active. However, if we don't force everyone to vote on everything, knocked out people will have to talk about things on their own prerogative, exposing their true intentions. 2. It will lead to a bunch of laundry lists of "analysis" which doesn't help anything. If people have to vote on 7+ matchups, while it will put a bunch of content into the thread, it gives an easy out for mafia to look "active". All they have to do is say something like "I like persons X, Y, and Z because of yada yada yada. I don't like person M because he only voted for 4 matchups! What's he hiding??". Basically, this plan would put a huge flood of info without much actual substance. 3. This diffuses the town's vote, making it easier for scum to do as they please. Remember, the vote is the town's strongest tool; we out number mafia's votes 9x. However if townsfolk are forced to only have one vote per matchup, then if they see someone they really think is scummy, they won't be "allowed" to stack more votes on them because of this limitation. Overall, while I do like the initiative to give structure to the voting process, ultimately I think it does more harm than good. What should happen is standard, good old fashioned scum-hunting; people should just up and state who they think is scum and put their votes to back it up. Speaking of which: On October 10 2012 11:07 Hopeless1der wrote: I am unfamiliar with this policy. Please elaborate. Please feel free to pay more attention when reading. Thanks. Please feel free to post things of substance. You're being needlessly dismissive, which is strange because 1. it's very early in the game, people ask questions 2. you haven't done anything, so to put down someone else just feels off. It's been a decent amount of time in the game and you've shown that you're available; why not comment on the setup at all? I don't want you having a free pass for the rest of this tourny; I want to see you talk more. Hopeless1der 2x | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 10 2012 12:18 austinmcc wrote: Gonna drop in to start being a good little paranoid townie. I could easily see there being a role in the game that can influence lynches. Vote stealing, doublevoting, or a mechanic that interacts with lynches in some other way. I don't want to go with any kind of plan that relies on the slimmest possible margin, and would rather us have a little wiggle room to ensure that things proceed as we want them to. Please talk more, you are good player, which makes this floater post suspect; I expect substance from you ^^ | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
Is the ratio of town:mafia known, or unknown? | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 10 2012 13:12 sandroba wrote: k, then we can do one vote per match up. Or I could suggest even better, so you are more accountable for each vote you cast. You don't have to vote for each match up, but you may only cast ONE vote in each match up. What do you think about that? I think this way is harder to blend in, because you can't justify your vote as "I have to decide between these 2". Each vote you cast you must have a reasoning behind it, but you can't cast multiple votes in one round and manipulate the results too much. That way we can observe who is interested in the lynch and give more weight to the reasons behind each vote. Elaborate why only one vote per matchup is better than variable votes? I definitely agree with not forcing everyone to vote for every matchup, but I don't exactly see why not allowing people to use all their votes is beneficial. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 10 2012 20:21 thrawn2112 wrote: I think he was saying that he's not going to actually vote until he's figured out exactly how he wants to spend all of his votes. The reasoning being that it'll make it easier on the cohosts. That's a nice sentiment and all and no offense to the mods, but that statement did sound a little scummy. But did you think it looked scummy? I'm not changing my 2 votes from 1der unless something absolutely crazy happens (which it won't); I'm only not putting my votes down now for formatting reasons, nothing more. I do admit it looks strange, if you want to call me scum for that then whatever; the following things I'm going to mention is complete bullcrap in comparison. On October 10 2012 20:54 thrawn2112 wrote: That's the only part of it that makes me suspicious of ET. Asking for a specific scum/town ratio is stupid because a mod will never give you the answer so it doesn't seem like a question someone would ask unless they have ulterior motives behind asking the question. Asking for a scum/town ratio is not stupid, tyvm. It's common even in closed setups for the specific ratio to be known; I've only played in one game where this isn't the case. On October 10 2012 20:30 Mementoss wrote: + Show Spoiler + On October 10 2012 14:27 EchelonTee wrote: Hey guys, been a while. I agree with what Sandroba has been saying thus far. While I see the sensibility of HiroPro's plan (everyone votes on each matchup, 1 vote max), there are a few issues with it (which sandroba has stated somewhat). 1. It gives "credibility" to people who are knocked out early, while not forcing them to do anything significant. A good good good example of this problem was in Liar Game 1. Basically half of the people were immune to the lynch depending on a Yes or No vote; while town tried to make the immune people accountable for their actions, because they have no fear of the lynch they really have no pressure on them to do anything at all. A hilarious example is sandroba himself; despite being widely called scum since D1, because he was immune to lynch through flukes, he stayed alive for days manipulating people here and there. If we force everyone to vote on everything, the knocked out people can make random reasons for their votes and look active. However, if we don't force everyone to vote on everything, knocked out people will have to talk about things on their own prerogative, exposing their true intentions. 2. It will lead to a bunch of laundry lists of "analysis" which doesn't help anything. If people have to vote on 7+ matchups, while it will put a bunch of content into the thread, it gives an easy out for mafia to look "active". All they have to do is say something like "I like persons X, Y, and Z because of yada yada yada. I don't like person M because he only voted for 4 matchups! What's he hiding??". Basically, this plan would put a huge flood of info without much actual substance. 3. This diffuses the town's vote, making it easier for scum to do as they please. Remember, the vote is the town's strongest tool; we out number mafia's votes 9x. However if townsfolk are forced to only have one vote per matchup, then if they see someone they really think is scummy, they won't be "allowed" to stack more votes on them because of this limitation. Overall, while I do like the initiative to give structure to the voting process, ultimately I think it does more harm than good. What should happen is standard, good old fashioned scum-hunting; people should just up and state who they think is scum and put their votes to back it up. Speaking of which: Please feel free to post things of substance. You're being needlessly dismissive, which is strange because 1. it's very early in the game, people ask questions 2. you haven't done anything, so to put down someone else just feels off. It's been a decent amount of time in the game and you've shown that you're available; why not comment on the setup at all? I don't want you having a free pass for the rest of this tourny; I want to see you talk more. Hopeless1der 2x On October 10 2012 14:32 EchelonTee wrote: Not going to put my vote into voting thread just yet, until I'm sure of all votes for this round, to make things easier for kita. Is the ratio of town:mafia known, or unknown? Guy, I wanted you to be town, why did you have to scum slip. For those that didn't catch it, ET implies he knows that how much more votes town has compared to mafia, implying he knows how many mafia there is. Minutes later, he asks if mafia count is known. Where did he get this number in the first place? I don't think he would just make it up out of thin air. EchelonTee x1 Heh, living up to my town meta yet again I suppose. (always get accused when I'm town D1, never get accused when I'm scum). While cute that you would accuse me for appearing to "know more about the setup", there is almost no way that the ratio of votes is actually 9x, as you yourself pointed out. No number is even close to that (either 1:11 or 2:10 doesn't work with normal voting mechanics). Therefore, you are making the assumption that I have to be either blue or red without even considering that maybe, just maybe I put down that 9x number randomly? Unless you really think that I am such a poor player that I would either 1. reveal my roles knowledge of votes, or 2. blatantly reveal mafia's knowledge of votes. Excuse the language, but that is completely fracking stupid; that 9x number is completely numerically impossible, and the fact that you are using the random number I threw out as reason to be suspicious is absolutely terrible. And you can't even vote for me this round! You are literally misdirecting town on a terrible lead with the reasoning that "shucks this is as good a reason to vote R1 as anything". No, it's a terrible reason, multiplied by the fact that you are wasting our limited 24 hour time on a person you can't vote on. Care to talk about the people we actually need to vote on? IDGAF if you want to tunnel me as long as you also talk about the stuff that actually matters, which you have failed to do. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
As it stands da0ud, OriginalName (ON), 1der, and kush are advancing. You best put votes down if you want to change this in anyway. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
If you don't, I'm going to put 1x votes on prplhz, austin, and 1der. For 1der, I've already stated why. For prplhz/austin, they are being way too floaty/neutral atm, I need a better read on you guys, AKA I don't want you having immunity. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 11 2012 00:06 kushm4sta wrote: metaread on momentoss: he is this dumb as town I know that from liquid city. also he will afk for long periods of time so we have that to look forward to. Refrain from flamebait. Ok? Ok. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 11 2012 00:13 austinmcc wrote: + Show Spoiler + On October 10 2012 14:27 EchelonTee wrote: 1. It gives "credibility" to people who are knocked out early, while not forcing them to do anything significant. A good good good example of this problem was in Liar Game 1. Basically half of the people were immune to the lynch depending on a Yes or No vote; while town tried to make the immune people accountable for their actions, because they have no fear of the lynch they really have no pressure on them to do anything at all. A hilarious example is sandroba himself; despite being widely called scum since D1, because he was immune to lynch through flukes, he stayed alive for days manipulating people here and there. If we force everyone to vote on everything, the knocked out people can make random reasons for their votes and look active. However, if we don't force everyone to vote on everything, knocked out people will have to talk about things on their own prerogative, exposing their true intentions. ET I mostly like the points you made, but I get hung up on this one. Yes, the people who are safe as of Round 1 are immune to lynch for 72 more hours. However, On October 10 2012 11:00 kitaman27 wrote: You are not required to vote. If we don't force everyone to vote on everything, nobody is actually forced to vote. Nobody should be checking out for 72 hours once they're safe in Round 1, but the voting rules wouldn't require anyone to make reasoned choices later on that we could hold them accountable to. Moreover, while 1-vote-per-matchup removes some of what town can learn by how everyone votes (by limiting their options), people can also throw around blocks of votes with very little reasoning. 5 single votes with poor reasoning doesn't help us, but neither does a block of 5 votes on a single person with poor reasoning. Another point is that I can see the similarities between this and liar game, but the lynching mechanic here is ... almost unknown? Whereas in Liar Game people were going to be safe every day by chance, we don't know what future lynches will look like. It removes some of the ability to plot long-term, like in Liar Game how answers and votes were planned in advance, because we don't know what the lynching scheme is long-term. As long as mafia doesn't know either, I actually think not knowing future lynches favors town just because it negates some of mafia's ability coordinate actions in a way they KNOW will be beneficial to them. More reason, in my mind, for them to have some sort of lynch-affecting role or mechanic. If we don't "force" people to vote, but rather have the normal stipulation that you best be scumhunting, then we are treating the game as a normal mini. People who active lurk without contributing are bad, people who scum hunt are good. I've found that with themed games that aren't too crazy, the more you try and make the setup normal, the better it is for town; at the end of the day we hold people accountable for their actions without giving them an easy framework to look fine. Someone puts 5 votes on someone for shitty reason to save them? Don't let that slide. Someone puts 0 votes on people while posting little snide tidbits here and there? Don't let that slide. Don't have issue with your 2nd paragraph, though I would say that my analogy was focused primarily on the fact that a plan made an unknown mechanic (who going to be immune?) into a manipulable tool for mafia. I don't want that. On October 11 2012 00:13 prplhz wrote: Hey EchelonTee Why do you want austinmcc to advance over a guy who hasn't posted even once? I don't even care what austinmcc said so far, OrignalName isn't even around and that gets my vote among those two right now. How about da0ud/Djodref? Active lurking. I feel worse about a person who has posted 1-2 low content tidbits than someone who has posted literally nothing. I don't have a strong opinion either way about that matchup; austin was more on my radar, but now that he's talking more I don't really care. I think both da0ud and Djodref look bad. In fact, it's almost comical because both of their first posts look quite similar. If you forced me to take a stand I would lean Djodref more scummy because my instincts tell me that da0ud is a noob-bait. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
Hopeless1der x1 Djodref x1 | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
It's good to be suspicious of such things when people are being unclear. I think it is quite clear who I am suspicious of. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 11 2012 01:06 Mementoss wrote: If you think pointing out one thing and placing 1 vote (that didn't even count btw) is tunneling, well, I dont even know what to say. I don't know why everyone is getting so pissy about it. First read it came across scummy and read to me 9 townies, then afterwards I even said the 9x thing. It's not like I tried to force this vote on anyone, with attitude like this your sure to shut out discussion. This is the biggest over reaction I ever seen. In my experience, if I don't react strongly to accusations, no matter how inane or small, it just bogs down town because people are wasting time talking about me. I'm not mad; I just want to shut down your weak accusations now so that if you are town, we can work together without lingering misconceptions. I'm not seeking to shut down discussion, but I will be extremely dismissive towards cases on me as they are wrong, and in this case bad. This methodology works for me, and my mislynch rate is extremely low; I'll overract if it gets the job down. You'll notice I didn't vote for you. I'm not saying "YOURE DUMB AND YOURE SCUM", I'm saying you're case was misguided and it's time to drop it, now. On October 11 2012 01:21 kushm4sta wrote: I'm not trying to get into a flame war here. Good. If you want people to not see you as a policy lynch this is a good start. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
Austin - 0 ON - 3 prplhz - 1 kush - 0 da0ud - 2 djodref - 2 1der - 2 Mementoss 1 | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 11 2012 02:21 EchelonTee wrote: Unofficial vote count 1der(+) - 2 Mementoss 1 Austin - 0 ON(+) - 3 prplhz - 1 kush(+) - 0 da0ud(+) - 2 djodref - 2 | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 11 2012 06:15 prplhz wrote: I was confused about what EchelonTee was trying because it wasn't in regular voting format and I hadn't seen the explanation of the non-standard vote formatting. I have no idea how to respond to the rest because it's crazy talking. You are interpreting a simple question as an evil scum plan of manipulation. Also, I wanted to ask you about kushm4sta because it seemed that you had a pretty good read on him in that last newbie game he just played. What's going to be fun about this game? This sounds constructed to me so I'd like you to explain what you meant. 1der and Djodref both look scummy to me, but they are in opposition; namely at the time, Djodref voted for 1der. Since Djodref really does not seem like the bussing type, it's unlikely both are scum in my eyes. Game will be fun because it seems that scum is running good interference. Also, it just seems fun because we have good activity from good players. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 11 2012 12:48 da0ud wrote: I totally don't agree with you. YES this is a disadvantage. You have more chance to get lynched. You want my to do the maths ? Even people with a BYE on first round can vote for other matchups and read people on the first round. Being present at the first round from scums is too me on more opportunity to escape the lynch rather that getting more read on him. What if he says no word at all during the all round. People will have to put votes on him on each of them while him giving no piece of information on what he could be, hence more probability to survive the day. 100% a disadvantage. Hence this post puts you on top of my list of scums. On sandroba: You seem to be confused about what kush is saying. He doesn't disagree that having a bye is a disadvantage, he is saying that the way you talked about it is scummy. I tend to agree. Worrying about byes really isn't something that should be anyone's concern; I know I don't give a crap that I had a bye. And you use this post from him to call him scum? You have no reasoning to say this; you're arguing that da0ud is being scummy for... what? For calling you scum? I immediately regret leaving my vote on djoref. On October 11 2012 18:33 da0ud wrote: About Sandroba : + Show Spoiler + On October 10 2012 20:40 sandroba wrote: @prpl You are my best scum read so far, how do you feel about that <3 @mementoss Don't be stupid. Town# > Mafia# by default. That's the dumbest shit I've read so far and let me tell you there is plenty dumb shit about. First statement coming from nowhere and second one just insulting Mementoss freely. Sure Town>Mafia, but someone who would worry about the number of Mafia people sounds townie to me. Getting accused of stupid on this topic would show me a mafia bullying a townie. On October 10 2012 20:46 sandroba wrote: You don't have to vote anyone right now. You have however many votes you want (max 10). You misrepresented ET impossible ratio quote so somehow he knew the mafia number which we don't know yet so you can vote ET. Yes, that's dumb. insulting On October 10 2012 21:07 sandroba wrote: I'm mad when I can't distiguish between someone being crazy or trying to make a fake contribution. You can vote for whoever you like as long as your explanation doesn't stink. And as long as the person can even get votes, which ET can't even get this round. Better luck reading the game and the thread next time. insulting On October 11 2012 10:31 sandroba wrote: Djoref dude looks town to me. Da0ud could go either way, leaning scum atm. I'm actually surprised he was winning, anyone care to explain it to me? austin? How could Djodref look town ? He doesn't look 100% mafia but he does at least look like 70% of it. On October 11 2012 10:36 sandroba wrote: Yo. I want da0ud to go to the next round. I have a hunch and those have been pretty good historically. Coming from nowhere trying to protect Djodref. On October 11 2012 11:22 sandroba wrote: ON why the votes on djoref? Another post to back up someone. Not a post like "why don't you vote against Da0ud he looks suspicious/ you should follow my "HuncH" ". Instead the post should be read why do you vote against my matey Djodref. This post is absolutely ludicrous. You take the fact that sandroba is being blunt and harsh as scummy behavior? Each of those quotes you posted do have him calling something stupid, but he backs up every statement with sound logic. This isn't sandroba being a needless asshole, this is him spitting truth. Yes, I'm discounting your accusations on sandroba; by your logic, we must be scumbuddies right? Everyone who disagrees with you is in a league against you? | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On October 11 2012 11:30 OriginalName wrote: Echelon: Truthfully speaking, started out fine even with that completely irrelievent "Scumslip" (Once again reiterating- it's not a slip) however after those nice starting posts he moves towards really low content uninteresting posts that are completely meaningless "IM HELPING TOWN" posts that show hes posting but adds nothing to discussion vote counts. This on the other hand REALLY irks me, he says he reacts strongly to accusations and then right after we decided he wasnt as worth it and moved on he completely drops off the map again. THAT friends unlike my complete absence is scumlurk, throwing of heat and then ignoring us. You have got to be fricking kidding me. Look at my filter. Then yours. I am being low content???? Are you freaking serious? No seriously, coming from THE #1 lurker of Round 1? I don't even understand how you can possibly argue this. This is plain old terrible disruption. You could at least try to look townie. You have done literally nothing to try and help town, and are easily my top pick for champion. This isn't your first game by any respect, you have no newbie excuse. | ||
| ||
