EPT/in
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXIV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
/in | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
 | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
As for misdirection, from last game there were a few ways to do it. Finding a flaw in someone's argument and jumping on it, or by bringing up stuff in the last minute and trying to get people to bandwagon. Personally, I hated the last minute votes, so if possible can we please have everyone come forward with reads when you find them? Leaving to an hour left is pretty ridiculous considering how not everyone would be there to defend or to change their vote (assuming the info is good) | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On January 03 2013 14:12 Spaghetticus wrote: (2) I did not want to look at the OP. I chose to elucidate it out of laziness, but also because of the small potential to generate discussion. There was no downside in my mind. Either that's pretty slack or pretty scum. The OP contains pretty important info like the possible setups, so if you choose to ignore the OP, it's pretty hard for you to be picking up clues people are leaving behind. On January 03 2013 13:32 TeMiL wrote: so here we go! pd: im going to learn a lot of english :D Welcome! Would you like to answer the questions which Corazon posted before? Since I haven't played with you before it would be nice to get your views on the game before we get down to the nitty gritty side of things. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
 In any case, StriX really needs to get in here and start communicating with us. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
1) More slack than scum. At a glance, it looks like it could be a really obvious scum play, but after looking at it again it looks like it's just laziness. 2) Pretty much all of us should be stepping it up. With only a couple of pages of discussion going on, it's really hard for any reads to come out. To all the first time players: Don't be scared to post. I was the first time because I didn't know what to write. I still don't know what to write. However, flying under the radar doesn't really do us any good, nor does it do you any good, that's why I'm aiming to post more than I did in my first two games, where I didn't exactly have the most input in the town. If you're town, then you should have nothing to hide from us, and telling us your thoughts will help us deduce who is and isn't town. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On January 03 2013 22:47 StriX wrote: 3. Zarepath at the moment - mainly due to his policy on no lynch. Town environment can be improved and giving a lynch which could potentially be a free scum kill away seems too steep a price to pay. Expanding on this, no lynch (especially on day 1) doesn't help us whatsoever. We get no information out of it, and we're stuck with most likely the same situation the next day, but with one less townie. Mafia obviously wouldn't care about this, and would welcome a no lynch with open arms. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On January 03 2013 11:42 Spaghetticus wrote: DO NOT LURK. IDGAF WHO PLAYS SCUMMY I WILL BE VOTING THE LURKIEST PLAYER DAY ONE PERIOD. Saying you're going to vote out the lurkiest player, combined with the scum qt question both add up to being a bit more suspicious than lazy (on the second part at least). FoS: Spag | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
The psychological impact it has one the other member is immense, especially on Day 1 where 1) They suddenly feel like the town can read through them and 2) they make desperate, and often times, stupid moves. Instead, you're going to lynch a lurker with a 2/9 chance that you hit scum. I can understand why you want to do it, but personally I just don't think it's justifiable to leave scum be and take them out the next day. Remember that people can change their perception of someone pretty quickly in this game, for better or for worse, as we saw with Cora last game. If his teammates were a bit more active, they could have easily taken out the game and a primary reason for that would've been the sudden change to him being town in our eyes. Same thing could easily happen here, and I don't want that to happen. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On January 04 2013 00:20 Spaghetticus wrote: I play for the long game, and think little of the chance of day one scum lynches. Why do you push for a random lynch on day 1 over something such as no lynch (even though I explained earlier, does not give information)? You want to play for the long game, but killing off random players pushes the game into a faster pace, where we could end up losing on Night 3 if all goes wrong (all mislynches, a night kill per night). Rereading what I just wrote from this sentence, I have a feeling I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here, so feel free to correct me, but it just sounds rather contradictory to me to have these two actions. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On January 04 2013 08:17 zarepath wrote: Sylencia's first post is a non-convicted declaration of his policy on lynching lurkers, which "changes depending upon the flow of the game," and ends with a hope that people don't wait until the last minute to vote or come out with new analysis. In doing so, he adds the caveat "(assuming their info is good)." Already trying to discredit in-depth analysis at the last minute. Mafia would hate last-minute vote changes, as they've already planned on and around another outcome. If one of their own is being targeted, a last-minute vote change wouldn't be in their favor as there wouldn't be enough people around to necessarily make it successful, and when their mafia flips red, it incriminates them as well. Also, his answer to Corazon's "how do mafia mislead us" post is a very vague, general one that basically says "when in the last game they misled us." No concrete new info, very non-committal on everything. Possibly scum. One of two things: This is no different to what I have written in any other opening policy vote. You can check my filters for my other games and you will see something similar written for them. Two: I've had experience from last game about last minute vote changes. They work, because people don't have enough time to digest what is written, and a lot of the time in our newbie games we have a lot of bandwagoners who just aren't completely sure of what to do. If people start shifting over, so will they. Also note I never said that it was the mafia who would start up the last minute vote. Anyone who finds 'new evidence' can easily sway others to join in on their cause, stopping the vote on a potential scum. Next post is involving him in the useless "should blues lie?" debate, with the "duh!" statement of "you can't expect cops to say 'yes' if someone asks them if they are a cop." And that's all he says. Contributes nothing, but went out of his way to do it. Possibly scum. That's because there was no discussion stemming from that. Mocsta made a statement, I disagreed with part of what he said, so I made a point referring to the part I thought was off. Next post he bandwagons on calling out Spaghetticus for the QT slip, and puts pressure on TemiL to post something. Next post he says "the only person we're waiting on now is Strix." This is basically a non-post that can be construed as being productive. Possibly scum. Continues pressure on Spaghetticus in a passive-aggressive way, then notes Strix's absence again. Possibly scum. Changes his mind on Spaghetticus "after looking at it again," but doesn't provide his reasoning. Suggests that all of us should be stepping it up, but has done literally zero stepping it up himself. Shifts attention from his noncontributions onto others' noncontributions. Also, he gives a thought about newbies posting more so as to help town out more. A little out of his way and a little sweet for my taste, especially considering the substance of what he's posted. Possibly scum. I want to hear what everyone has to say. If they are lurking, then calling them out would/should encourage them to post. There is no reason why we should completely ignore them and let them be on 0 posts, without someone explicitly saying 'get in here, you need to talk to us'. With regards to my pressure on Spag, I am confused by his words and by his actions. By mentioning conflicting views on certain issues, it means that there's possibly something more behind his game plan. If he's not being honest, it's not benefiting town at all. Next post he essentially takes credit for Mocsta's post, saying "I was going to say that same thing but I was busy reading! Good one!" This is the equivalent of a "+1". Taking credit for others' contributions without having to contribute anything, and all of these pseudo-contributions are aimed towards Spaghetticus, along with the caveat that "after looking at it again it could have just been a slip," given with no reasoning. So on the flip he has a backdoor. Possibly scum. Next post he closes that backdoor and uses a non-tell on Spaghetticus to FoS him -- his dramatic quote about lynching lurkers even if there's a good scum tell. Saying you're going to vote out the lurkiest player, especially that dramatically, is hardly a scum tell at all; and if it were, it would be a big, enormous one because it was so emphatic, and would warrant a vote over an FoS if Sylencia really believed it. During the first two days, I usually do not vote on the first 24 hours. I gave the FoS when I read what Spag said but before he defended anything he said. I give people chances to defend themselves before throwing out votes. Next post is just him saying he won't talk to Spag in real life about it -- unnecessary, flooding the thread with non-contributions. Not a relevant post to the game, but the context was about knowing Strix in real life, and was not directed at Spag. Final post is entirely on theory and policy, at a time when more than enough names are being tossed around for him to contribute something much more concrete. A waste of effort and discussion, and scummy. I'm still questioning Spag in my last post, based on (as I said before), what I believe to be conflicting statements made by him. | ||
| ||
