EPTFoolishness made the safest possible accusation to get heat off himself because he was explicitly called out and knows I've never died day 1 (except maybe WaW?), and Palmar dodged my request for him to make a comment on making a better day 1 metric than RNG and hasn't contributed anything besides saying that RNG is good (which it isn't). Wouldn't be surprised if one is riding off the other's stupidity to crumb something for later or set up a trigger condition.
Responsibility Mafia! - Page 17
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Foolishness made the safest possible accusation to get heat off himself because he was explicitly called out and knows I've never died day 1 (except maybe WaW?), and Palmar dodged my request for him to make a comment on making a better day 1 metric than RNG and hasn't contributed anything besides saying that RNG is good (which it isn't). Wouldn't be surprised if one is riding off the other's stupidity to crumb something for later or set up a trigger condition. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
also both you and Palmar refused to comment on LSB. I'd like to hear thoughts. Most of the comments from people so far have been "I dislike this part of your case therefore LSB is null." Besides Curu/Sandro's weak sheep of me, of course. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
For the record, L's posts ALL gave me something to think about while reading this game, and I'll tell you what they were...right now. On December 20 2011 15:30 L wrote: Alright, straight off the bat people are saying that we need good posts. No shit. Not only is the concept of the game surrounding the idea that poor play will be punished, but there's also the notion that we've got relatively few players. in the game. 5 to 15 or so. This means that best case scenario, we can win day 5 through lynches alone, but that's a rather long timeframe to close out a game. So poor play seems to be some form of game accelerant, and the 'poorer' the play, the less in our favor it seems to be. So! What do we do? Post with content and condense your points. Keep your short posts to yourself and clump them up to make substantive comments. I'd say that posts between 6 and 15 lines are large enough to be substantive, but short enough to be read. But that shit is obvious. There's a bigger question here, however, which is what we're going to do with the first vote. RNG is probably the worst possible idea; gives us next to zero information regarding how people argue and its practically an excuse for people to not post anything because there's no element of responsibility attached to it. Either way, we're going to want ideas down on the table asap. And not like dicks, either. Cut it out bum/prplhz. Like, it seems obvious, but I hadn't thought about it in quite this way until L pointed it out. On December 20 2011 18:59 L wrote: Like what, exactly? Also, please don't post one liners. They inflate the thread size and make it tedious to read through content later. RE: RNG RNG doesn't force people to make a move one way or another and provides less information regarding people's inclinations than having someone pick a metric for a day 1 play to be made. The "shoot the inactive" metric was the standard when games were substantially larger, people talked less, and the metric itself was generally not held onto, just used as a prod to get people talking. As far as I'm concerned, RNG just cedes the first day's information content unless someone with a particularly interesting role gets selected. Please tell me how a random target provides more information than one who we can pick? It seems like by definition that RNG eliminates at least one layer of information: the choice. And there's no real benefit to the tradeoff in terms of preventing someone from hiding their kill attempt: If someone wants to get someone in particular put under the gun, they can fake a RNG call to make them the presumed target. If there's anything pro-town about the RNG plan its that it removes any fear to assigning a presumption of lynch to start discussion off. I don't see why there isn't a better metric to use than 'none' for that purpose. And even then, it doesn't seem like the attempt actually fostered the discussion you're saying it would, but maybe that's because the current RNG specified target hasn't been around in the thread. Either way, it seems like an empty placeholder topic. The previous placeholder topic, inactivity, served a practical purpose. I fail to see what reliable benefit comes from this one. So, the obvious question becomes which metric SHOULD we use. This is the question that RNG ends up proposing because it runs on the assumption that a) A lynch is better than no-lynch (I agree, in general) and b) that discussion surrounding the RNG could lead to a better target. I agree with a), but think that b) implies that we focus ourselves on determining a characteristic which outperforms RNG. This is why I think the plan is stupid; because IT ISN'T ONE. I'm super exhausted, but I'll think up some criteria for a day 1 lynch tomorrow. RE: The hydra I have no idea what/who this is, but I think I happened across it twice reading the thread. Is this someone's nickname? I haven't kept up with the last few (months of) games, so hook a brother up. RE: Me Sleep time. Peace! RE: Post formatting This is a very handy format and will make it easier to zip through pages to find discussions on a certain topic. Feel free to use it. Not sure how well it'll work when quoted, though. 1) I'm generally disliking your 1-line approach to this game, and hope you ramp it up at some point. L agrees with me. I like L. 2) His explanation of RNG made me feel all warm and fuzzy too, but I don't know if it's because I share the sentiment, or because it was an actual attempt to answer the question I specifically posed...the world may never know. 3) I actually will be adopting this format of posting, because I agree that it makes it much easier to locate a topic you're interested in discussing while going through pages of crazy shit (Chez did/didn't claim traitor, RNG discussion, lolTriggers). Although for people posting one line at a time, I can see how this would be a non-issue. On December 21 2011 04:56 L wrote: RE: LSB You realize you *kinda* already did with your previous post, right? That section in particular makes a statement about triggers, and in particular says that town has triggers in an affirmative manner. You state this directly. The odd thing is that your post is structured to make it look like speculation, but you made an affirmative statement. This wasn't "Its possible that town has triggers too" it was "town has triggers too". The reason why I said *kinda* is that Chez said (and I haven't gone to the OP post yet to confirm) that mafia know some of the town roles. If that's the case, they might also know about some town conditional roles and be able to claim that they exist with certainty. So you're either mafia or you have a triggered role. And onto different matters: RE: Hindered comment from BumatLarge Yep. That's a good way of putting it. I haven't played in a shitton of time and I have no idea who most of the players are or if they'd benefit from extensive day 1 analysis. I also don't know if any of these triggers would be set off by some kind of explaining, or how the day 1 meta works anymore. Given all those things I figured it would be smarter to start off slow. So, if you push my accelerant idea, it would mean that at least some of the triggers activate powers that kill people. That doesn't, however, mean that there isn't the possibility for other triggered abilities. That should be pretty obvious. This was also an implicit roleclaim on my part which should only have been obvious to people with triggers themselves. But then you asked me to push more on the point, and stated that you were sad that I hadn't. This leads me to believe that you also have a triggered role and all of the above was obvious to you, but that my explanation might activate your trigger, or that you wanted a claim out of me. And that's berry interesting because asides from chez claiming traitor, it seems like all the people who have put information about their role into the game implicitly or explicitly thusfar have triggers to their role. This means we're going to hit a situation wherein we're going to have fucking ugly dt and medic claims with triggers and shit to sort through. FUCK. I actually think you just need to read this whole post and really think about what it says. I liked the whole fucking thing. There seems to be a lot of crazy shit floating around regarding the triggers, and mafia are going to be able to hide in it when they actually become an issue. Establishing that fact NOW is going to help us THEN, regardless of whether you think he's contributing or not. Are you just picking on the low-post-count-guy Palmar? Please don't be that guy. Or if you're scum, PLEASE DO be that guy, because you'll be found out soon. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
##Vote: Palmar Let's see where this leads. | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
Why are you voting Palmar and not Foolishness? Foolishness has provided even less reason to vote for L than Palmar has. Palmar also lives in Iceland where it is 3AM right now, so he has a very valid excuse for not being around. I don't know exactly what timezone Foolishness lives in, but I think it's much more likely that he should be around! | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
##Unvote: Palmar ##Vote: Foolishness 2 reasons. 1) I'm never sure what time it is where Palmar is from because he seems to be around ALL the time sometimes. And he was JUST here, so I assumed he was going to wait on a response from me. I guess I was mistaken. 2) Foolishness scares me. :X He's way better than I am. I mean, Palmar's probably nominally better than me too, but he's not even in the same league as Foolishness. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
| ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
Uh, that might have come out wrong, I don't really condone voting for either Foolishness or Palmar right now. So why are you voting for Foolishness? I don't get why you think L has contributed a ton. His first post was generic advice. His second post didn't follow this generic advice, instead he rambles on about RNG for ages, concluding that it is bad even though it has evidently spurred discussion. His third post, he concludes that LSB is either red or blue then just leaves it there. In the second part of his post he displays excellent logic I think, but then he kinda outs bumatlarge as blue. Why would a town aligned player ever give his blue reads like this? @LSB You want lynch between Liquid`Sheth, VisceraEyes and me? Can you list the vets who get to freeload day1 if they want to? | ||
|
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
People really need to stop talking about their roles. In past games, Ver has included role claim vig's to punish people and it would fit the responsibility theme perfectly. On December 21 2011 12:33 LSB wrote: I'm against the Foolishness lynch simply because it's a bad idea to lynch a vet day 1. Typically vets are the ones shot first, so there is a high probability that even if we don't lynch a vet, the vet still won't live to see day 2. Every player is a vet this game. If you're going to be against the lynch, it should be because you don't think he is scum. At this point, I'd probably consider it unless Foolishness is willing to show us he cares about the day one lynch. | ||
|
Chezinu
United States7429 Posts
On December 20 2011 19:15 Chezinu wrote: It bound to come up. Role claiming. As much as I would love to claim a bank, I'm not. If people claim blue the mafia can spot lying townies. or lying blues claiming to be other blues.. oh wait.. thats a great idea! How about I act like a blue role claiming to be a different blue role to make the mafia think I'm a green or black claiming blue? yeah thats good. Ok guys. I got the nazi role.. if your grammar is so bad, I cna kills yous! But watch out, if you correct someone's grammar in the thread. There may be a role that is hunting them grammar nazis.. Ver is trying to turn us into professionals. Its his secret plan. so type dull proper structured formal long writings guys! oh and don't forget to have fun adhering to these rules to avoid certain deaths.. but don't forget you still have to deal with the lynches. Yay! Someone actually asked me in the thread to translate one of my posts! No one has ever done that. Here is a different translationn: As most veterans are fully aware, role claiming will eventually come up. In previous games, I have jokingly and rather skillfully claimed to be a bank. However, I will not conduct such actions this game. This game is different than most games as I softly hinted earlier in hidden links. The mafia has a list of blue roles. If the blues claim, the mafia can verify such roles. If a townie fake claims a blue role, the mafia will know he is lying. With confusion being my specialty tactic, I have developed a strategy where a blue role can fake claim another blue role so that the mafia will believe the blue role is just a lying bored townie or a black role. So, I can pretend to be a blue role that fakeclaims another blue role to come off as a townie or a black role. For an example of a type of role to claim, just think of Ver's motives. He strives not to punish bad play but improper play. Since he wants us to type civilly, he could well have a nazi role that kills people for bad grammar. If he does have this role, he would have another role that will kill the grammar nazi. So if someone would fake claim this role, they would have to be aware of the grammar nazi hunter. Ver can't stand reading fragments where you have to fill information. He wants us to type as well-educated teamliquidians. In this matter, I support the bum rebellion against conforming to Ver's chains. Even if it cost me my life in this game, I will have my joy knowing I played as Chezinu and not Ver's puppet. But let us not get too caught up with the mechanics of the game for we still have to deal with lynches. | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On December 21 2011 12:33 LSB wrote: I'm against the Foolishness lynch simply because it's a bad idea to lynch a vet day 1. Typically vets are the ones shot first, so there is a high probability that even if we don't lynch a vet, the vet still won't live to see day 2. What?????? Everybody in this game has been playing here for a minimum of 6 months. Easily. And you're using this as a reason for anything???? Your reasoning is worse than VE's reasons for not lynching Annul in XXXVIII. And those were horrid. ##VOTE: LSB | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
"His first post was generic advice. His second post didn't follow this generic advice, instead he rambles on about RNG for ages, concluding that it is bad even though it has evidently spurred discussion. His third post, he concludes that LSB is either red or blue then just leaves it there. In the second part of his post he displays excellent logic I think, but then he kinda outs bumatlarge as blue. Why would a town aligned player ever give his blue reads like this?" His first post was generic advice, but did I felt he had a couple of nuggets of original thought in there too. That's contributing, don't let anyone tell you differently. Read the part I bolded and tell me if that had occurred to you. I specifically called for the information L provided regarding RNG, so I'm biased where that's concerned. He answered my question and then some. But I disagree that he 'concluded that it's bad', that's oversimplifying what he said. In his third post, I have to concede that he did in essence "out" bum as blue (if he's town)...but let me ask you this: what motivation is there for scum to "out a blue"? They're trying to appear town, right? And a townie has no feasible motivation for "outing a blue" without a good reason. So why would scum do it? His good reason was to make the point about the 'triggers' that we'll have to worry about later, so I've got a tentative town read on L. | ||
|
Chezinu
United States7429 Posts
On December 21 2011 05:57 bumatlarge wrote: Chez, you can take your vote off Samuel, I think other people are proccuring enough discussion that we might have a better lynch to look into. Yeah thats right, me and chez are TIGHT YO. As you wish, my lord. ##Unvote SamuelLJackson | ||
|
Chezinu
United States7429 Posts
On December 21 2011 12:44 Jackal58 wrote: What?????? Everybody in this game has been playing here for a minimum of 6 months. Easily. And you're using this as a reason for anything???? Your reasoning is worse than VE's reasons for not lynching Annul in XXXVIII. And those were horrid. ##VOTE: LSB 6 months... seriously? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=67925 try since back in 2008 | ||
|
Chezinu
United States7429 Posts
| ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On December 21 2011 10:11 wherebugsgo wrote: Okay, that's a good point. However, let's clarify to make sure! Would the mafia team be notified if there is a serial killer or other third party present in the game? No Comment. | ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7875 Posts
As for the general play of this game. It is responsibility mafia. This should just mean Ver has made a game that is designed to stop blatant asshattery. Playing badly will get punished is the general take. Now one point of this game that has me instantly glued to is the whole idea of RNG day 1 lynch. L is saying its anti town to base an initial lynch off it while palmar believes it is pro town. Guess what? L is right, Palmar is wrong. RNG the person who is lynched gives no real onus to the player or players responsible for the name being brought up and then lynched. In a game with a no flip on role mechanic will also not let us glean information about the games setup. Since the advantage of discussing lynch choices day 1 is forcing people to take a stand via analysis not luck. If you analyze player x and they flip town you look slightly bad. If the logic used was poor then information was garnered on the accuser. If you RNG a day 1 lynch it is a crap shot and you learn near nothing from the lynch except the few peoples stance on RNG who started the process. Now as Palmar is pushing an obvious shitty play I will quote something of his. On December 20 2011 08:05 Palmar wrote: Alright people, let's make this a game worth referencing to new people if they want to see how mafia should be played. No lazy posting, no bullshit. Step your game up, for your post you have a filter of terribly uninspired posts talking about very neutral topics. | ||
| ||
