|
On January 11 2014 09:42 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
So should we wait until we clear out all the lurkers (alignment non-indicative behavior) and people you don't like to actually try to draw out scum, would you pass on a scum lynch to remove a player you have a "hard" time reading, as though the rest of the town should frame their opinions around your perspective? And what is the policy exactly, does this fall under LAL or anything like that - or is this just your personal preference. Your personal preference is meaningless to me and should mean absolutely nothing to anybody.
We can deal with suspicious lurkers by threatening hammer. If I'm mayor, I will lynch my top scumread at the end of Day 1, no matter who it is. I do not care if it is Marv or BC, the most suspicious person at the end of Day 1 will be lynched. I will threaten hammer on anyone who is under significant suspicion in the thread and fails to respond to it. I will threaten immediate hammer until they adequately respond to all accusations, I will threaten hammer to lurkers who try to avoid the discussion. By properly utilizing votes and the pressure of a hammer, we can force people to play at the pace the town wants them to play at. That's all. I won't try to be a hero and hammer someone without announcing or first putting on adequate pressure and giving people a chance to defend themselves but I would not be afraid to use it if I suspect the mafia are making a serious effort to derail a lynch on bad logic.
Have you considered that your aggressive approach will stimy conversation day 1 ? I mean it might be ok for getting one guy to talk, but several other townies may quiver in the shadows at the thought of a scum mayor Dh jumping on something they say. Also on the one hand you say you'll threaten hammer on anyone, on the other you say you'll lynch the scummiest read... Assuming the second is your aim, do you expect people to still take your hammer puffing seriusly?
## vote the king you can keep in check.
|
On January 11 2014 09:43 gumshoe wrote:
I mean, I've played one scum game, and I was terrible in it, what's more my scum partner xatalos from that game is here, so he can even call me out if he sees any similar play XD
## vote the king you can keep in check.
Sadly I don't think you'd be a good choice even if you were confirmed town and wouldn't probably be going full AFK at some point :/
|
I am totally going to vote for marv if he hits a 10 page filter on day 1 and claims that it is literally impossible for him to be scum.
Also, BH is totally scummy for not saying he will random the lynch when elected.
|
On January 11 2014 09:44 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 09:43 justanothertownie wrote:On January 11 2014 09:41 marvellosity wrote:On January 11 2014 09:33 justanothertownie wrote:On January 11 2014 09:10 Blazinghand wrote:
Make me mayor and I'll lynch kush d1.
/thread Why don't you wait and see how he plays first? What's with all the people deciding to policy lynch that early in the game without even considering the play of the person in question... Marv will you try to be elected? I'll run for mayor if/when I find a candidate I want to lynch or I think town is going full on dumbo. Keep in mind that the mayor has more power than deciding the Day1 lynch. I'm well aware of the setup, twinkletoes 
Just wanted to be sure.
|
On January 11 2014 09:48 Xatalos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 09:43 gumshoe wrote:
I mean, I've played one scum game, and I was terrible in it, what's more my scum partner xatalos from that game is here, so he can even call me out if he sees any similar play XD
## vote the king you can keep in check. Sadly I don't think you'd be a good choice even if you were confirmed town and wouldn't probably be going full AFK at some point :/
Why not, I would allow town convo to flow, stimulating it trough questions not threats and then I'd kill the scummiest player, and would you really wanna invite a scum mayor just to get someone whose " good " at the job? Also can't tell if your joking here or if you actually have this low opinion of me that'd you'd rather hand the throne to scum if given the choice ) ; real cold xata. Or maybe you just scum.
## vote the king you can keep in check
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
Is this a specific platform against Dr H, gummybear? :>
|
who do I vote for that will lynch hopeless?
|
On January 11 2014 09:53 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 09:48 Xatalos wrote:On January 11 2014 09:43 gumshoe wrote:
I mean, I've played one scum game, and I was terrible in it, what's more my scum partner xatalos from that game is here, so he can even call me out if he sees any similar play XD
## vote the king you can keep in check. Sadly I don't think you'd be a good choice even if you were confirmed town and wouldn't probably be going full AFK at some point :/ Why not, I would allow town convo to flow, stimulating it trough questions not threats and then I'd kill the scummiest player, and would you really wanna invite a scum mayor just to get someone whose " good " at the job? Also can't tell if your joking here or if you actually have this low opinion of me that'd you'd rather hand the throne to scum if given the choice ) ; real cold xata. Or maybe you just scum. ## vote the king you can keep in check
I'm getting flashbacks from GoT Mafia because of this post... But maybe it means you're town? Although you were more antagonizing there.
Not making you Mayor doesn't equal making a scum Mayor. Even if you were confirmed town, you'd still probably be anti-town as a Mayor...
|
On January 11 2014 09:48 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 09:42 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
So should we wait until we clear out all the lurkers (alignment non-indicative behavior) and people you don't like to actually try to draw out scum, would you pass on a scum lynch to remove a player you have a "hard" time reading, as though the rest of the town should frame their opinions around your perspective? And what is the policy exactly, does this fall under LAL or anything like that - or is this just your personal preference. Your personal preference is meaningless to me and should mean absolutely nothing to anybody.
We can deal with suspicious lurkers by threatening hammer. If I'm mayor, I will lynch my top scumread at the end of Day 1, no matter who it is. I do not care if it is Marv or BC, the most suspicious person at the end of Day 1 will be lynched. I will threaten hammer on anyone who is under significant suspicion in the thread and fails to respond to it. I will threaten immediate hammer until they adequately respond to all accusations, I will threaten hammer to lurkers who try to avoid the discussion. By properly utilizing votes and the pressure of a hammer, we can force people to play at the pace the town wants them to play at. That's all. I won't try to be a hero and hammer someone without announcing or first putting on adequate pressure and giving people a chance to defend themselves but I would not be afraid to use it if I suspect the mafia are making a serious effort to derail a lynch on bad logic. Have you considered that your aggressive approach will stimy conversation day 1 ? I mean it might be ok for getting one guy to talk, but several other townies may quiver in the shadows at the thought of a scum mayor Dh jumping on something they say. Also on the one hand you say you'll threaten hammer on anyone, on the other you say you'll lynch the scummiest read... Assuming the second is your aim, do you expect people to still take your hammer puffing seriusly? ## vote the king you can keep in check.
What's wrong with aggression? Think of the situation as being something like this:
Day 2
Majority of players find players A, B and C to be scummy
Players A and B defend themselves clearly while player C barely posts, or defends lightly and dodges certain questions/deflects certain points
Mayor threatens hammer on Player C if Player C does not adequately respond to the pressure/accusations.
This does not necessarily mean Player C is the top scumread, it means Player C is not allowed to dodge the pressure. If Player C continues to dodge the pressure or martyrs, it's highly likely that they are scum and would probably move to the top of anyone's scumreads barring something like a red DT check on A/B or a scumslip from another player.
One of the nice things about hammer games, is they are on going and the pressure is immediate and life or death, it is very difficult for scum to slip by if they try to simply remain passive. That is the sort of environment I believe the mayor should try to create.
If Player C does not totally satisfy me or the town with his defense, I would still vote at the end of the day for the player I find to be scummiest, unless I was alone in my read and unable to swing a lynch. So the priority would go something like this - as far as where I try to swing the bandwagon in the grand scheme of a day:
1. My top scumread
2. Player who does not respond adequately to pressure of hammer/thread in general
3. Town bandwagon that intersects with my personal scumreads
However the priority for where I use my vote to direct discussion would go as follows:
1. Scum accused players who I believe are scum and respond passively
2. Scum accused players who I believe are scum and respond actively
3. Reactionary scumreads, ones that develop naturally over the course of the day
If the thread remains active, arguments will be resolved quickly because there is no other option for a player who wants to survive. While a townie can see that all they have to do is answer questions and participate to avoid the immediate hammer, or banking on the fact that it could be a bluff, there's no reason for them not to do so. A mafia in this situation, even if they believe it's an empty threat, I think will respond either very aggressively under the pressure or try to delegitimize the hammer as a concept to continue being passive - dodging the accusations by forming new and irrelevant arguments about the mechanics of the game itself.
If the hammer threat draws out a scum, then I will drop it, but chances are it won't really be necessary if scum are revealed through this method anyway. But it's not an empty promise. I would drop the hammer if a scum is clearly revealed, agreed upon by a trustworthy circle of the town, and then there is a clear movement away from this lynch or an attempt at immediate misdirection.
|
And it's not about threats - the threat is meant to foster an atmosphere where questions are answered, you can't deflect and avoid when I can kill you instantly. It's that simple. I don't think that mafia want to be in that kind of scenario at all, a scum mayor would reveal himself immediately playing like this too because he would be forced to apply this policy to all players and if he starts picking and choosing which passive/unresponsive players get threatened that's a pretty bad look. A scum mayor doesn't want to play this aggressively because there's no way of him avoiding threatening a hammer on his own team mates. Which FORCES his teammates to get in further drawn out discussions/arguments regarding their own alignment. Not a good situation for mafia to be in imo.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
in a funny game theory sort of way, it would make all your theoretical scumbuddies step up their game so as not to be on the receiving end of your ire ^_^
How do you think a mafia bigname would go about trying to clinch the mayoral spot, Dr H?
|
I'm a miller. (or butcher for this game) I crumbed it in my first post, those of you who played demon souls should be able to figure the crumb out. I crumbed first because I didn't know if I should claim.. I asked marv for advice and decided why not
|
On January 11 2014 10:11 marvellosity wrote:
in a funny game theory sort of way, it would make all your theoretical scumbuddies step up their game so as not to be on the receiving end of your ire ^_^
How do you think a mafia bigname would go about trying to clinch the mayoral spot, Dr H?
You can say that about anything but I think in most games mafia would want to avoid a high-pressure environment where mistakes/passivity are directly confronted and threatened. I've always maintained that lynching randomly into lurkers is a terrible idea because mafia can just direct the town sentiment toward lurkers that aren't on their own team while avoiding suspicion, in this case they wouldn't really be able to do that either. As town, I'd love to see scumbuddies step it up so as not to be on the receiving end of my threats, then they'd all be very visible in the thread.
I think a mafia mayor will go with some sort of platform that seems safe, bank on their veteran status if they have it, promise good scumhunting and then not follow through. Waste the actual benefits of the position itself.
This of course doesn't mean I'll be threatening to hammer anybody, this will go down on players already in the hotseat who do not defend themselves adequately or try to avoid arguments/certain questions.
Meaning if the overall case on Player A can be boiled down to six points and they only respond really to four of them, I would threaten hammer to force them to respond to the other two.
|
Is it a reasonable strategy to fakeclaim Miller? I've never heard of that being done, but is it within the realms of possibility?
|
Yeah, it doesn't really mean anything at all.
|
the miller claim isn't worth discussing, it has nothing to do with what anyone should think of thrawn's alignment
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On January 11 2014 10:18 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 10:11 marvellosity wrote:
in a funny game theory sort of way, it would make all your theoretical scumbuddies step up their game so as not to be on the receiving end of your ire ^_^
How do you think a mafia bigname would go about trying to clinch the mayoral spot, Dr H? You can say that about anything but I think in most games mafia would want to avoid a high-pressure environment where mistakes/passivity are directly confronted and threatened. I've always maintained that lynching randomly into lurkers is a terrible idea because mafia can just direct the town sentiment toward lurkers that aren't on their own team while avoiding suspicion, in this case they wouldn't really be able to do that either. As town, I'd love to see scumbuddies step it up so as not to be on the receiving end of my threats, then they'd all be very visible in the thread. I think a mafia mayor will go with some sort of platform that seems safe, bank on their veteran status if they have it, promise good scumhunting and then not follow through. Waste the actual benefits of the position itself. This of course doesn't mean I'll be threatening to hammer anybody, this will go down on players already in the hotseat who do not defend themselves adequately or try to avoid arguments/certain questions. Meaning if the overall case on Player A can be boiled down to six points and they only respond really to four of them, I would threaten hammer to force them to respond to the other two.
Touché. I don't want anyone getting elected on a "generic" platform. If I advised town of anything, it would be to ignore blustery rhetoric about what a mayor would do, ignore fancy words, and just see if he's genuinely interested in finding mafia. The rest don't matter very much
|
On January 11 2014 10:18 Xatalos wrote:
Is it a reasonable strategy to fakeclaim Miller? I've never heard of that being done, but is it within the realms of possibility?
nope never happens
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
Of course scum could fakeclaim miller, and blablabla whatever. Proceed as normal, except thrawn has told us he's miller, that's the end of it.
|
On January 11 2014 10:25 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 10:18 Xatalos wrote:
Is it a reasonable strategy to fakeclaim Miller? I've never heard of that being done, but is it within the realms of possibility? nope never happens
lol
Btw DH, what happened to your vendetta on suchdoge?
Do you think you can read most of the players in this game well? Can you read BH or kush?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
