|
On July 22 2010 06:04 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 05:46 BloodyC0bbler wrote: BB you just outlined a plan that works in the elimination of a GF + bomber. You know that both are still alive, so arguing your point is what makes the idea dumb. IF GF + Bomber were dead, or hell if even the bomber was dead, it would be marginally reasonable. Instead you keep pushing a plan that we cannot in any way perform as of this moment. Why keep pushing it knowing that it can't succeed at this venture? seriously dude, that is why your getting called out for being dumb. Sigh. What happens in the case that GF decided not to appear as vet? Not a problem. Also, if you actually happened to read carefully, you would notice that i said SB doesn't necessarily break the plan - it just throws a wrench in it. It just requires more careful planning + execution.
Your plan requires way to much luck. Until you confirm what the GF decided to appear as, its not safe. If someone is inactive and gf appeared as vet, its not safe, if suicide bomber hits said vet as town moves to confirm the, ton of blues die.
It is something that is more helpful later on, this early and especially with all the random finger pointing and general what the hellness of this days voting, you can see why your plan can't work. A good idea can only work in an ideal situation, but if its an ideal situation and no one works together then it still doesn't work. There is no town unity at the moment, so any idea like you proposed won't work even if it was the perfect situation for it. If the bomber/gf dies, your idea is plausible to use. Till then its not.
|
On July 22 2010 06:03 Pandain wrote: Right now I believe the two viable decisions are either Chaoser or Darth. They are the two most likely canidates for actually being mafia. BB and Subversion are just new and people are jumping on them for really miniscule posts. The only one thing that could lead to one of them being mafia is Subversions deciding vote in favor of Hyperbola, however that is still unlikely because it is just as likely that 1)The Mafia didn't know of BM's miscount 2)He just voted at an unlucky time.
So all those who are picking either BB or Subversion (especially BB) I urge you to change your vote and vote for either Darth of Chaoser. I would suggest Chaoser, just because I find him more likely to be mafia than DTA. To me, it still seems that Chaoser is just trying to get people lynched and DTA could be plannign something. Of course we should keep an eye on DTA, but let's not just lynch him and ruin anything he might be doing.
I would urge you to vote Chaoser, but at the very least I humbly request all those not voting either DTA/Chaoser to unvote and pick one of them.
that's very scummy of you to say isn't it? Your suggestion gives mafia license to stack votes instead of having to worry about spreading it over different potential targets (4) right now. If later people ask, they can be like well, Pandain suggested it. And how am I more likely as mafia than DTA? Look at Pyrr's huge statement against him against the two weak points you bring against me (that I abstained after saying don't go with the no-lynch plan (which others did too) and then voted Subversion today.)
If I get lynch and I flip non-red, people should carefully examine all the people who are hardcore gunning for me (Pandain, youngminii)
|
You don't base a plan off the % chance it will work and % chance it won't. You're pretty much saying "oh hey if this and that happens then the plan will work but in the case of that or this happening the plan will fail and we'll lose".
A good plan will not send the town into a worse off situation if one of it's 'requirements' aren't met.
|
On July 22 2010 06:12 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 06:03 Pandain wrote: Right now I believe the two viable decisions are either Chaoser or Darth. They are the two most likely canidates for actually being mafia. BB and Subversion are just new and people are jumping on them for really miniscule posts. The only one thing that could lead to one of them being mafia is Subversions deciding vote in favor of Hyperbola, however that is still unlikely because it is just as likely that 1)The Mafia didn't know of BM's miscount 2)He just voted at an unlucky time.
So all those who are picking either BB or Subversion (especially BB) I urge you to change your vote and vote for either Darth of Chaoser. I would suggest Chaoser, just because I find him more likely to be mafia than DTA. To me, it still seems that Chaoser is just trying to get people lynched and DTA could be plannign something. Of course we should keep an eye on DTA, but let's not just lynch him and ruin anything he might be doing.
I would urge you to vote Chaoser, but at the very least I humbly request all those not voting either DTA/Chaoser to unvote and pick one of them.
that's very scummy of you to say isn't it? Your suggestion gives mafia license to stack votes instead of having to worry about spreading it over different potential targets (4) right now. If later people ask, they can be like well, Pandain suggested it. And how am I more likely as mafia than DTA? Look at Pyrr's huge statement against him against the two weak points you bring against me (that I abstained after saying don't go with the no-lynch plan (which others did too) and then voted Subversion today.) If I get lynch and I flip non-red, people should carefully examine all the people who are hardcore gunning for me (Pandain, youngminii)
I'm not sure if my words carry huge value heh. I mean, almost always when I say somethingn, I mean it to go up to debate in the crowd. Statements such as that are viable, however I feel that even if the mafia all vote up on one person, and he turns out to be innocent, than its a much easier time of deciding whos the mafia in that group.
|
On July 22 2010 05:35 BrownBear wrote:So seeing as people keep saying "God BB your plan sucks" (BC, Amber), I think it's time to actually defend my plan a little bit, because believe it or not, I'm sticking by it, and I think it's not a bad idea. Out of all of you who said my plan was terribad, there was only ONE person who asked me, either in the thread or PM, what the logic behind my plan was. So yeah, only one person who actually tried to figure out what was going on, instead of just saying "OMG BB sux lets vote for him." So that guy (you know who you are) - thank you. The rest of you, seriously? I'm copying my reply to him here, because I think everyone should read it. If he feels like saying who he is, he can confirm that this is accurate. + Show Spoiler [my PM] + Yo, thanks for the PM.
My inactivity was partially due to me working most of the day, and partially due to me scrubbing and forgetting that the game had started :/
My logic behind vet roleclaim was thus, and I hope this makes sense:
In most TL Mafia setups, hosts choose to mask the number of certain roles actually present in the game (example: they won't tell you how many medics there are, only that medics are present in the game). This is to prevent situations like mass roleclaiming, where the town forces everyone to claim or get lynched, then checks the numbers against the numbers in the OP. This can be a very powerful town move if pulled off correctly, or give the mafia a ton of free blue roles to hit, but regardless, many hosts don't like it happening, so they prevent it from being possible.
In a setup like the one above, its impossible to say "all vets claim" and get an accurate result, because you don't know if there are 1, 2, or 3, or maybe even 4 vets, so it's trivial for scum to sneak a fakeclaim in there. Thus, nobody claiming can really be trusted, apart from DT rolechecks or people who get protected from a hit/vets who soak a hit.
Thus, in a normal game, vets fulfill the role everyone has said they should fulfill: They exists under the radar and hope mafia hits them, so they can soak a hit that would have otherwise killed someone. The problem is, this happens rarely (usually only once a game, if that), and somehow, vets always end up getting lynched. Thus, they aren't always the most helpful role.
My idea was thus: Since BM has told us there are exactly 2 vets in the game, we know there are exactly two vets in the game. In my experience, as I mentioned above, vets don't always do their job (not their fault, its just "doing their job" hinges on another group outside their control targeting them). As we've seen in other mafia games (Caller's RO3K game is a good example), when town bands together and has good organization, it's really easy for town to win. Mafia usually wins if they prevent town from organizing in this way.
Thus, I believe in this setup, the vets would actually be more helpful to town in the spotlight as town organizers, rather than in the shadows hoping to soak hits. As a vet has 2 nightlives, mafia has to waste an entire night just to kill one vet, rather than kill 2 others (and possibly hit other blues like DTs). This isn't something most mafia teams would be willing to do (especially if medics start protecting the vigis - they become unkillable).
So basically, we'd have the vets claim. If only 2 claim, we're set, we just have blues PM them, and start an epic town circle. Vets would know if people were lying because of the openness of the setup: if 3 DTs claim to them, they'd know one of them was scum, and could probably figure it out pretty quickly. This would be a great way to coordinate rolechecks, medic protection, even vigi kills or Mad Hatter Bombs depending on which of those roles we have. Essentially, town would become a well-oiled machine and would screw mafia over.
If more than 2 vets claim, we just have to rolecheck them, nail a mafia, and go back to the first scenario from that point out.
Now, naturally this plan isn't perfect. There are three major flaws:
1) If GF decided to appear as a vet to rolechecks, it sinks this plan completely, obviously.
2) If one or both vets is inactive/doesn't read the thread, that also sinks this plan.
3) The Suicide Bomber. This role exists to counter mass roleclaims and to prevent us from telling medics to protect certain people IN THE THREAD. It's very possible that the mafia might decide to bomb one of the vets - but that's why we have two. Mafia would be trading a scum for a townie.
Hope this makes sense! Ask me if you have any more questions.
##Unvote BrownBear ##Vote Abstain
I was the one who checked because I didn't want to hang an innocent man. While the merits of this plan can be debated, to me it seems pretty solid. There is no way that it would go through now but it isn't the scum move I thought it was.
He has some solid arguments and a cohesive plan, but most importantly it was trying to push the towns agenda. While it could still be a mafia ploy, I don't think they would have him transition between idle, scapegoat, and then try to save him. I am probably 90% convinced he is town.
I am moving my vote to abstain for now while I look over the Darth/chaoser arguments and see who is more likely to red (both?) and will vote when I get off work.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 18 2010 11:38 LaXerCannon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2010 10:40 youngminii wrote:On July 18 2010 10:13 SiNiquity wrote:On July 18 2010 09:59 youngminii wrote:On July 18 2010 09:51 Bill Murray wrote: EVERYONE abstaining? I guess it'd no lynch. Didn't expect that to happen! Okay so everyone should abstain imo. If you have any objections to this idea, please raise it asap because we need everyone to switch their vote to abstaining. Even one vote = lynch and that will be very suspicious of the person who left their vote by 'accident'. ##Unvote Pyrr ##Vote Abstain I'm not sure I like it. The inactives will get modkilled, no one gets lynched, the mafia kills 2 more people, and then we're back at square one, no? On July 18 2010 10:16 Jayme wrote: No-Lynch?
Oh hell no absolutely not.
I don't understand how a no-lynch is beneficial to the town if you're going to kill an inactive anyway. You learn absolutely nothing from it, you don't even have a CHANCE at hitting a red, and you're basically wasting a whole day on nothing.
No lynch is a terrible idea. If we lynch someone on the first day without any good reason there's a solid chance (12/15) that we'll hit a townie. That's 80%. There's also a better chance of lynching a blue than there is of scum. A no lynch is a gift that we should utilize instead of RVS. Bad idea, there's no incentive for town to post -> silent town = dead town
LaXercannon does it.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 18 2010 10:30 Tricode wrote: ##vote abstain
Just doing this if I don't make it tomorrow to vote. My dad is spending his last full day at home before he has to leave for a few months for work.
Other then that, I do suggest we lynch an inactive.
1.if we keep abstaining cause we are always uncertain of what to do, we will never push to killing and finding a mafia member if we went at that rate.
2. That person who is being inactive is probably useless to us anyways just because they are not doing anything to participate.
3. One of the inactive are likely to be mafia just because there is usually one or two guys that are inactive or just post a little bit just so they can stay alive.
Either case, we won't accomplish anything by abstaining, it might even hurt us cause if we keep the option in our head we might use it to much in fear of constantly killing townies/blues and such. So I suggest try keeping abstains as placeholders or if you are truly uncertain in what to do.
Otherwise I encourage and highly suggest that we always use our lynches.
tricode does it.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2010 09:59 SouthRawrea wrote: My take on this is we should take it easy Day 1 and just individually take note of inactives/suspicious individuals until we get our power roles in action tonight. Sure we may end up lynching one of the Reds and it does indeed help to lynch scummy players in order to lessen the number suspects in a future lynch but Random Lynching on Day 1 also allows Reds to gain a foothold in swaying the opinions of players in a future 50/50 situation (ex: Player X is active since Day 1 and seems to be pro-town but is in actuality a mafia. Both him and a Player Y, a cop, counter-claim each other with conflicting reports several days later and the town is given a 50/50 shot at lynching the right person but the other cop hasn't been speaking as much in fear of revealing the fact that he is a cop to the mafia through unintentional, implicit clues. The rest of the village trusts Player X because he seems to be more Pro-Town than Player Y.) and we risk the possibility of lynching one of our power roles early on. Just my 2 cents on why I voted to abstain from lynching.
SouthRawrea actually believes it's better not to lynch anyone day one and then abstained so I guess he's not contradicting himself?
the last two, protactinium and zeks, don't really mention no-lynching but they both advocate lynching someone (an inactive the first day). They both abstained.
So are these guys suspicious cause they contradicted themselves as well? Bring a better argument.
|
by does it i mean advocate lynching someone and then abstains
|
Actually, for a long time I have been wondering whether Chaoser is innocent or not. For most of the time I've decided to keep my vote just because if I unvoted, I felt like everyone else would too(Since I have both led and started the accusatoin.)
Therefore, I'm actually really suspecting Subversion. I mean, even if it was a mistake the vote for Hyperbola is suspect. Especially since after a few PM's my arguments for chaoser have diminished and the arguments for Subversion have grown. With that. ##Unvote ##Vote Subversion.
|
On July 22 2010 06:03 Pandain wrote: Right now I believe the two viable decisions are either Chaoser or Darth. They are the two most likely canidates for actually being mafia. BB and Subversion are just new and people are jumping on them for really miniscule posts. The only one thing that could lead to one of them being mafia is Subversions deciding vote in favor of Hyperbola, however that is still unlikely because it is just as likely that 1)The Mafia didn't know of BM's miscount 2)He just voted at an unlucky time.
So all those who are picking either BB or Subversion (especially BB) I urge you to change your vote and vote for either Darth of Chaoser. I would suggest Chaoser, just because I find him more likely to be mafia than DTA. To me, it still seems that Chaoser is just trying to get people lynched and DTA could be plannign something. Of course we should keep an eye on DTA, but let's not just lynch him and ruin anything he might be doing.
I would urge you to vote Chaoser, but at the very least I humbly request all those not voting either DTA/Chaoser to unvote and pick one of them.
Hi Pandain, remember this post, oh a page ago, and now you've flipped to
On July 22 2010 06:28 Pandain wrote: Actually, for a long time I have been wondering whether Chaoser is innocent or not. For most of the time I've decided to keep my vote just because if I unvoted, I felt like everyone else would too(Since I have both led and started the accusatoin.)
Therefore, I'm actually really suspecting Subversion. I mean, even if it was a mistake the vote for Hyperbola is suspect. Especially since after a few PM's my arguments for chaoser have diminished and the arguments for Subversion have grown. With that. ##Unvote ##Vote Subversion.
Just saying, little sketchy of a switch based on your post above. IF anything you would have swapped to dta. Just saying.
|
On July 22 2010 06:31 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 06:03 Pandain wrote: Right now I believe the two viable decisions are either Chaoser or Darth. They are the two most likely canidates for actually being mafia. BB and Subversion are just new and people are jumping on them for really miniscule posts. The only one thing that could lead to one of them being mafia is Subversions deciding vote in favor of Hyperbola, however that is still unlikely because it is just as likely that 1)The Mafia didn't know of BM's miscount 2)He just voted at an unlucky time.
So all those who are picking either BB or Subversion (especially BB) I urge you to change your vote and vote for either Darth of Chaoser. I would suggest Chaoser, just because I find him more likely to be mafia than DTA. To me, it still seems that Chaoser is just trying to get people lynched and DTA could be plannign something. Of course we should keep an eye on DTA, but let's not just lynch him and ruin anything he might be doing.
I would urge you to vote Chaoser, but at the very least I humbly request all those not voting either DTA/Chaoser to unvote and pick one of them.
Hi Pandain, remember this post, oh a page ago, and now you've flipped to Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 06:28 Pandain wrote: Actually, for a long time I have been wondering whether Chaoser is innocent or not. For most of the time I've decided to keep my vote just because if I unvoted, I felt like everyone else would too(Since I have both led and started the accusatoin.)
Therefore, I'm actually really suspecting Subversion. I mean, even if it was a mistake the vote for Hyperbola is suspect. Especially since after a few PM's my arguments for chaoser have diminished and the arguments for Subversion have grown. With that. ##Unvote ##Vote Subversion. Just saying, little sketchy of a switch based on your post above. IF anything you would have swapped to dta. Just saying.
I agree, it looks suscipious but at the same time I truly believe DTA is just a blue whos plannign something. At the very least, I want to give him a night. And Chaoser HAS been defending himself well, no doubt about that.
|
Finally, I have been exchanging PM's from mroe expierenced players and they have laid out their arguments fantastically. I am inclined to believe them. You, of all people, should know how hard Mafia is, and I can't just stick to one person because I voted them first. If people offer sufficient evidence, I change my mind. I always have.
|
On July 22 2010 06:34 Pandain wrote: Finally, I have been exchanging PM's from mroe expierenced players and they have laid out their arguments fantastically. I am inclined to believe them. You, of all people, should know how hard Mafia is, and I can't just stick to one person because I voted them first. If people offer sufficient evidence, I change my mind. I always have.
Oh dude, I know how hard the game can be. The issue isn't that you changed your vote, it was based on what you said a page previously that your vote went to someone who wasn't on your list of two. In essence it appears as though you are hopping off a bandwagon now that its reached its height.
Sometimes you just need to explain yourself fully when you do such a jump to avoid it being called out.
|
It makes me sad that the real choice is indeed between chaoser and Subversion. I'm a bit risk averse so I will vote for Chaoser.
unvote ##vote Chaoser
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 22 2010 06:27 chaoser wrote: ... the last two, protactinium and zeks, don't really mention no-lynching but they both advocate lynching someone (an inactive the first day). They both abstained.
So are these guys suspicious cause they contradicted themselves as well? Bring a better argument. Chaoser, throwing blame around isn't the best way to make your case, especially if you are so blatantly wrong. I was subbed into this game and did not have time to finish reading the thread, as stated. If you are going to make false accusations, at least try to back them up.
Furthermore, you realize that unless everybody abstains, somebody is bound to be lynched. There is no majority system here.
|
On July 22 2010 06:34 Pandain wrote: Finally, I have been exchanging PM's from mroe expierenced players and they have laid out their arguments fantastically. I am inclined to believe them. You, of all people, should know how hard Mafia is, and I can't just stick to one person because I voted them first. If people offer sufficient evidence, I change my mind. I always have. I understand that PMing is a powerful tool but just because someone tells you they're not scum through PM doesn't mean they're telling you the truth. At the start of this game you PM'd me basically asking me if I was scum and I pretty much said 'no'. You completely believed me without any hesitation.
|
On July 22 2010 06:41 youngminii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 06:34 Pandain wrote: Finally, I have been exchanging PM's from mroe expierenced players and they have laid out their arguments fantastically. I am inclined to believe them. You, of all people, should know how hard Mafia is, and I can't just stick to one person because I voted them first. If people offer sufficient evidence, I change my mind. I always have. I understand that PMing is a powerful tool but just because someone tells you they're not scum through PM doesn't mean they're telling you the truth. At the start of this game you PM'd me basically asking me if I was scum and I pretty much said 'no'. You completely believed me without any hesitation.
Dude, its the Secret Friendship Alliance. You break that, you''re basically going to hell.
|
On July 22 2010 06:40 Protactinium wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 06:27 chaoser wrote: ... the last two, protactinium and zeks, don't really mention no-lynching but they both advocate lynching someone (an inactive the first day). They both abstained.
So are these guys suspicious cause they contradicted themselves as well? Bring a better argument. Chaoser, throwing blame around isn't the best way to make your case, especially if you are so blatantly wrong. I was subbed into this game and did not have time to finish reading the thread, as stated. If you are going to make false accusations, at least try to back them up. Furthermore, you realize that unless everybody abstains, somebody is bound to be lynched. There is no majority system here.
1) I didn't throw blame around, I don't even think there is blame to begin with seeing as how I don't think my argument for "let's not do a no-lynch" and my choice of abstaining is contradictory.
2) I forgot that you subbed in late but from your few posts during the first day you DIDN'T say you supported the no-lynch plan which means by default that you supported the lynch someone plan. That is how I thought about it. And to pick on just that one fact and then level the statement that I am "blatantly wrong" and "making false accusations" when the all the other ones check out is a HUGE overstatement.
|
NOTE: I am not saying any of those people are mafia, I'm saying that the argument against me is flawed.
|
BTW, if you guys continue to vote for Subversion you need to take note of this post:
On July 21 2010 09:09 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 06:09 citi.zen wrote:On July 21 2010 05:56 DarthThienAn wrote:On July 21 2010 05:51 Pandain wrote:On July 21 2010 05:46 DarthThienAn wrote:
Actually, the mafia made a huge mistake - one of their hits failed, or they stacked their hits on Foolishness, a townie. A smart/good player, but only 1 townie nonetheless. The less people there are, the greater their voting power, it's stupid to stack on night 1. So to me, the statement IS false, but the reason why it's suspicious is that no one would ever genuinely say that -> mafia. Haha, you're right about that mistake. However, I thought it had been determined that D3 was also hit but protected by a medic. So they didn't stack their hits, one of their hits simply failed. And the more important thing is why would no one say that? Heck, I might say that. "Hey the mafia are doing pretty good." Just to be sure when I'm voting, please explain more. + Show Spoiler +If Subversion IS mafia, i'm so going to kill myself. There's the possibility that d3 is a mafia faking taking a hit. It's low chance, but not 0% so I didn't leave it out. Other than that, he's either a veteran and/or got medic protection. What do you mean? My thoughts: Mafia FAILED last night strategically. Subversion was NOT being sarcastic/joking (look at his post). So why would he say that? Furthermore, even if the mafia HAD failed, saying that "mafia aren't making too many mistakes" is an extremely odd statement to make. Sure, it's not the best lead, but it's better than me, and I'm willing to let BB redeem himself if he happens to be a terrible townie. Subversion, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be on the path to correction at all. I don't know... I am leaning with Pandain here. Subversion is a brand new player who does not know what to expect in these games. I can see him think... "How do you catch mafia? You watch for mistakes! Have we caught any? Nope. Ah - so thus far they aren't making too many mistakes." I see no huge red flag. That said, he does not strike me as someone useful for the town so I am OK losing him if there are no better candidates. THANK YOU fucking hell. I played in ONE NIGHT of harry potter mafia, I got temp banned for some stupid joke and got replaced This is my first game ffs, I didn't realise what I said would make it "oh gg, he's mafia lol, what a fkn moron". I was trying to be useful Seems like everyone is jumping on my voting bandwagon, I get what I said was stupid now, although I still don't really understand why its a fucknormous mistake. I was simply stating what to me, was a fairly obvious fact. It was kind of a justification for my vote to be honest. I didn't see any major mistakes, I didn't have anyone I felt REALLY deserved a vote, but I didn't wanna abstain and I thought Hyperbola was fucked anyway. So I read what he said and what others said, there didn't really seem like any better choice, so I just voted for him. Like I said, I didn't really think my vote mattered much anyway. I also had Bill up my ass saying I was gonna be modkilled if I didn't vote! I really don't want to be voted out here, I don't want to roleclaim either, but I can if necessary??
|
^ Dumb? Yes.
Lynchable? Not so sure I can justify it.
|
|
|
|