|
On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:
I think between annul and LSB it's actually quite likely that one of them is scum. In Haunted Mafia, DocH and Pandain continually re-iterated the same arguments against each other, making huge walls of text that consumed many pages, and diverted town discussion from important things for like two whole game days. In the end, Pandain was scum. The difference there was that there were no PMs that game, so it was more important to be able to follow the thread well. All the same, I'm sensing echoes of that here, especially since annul seems to want to continue to force the issue.
So you argue that one of them is scum, yet reach the conclusion we should divert attention away? This seems illogical. And you vote for the one of them keeping up the pressure?
On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:I'll also say that I find annul's posting to be much scummier than LSB's. The way he's posting reminds me a lot of the way he played Experimental Mini Mafia (which was an interesting experience, as I knew he was scum from the beginning  ), whereas LSB's defense and contribution seems a lot more like his posting in Pokemafia, where he was green.
In that game annul only posted 1 liners, voted without reason etc. In this game he is providing big analysis and is willing to defend it. How is that the same?
|
On December 28 2010 17:17 seRapH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:I think between annul and LSB it's actually quite likely that one of them is scum. In Haunted Mafia, DocH and Pandain continually re-iterated the same arguments against each other, making huge walls of text that consumed many pages, and diverted town discussion from important things for like two whole game days. In the end, Pandain was scum. The difference there was that there were no PMs that game, so it was more important to be able to follow the thread well. All the same, I'm sensing echoes of that here, especially since annul seems to want to continue to force the issue. I'll also say that I find annul's posting to be much scummier than LSB's. The way he's posting reminds me a lot of the way he played Experimental Mini Mafia (which was an interesting experience, as I knew he was scum from the beginning ), whereas LSB's defense and contribution seems a lot more like his posting in Pokemafia, where he was green. For now, I'm putting my vote on annul. I'm also going to be analyzing LunarDestiny, as I think his posting has been... strange, to say the least. Gonna work on that now. Just clearing this up, but you do mean Insane Mafia, not Haunted, right?
Er, yep. My bad. 
|
Shining my Light on the situation at hand:
LSB vs Annul
1.LSB started the Game by posting a few 'sketchy' posts at the very start of the gGame. For example he was blatantly 'joking' about being scum and making (joke) proposals about lynching OpZ~ for no particular reason. Of course, one may interpret all this as good fun and games, but it CAN also be the trickery of a red trying to play it cool. Very much a WIFOM situation imo.
However, Annul was rather quick to jump the gun and attack LSB for this. Yes, his play was suspicious, but there's still no half decent reason to place your FOS on him that early. Annul also attacked LSB for being overly-active and attempting to make forced arguments, something I kinda agree with. Again though, LSB was not the only one doing this but combined with his 'jokes' I see why you would wanna watch him.
2.LSB's defense DOES make him more suspicious, he turns around and attacks Annul on pretty much all the points he was attacked on before, and what results is 2 people blatantly throwing mud at eachother for 5+ pages in lengthy posts. The PM chain with Pandain LSB shows us is interesting. LSB tells Pandain he thinks Annul made an elaborate analysis early in the game to look like town when questioned later in the game. LSB states:
He wants to win the town favor by making a long post and hoping that it gets ignored. That way he can go back and say "Look at all the analysis I did!". And indeed he has done that.
This is completely nonsensical to me. If Annul wanted to slip by unnoticed he wouldn't have preceded his analysis with a short message.
okay, hi peeps
FOS LSB.
analysis to come shortly
Pandain notices this, but LSB fails to retort and ignores this question. (At least in the part of the PM chain he shows us.) Also, if Annul qualifies as someone who tries to act active but doesn't say much, I fail to see why the same doesn't go for LSB.
In conclusion:
Much is typed, little is said between our two fighting dogs over the course of many a page. They reinstate their arguments every page and don't really come up with anything new. I'm not actually sure if they are just over active townies or if one them is actually a red. Out of the two though, my suspicion falls on LSB, but I don't feel like it's strong enough of a case to vote for him + Show Spoiler +
|
On December 28 2010 17:39 Barundar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:
I think between annul and LSB it's actually quite likely that one of them is scum. In Haunted Mafia, DocH and Pandain continually re-iterated the same arguments against each other, making huge walls of text that consumed many pages, and diverted town discussion from important things for like two whole game days. In the end, Pandain was scum. The difference there was that there were no PMs that game, so it was more important to be able to follow the thread well. All the same, I'm sensing echoes of that here, especially since annul seems to want to continue to force the issue. So you argue that one of them is scum, yet reach the conclusion we should divert attention away? This seems illogical. And you vote for the one of them keeping up the pressure? Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:I'll also say that I find annul's posting to be much scummier than LSB's. The way he's posting reminds me a lot of the way he played Experimental Mini Mafia (which was an interesting experience, as I knew he was scum from the beginning ), whereas LSB's defense and contribution seems a lot more like his posting in Pokemafia, where he was green. In that game annul only posted 1 liners, voted without reason etc. In this game he is providing big analysis and is willing to defend it. How is that the same?
I'm not saying that we should divert attention away, I'm saying that the argument needs to be either dropped or resolved in favor of one or the other. In Insane mafia, the argument never went away and distracted the town forever. I have a feeling that if we don't make a decision now, it will be bothering us for days. LSB and annul have already shown that they're willing to take up pages and pages with it even though their positions have already been stated fairly well -- don't be surprised if it keeps happening when neither of them die.
As for annul's posting, he had an analysis of ghrur and a spat with kingjames (who was also mafia that game) that were pretty similar to his posts here in tone and style, and he pursued Fishball in a similar fashion to how he's on LSB now. He also has a tendency to get into arguments with fellow mafia members, and while that's just WIFOM at this point it's something else to keep in mind.
|
Analysis of LunarDestiny so far (my comments in blue):
+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2010 10:51 LunarDestiny wrote:
Lets discuss about the game. Framer is the only role new to me and the role is damn powerful. If we focus on a small group of people, the framer can easily frame someone who dts will check. We should try to focus on a bigger group of people so the framer could not misled the town easily.
On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. On December 27 2010 11:10 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:08 Mr.Zergling wrote:On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. why would it do that? Because it is unlikely that mafia would frame a lurkering town. So if dts check lurkers, then it will reduce the risk of them mischecking a framed target. He spends his first few posts addressing the framer role, and how it should affect DT checks. I'm not a big fan of directing blues, but I'm not about to call this scummy posting. When people start asking blues to take specific actions (ie put bomb on this guy, check this guy, protect so-and-so), then it sets off alarms.On December 27 2010 12:25 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:50 Pandain wrote:
WHAT TO DO FOR TODAY
I say to do this ery day, I say to do this now. Town should lynch inactives. This is actually a somewhat complicated process. Right now in the beginning I will just begin voting people(pressuring) until they make enough of a meaningful post and then I’ll vote someone else. Now, the point is to lynch those who “contribute without really contributing” not those who are just going to get modkilled. That is why at the end it’ll end up being one of the “semi lurkers”, not the dead ones.
SUMMARY
1.Contribute without spamming
2.Be active, make well thought out posts.
3.Lynch the semi inactives, inactives for now.
Contradiction? Pandain say we should lynch inactive for day1 then vote for Mr. Wiggles? Pandain, please explain. He calls Pandain out on voting Mr. Wiggles. IMO Pandain's vote was justified by his post, but I don't have a problem with this. On December 27 2010 14:17 LunarDestiny wrote:Since there are many new players in the game, they will probably base their night actions, if they have blue roles, on advices of others. Pandain did give out many good advices but I'll nitpick this one: Show nested quote +Vigi- I still think this should really be a town decision who to shoot. There are so many times when town is going to need that extra certain kp in situations in the future, in addition to the fact that most likely you will shoot a town. Only shoot if we tell you too, or(and I’m being very cautious on this) you just know I like the idea that vig's shot should be decided by town. Unless vigs are veteran, the town are better figuring out who is scum. Also, shots from vigs aren't wasted if more than one shots at the same person are made. I also want to discuss should vigs use their shots early to try to get lucky and kill mafia? Reducing mafia KP is very important and we also have two double lynch to compensate for lack of vig in the later in the game. Continues to advise blue roles, this time focusing on vig. I think it's a terrible, terrible idea to base the town's night kills on luck, enough that I'd call it scummy to ask for it. He also notes that newb blues are likely to base their action on town advice, which is exactly why I'm beginning to find it a bit weird just how much advice LunarDestiny is giving. Any mafia influence over special town roles is good for them.On December 27 2010 14:33 LunarDestiny wrote:
Vigs can only hit on night 2. At that time, we will most likely have multiple suspects. These suspects are likely to be our main lynch targets on day3. So if they are not killed, we have to deal with them anyway. The risk is that they are town and can be proven innocence on night 2 by a dt. But the existence of the framer discourage dts to check on suspects. So dt checks on suspected people returning town aren't convincing information.
Also in most of the games I played, vigs are killed before they were able to make shots. More blue advice.On December 27 2010 14:55 LunarDestiny wrote:
I was trying to give people someone to discuss. There is no better topic that I can find. I find it hard to believe that there's really nothing else to discuss, but I'll let this slide.On December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
People will ask what your opinion is on something and it is safe to respond on these pm. Just don't tell anyone your role. If you strongly sense that someone is trying to fish out your role, you should tell town since it is good indication that the person is mafia.
After night 1, dts would have checked some townies and pms are encouraged between them. There is a slight chance that a mafia will take the risk to fake the dt role, but it would be hard for them to do since they have to predict but role that person is.
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. More blue advice. Also, he wants a list made rather than pressuring inactives on an individual basis -- which other people have mentioned isn't the greatest of ideas.On December 28 2010 03:43 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:56 LSB wrote:EBWOP On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:@LunarDestinyOn December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. What do you think we should do about inactives then? Can you read his post? It doesn't do anything about inactives. It just says we make a list of inactives and see what happens. We've done this practically every single game. Does it work? Not really. LunarDestiny, can you elaborate a bit more then?
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap.Looking at the voting thread, there are 3 people that were voted. Mr.Wiggies quickly responded after pandain voted on him. Pandain also respond after the mass vote on him. But Jackal had yet to respond after being voted by pandain. Accusing someone encourages participation from that that person. But what if that person is afk? He won't be able to respond. Also, IF pandain is mafia, then town will be sidetracked. Other inactive mafia will go under the radar.
We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves.I am saying that we should not target inactive (afk/spam/suspect) at a time for day 1 lynch. At some point on day1, we should come up with a list of possible lynch and that will encourage those people on the list to speak up. Again all of the above is for day 1's lynch when town have almost no information. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. He clarifies that he wants to not target an inactive for a day 1 lynch, but wants to pressure them into posting via his list. Which... I don't really get. Why would they post if there was no actual threat of being lynched? Also, I don't think mafia pressuring inactives would actually be bad, as long as . In addition the last time a complete inactive got lynched day 1 (salem mafia w/BrownBear), they ended up being red, though to be fair it was a traitor role, so the mafia wasn't aware of their alignment.
I don't agree with this post, but I'm more inclined to say that his thoughts come from a town point of view.On December 28 2010 04:08 LunarDestiny wrote:
Also, I somewhat don't agree with Dr.H that dts should check the people they think are the most likely to be mafia. The people that seem to most likely to be mafia are a combination of:
-Lurkers who post bare minimum to stay alive.
There is a lower chance that framer will framer a lurking town. I encourage dts to check these people. There is the downside where these people are more likely to be modkilled because they might be people who lost interest in the game. Without more people as replacement, dt checks might be wasted. So dts have to judge between lurkers who lost interest in the game and those who are posting minimum to stay alive.
-People who have taken a huge stand on issues and are in long debates with others. These people are most likely to be framer's target since there are, at most, a few of people in this categories. The probability of successful framing of these people is higher than probability of successful framing on lurking town. And even if a dt check says that a person of these categories comes out to be mafia, this information is useful, but less compared to other mafia games where there are no framer
To summarize, dts should use checks on lurkers to avoid framer. But should judge between real lurkers and discouraged players. Again with the blue advice.On December 28 2010 04:53 LunarDestiny wrote:
I am not saying that we should go after inactive all game. On day 1 where very few information is available, we should pressure all inactive to speak up. Because this game have the role framer in it, we should let dts deal with inactive and discourage dt checks on people are suspicious because they are in heated debates.
I agree that behavior analyze is important. Especially in this game, mafia check by dt on people who are in long debates are less convincing compared to other games because they are likely to be a framed townie. On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
Yes, my posts are general and are related to how should we play this game because of minor difference (framer) compared to other mafia games.
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
@3)Again, I am not trying to post to make me look town. Heck, I could have lurked from the beginning and not attract attention to myself.
By my "plan", I assume you mean me saying "who should dts check" and "on day 1, we should pressure inactive to speak". Yes, both requires almost no work on my part. The first is advice to dts and the second is relating to generating discussions.
As of now, I do not have good point of why or why not anyone is mafia. I do not want to accuse anyone without good point. Here he's defending himself after Barundar's post accusing him of not posting much in the way of content. I'll go through point by point.
1. I already stated how I disagree with not pressuring players individually. And it's not like a list is going to be particularly persuasive in the way of getting inactives more active, unless people actually act on it. That requires votes.
2. See #1
3. Anyone could say this. Of course you don't have to post anything helpful, but it certainly assists your own case if you're mafia.
Altogether, an inconclusive post.On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:23 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
What's the difference between the two scenarios? In both we are putting pressure on people to contribute. In both we need to make a list of inactives. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. So, it's okay to point fingers at active players because it encourages debate, but it's not okay to do so at inactive players because they might be afk. Again, I disagree, but that's a common theme at this point.On December 28 2010 05:46 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:26 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 LunarDestiny wrote:On December 28 2010 04:57 Barundar wrote:I’m sorry to point it out, but I can’t help but notice how general and unproductive your posts are, LunarDestiny. At some point on day1, we should come up with a list of possible lynch and that will encourage those people on the list to speak up 1) Lists are a good way to appear like you are contributing, without actually adding anything. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. 2) Pressure is not done in general, pressure is specific to make the player unable to hide. Your list of pressuring “all” inactives is the same as pressuring none. 3) There is a fine line between a plan, and suggestions that make you appear to be active while sending the town on a goosechase. Your plan requires no work from yourself (“we” should do this and that), is very general (“at some point”), and it’s limited to inactives instead of scumhunting, making it mechanic, so even when we hit town, the mafia is not guilty. In general, the player list is a little more stacked with active players than Pokemafia/HPmafia, so inactives shouldn’t be as much as a problem (even if I just replaced one…) My respond is above. (Thought I could post right under without quoting) Okay, now your post makes a bit more sense. But the point still stands. Why is it so bad to put pressure on one person and then move? Why is this better than RNG? I think I answered your first question in my post above. For your second question: The list is better because it will affect more inactive. Now I think RNG people to pressure them can be use in combination with having a list because I don't see why we can't use them together. To rephrase what I was saying, only RNG people and accuse them is not a good choice to pressure inactive. Having a list will pressure on a bigger group of people. You can RNG people and pressure them, BUT the list is needed because RNGing people is not enough. More pushing for the all-important inactive list. Why Insanious ended up making it instead of LunarDestiny is beyond me. On December 28 2010 05:57 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:51 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
What's the difference between the two scenarios? In both we are putting pressure on people to contribute. In both we need to make a list of inactives. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. Everyone has to point fingers. Even mafia point fingers at their own for weak posting or inactivity, but they will rarely push for a lynch. It should be our job as town to make sure that all of the necessary people are brought into the spotlight and to lynch those we find lacking. As posted above, I think pointing finger is good but a list is needed because pointing finger is not enough. Also, the list thing is most useful in day1 since that is the day with the least information. After day1, I suppose that the lynch will be based on behavior analysis like other games. Also, I want to ask Pandain to stop voting at random people to pressure them to talk. If we are also pressuring random inactive, then the same person must not be the one pointing fingers. I find this post in particular especially strange. Pandain is getting results and encouraging discussion, and apparently that's a bad thing. The last sentence is garbled, but by the sound of it he means inactives should not be the ones to pressure inactives. Um... okay. So how else can they contribute?On December 28 2010 07:34 LunarDestiny wrote:I am following debates between Annul and LSB. There are something I don't get. Annul's conclusion in his first post about why LSB should be lynched. Show nested quote +in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing.
my vote is on LSB now. Annul, your conclusion for lynching LSB is because he have about 30 posts. All 30 posts, except 2, are posts that means nothing and pure informative posts without analysis? LSB, are your reasons for lynching Annul in page 17? -1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing -2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives -3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced -4. Annul posts without brining anything new I will say what I think of this later, but I want to get these two points straight. Finally he gets involved in the discussion that the town has been most concerned with lately. But whatever happened to pressuring inactives? In his whole post history, he has not actually called anybody out, or even commented on the list he wanted. Also, despite being quite active in the game so far, he hasn't cast a vote, even though he emphasizes pressure.On December 28 2010 08:33 LunarDestiny wrote:I also think that Annul's initial post about LSB being mafia is illogically since the town will definitely not lynch a veteran like LSB because he have some meaningless posts. LSB actually have way more than 2 good posts before annul's accusation. Annul's second reason on p.18 Show nested quote +insistence on going after inactives instead of scumhunting. it would be very easy for a mafia to know his team all happen to be active and then say "hey kill inactives over all else EVEN IF scummy targets exist Well, we know that there is a lot of inactive in this game. I also assume there must a some mafia inactive in this game so LSB going after inactive doesn't say much about him being scum. What I don't understand is why Annul accused LSB without good evidence why LSB is mafia. -I don't think Annul accuse LSB to save Pandain because the bandwagon on Pandain is a joke and there is no good reason to lynch pandain. -LSB also mentioned that Annul do the analysis on LSB to make himself look good by using it as a reference that he did lengthy analysis. But LSB also say that annul want his post to be ignored. I have to question why would annul choose LSB to accuse if he want his post to be ignored. It makes no sense. If annul want his post to be ignore, he could have analyze someone other than LSB, because pointing finger at LSB would certainly result in some lengthy responses that annul can't slip by. More comments on the LSB / annul debate. I'm happy to see him voice his thoughts on the matter, though I would rather see an actual position taken instead of just listing the various issues that are guiding the debate. He could be genuinely unsure of which side to take, or it could be the typical wishy-washy mafia.
So, final thoughts. LunarDestiny, up until commenting on the annul / LSB debate is all about lurkers and blues. Blues, lurkers, blues, lurkers. DTs should check them. We should pressure them this way, not that way. It's a good idea to lynch one. So on and so forth.
Final verdict: undecided. I'm going to leave it at 50/50 for now. His thoughts aren't inherently scummy, but I really wish that he would get a bit more specific and actually start pointing fingers instead of encouraging others to do so. I think what made me suspicious of him was how many of his points I disagreed with. I just think the inactive town list, asking Pandain to stop doing what's clearly working, and the desire to control blue actions are all misguided notions. The key here is that we don't actually know anything about him -- it would be quite easy for a scum to be behind these posts and say "I'm contributing!" even though everything he has said could be summed up in a few sentences. It's true that for most of the game he's been re-iterating the same thing over many posts.
If he is town, I think he could do better.
|
LSB made a huge mistake in pokemafia but he turned out to be a townie. So he's playing a bad townie again or he's mafia. No regrets flipping LSB here.
|
He clarifies that he wants to not target an inactive for a day 1 lynch, but wants to pressure them into posting via his list. Which... I don't really get. Why would they post if there was no actual threat of being lynched? Also, I don't think mafia pressuring inactives would actually be bad, as long as . In addition the last time a complete inactive got lynched day 1 (salem mafia w/BrownBear), they ended up being red, though to be fair it was a traitor role, so the mafia wasn't aware of their alignment.
Scumslip?
More comments on the LSB / annul debate. I'm happy to see him voice his thoughts on the matter, though I would rather see an actual position taken instead of just listing the various issues that are guiding the debate. He could be genuinely unsure of which side to take, or it could be the typical wishy-washy mafia.
That is exactly how I feel about you after reading your analysis :/ Case in point: Final verdict: undecided
|
On December 28 2010 20:15 Node wrote:Analysis of LunarDestiny so far (my comments in blue):+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2010 10:51 LunarDestiny wrote:
Lets discuss about the game. Framer is the only role new to me and the role is damn powerful. If we focus on a small group of people, the framer can easily frame someone who dts will check. We should try to focus on a bigger group of people so the framer could not misled the town easily.
On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. On December 27 2010 11:10 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:08 Mr.Zergling wrote:On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. why would it do that? Because it is unlikely that mafia would frame a lurkering town. So if dts check lurkers, then it will reduce the risk of them mischecking a framed target. He spends his first few posts addressing the framer role, and how it should affect DT checks. I'm not a big fan of directing blues, but I'm not about to call this scummy posting. When people start asking blues to take specific actions (ie put bomb on this guy, check this guy, protect so-and-so), then it sets off alarms.On December 27 2010 12:25 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:50 Pandain wrote:
WHAT TO DO FOR TODAY
I say to do this ery day, I say to do this now. Town should lynch inactives. This is actually a somewhat complicated process. Right now in the beginning I will just begin voting people(pressuring) until they make enough of a meaningful post and then I’ll vote someone else. Now, the point is to lynch those who “contribute without really contributing” not those who are just going to get modkilled. That is why at the end it’ll end up being one of the “semi lurkers”, not the dead ones.
SUMMARY
1.Contribute without spamming
2.Be active, make well thought out posts.
3.Lynch the semi inactives, inactives for now.
Contradiction? Pandain say we should lynch inactive for day1 then vote for Mr. Wiggles? Pandain, please explain. He calls Pandain out on voting Mr. Wiggles. IMO Pandain's vote was justified by his post, but I don't have a problem with this. On December 27 2010 14:17 LunarDestiny wrote:Since there are many new players in the game, they will probably base their night actions, if they have blue roles, on advices of others. Pandain did give out many good advices but I'll nitpick this one: Show nested quote +Vigi- I still think this should really be a town decision who to shoot. There are so many times when town is going to need that extra certain kp in situations in the future, in addition to the fact that most likely you will shoot a town. Only shoot if we tell you too, or(and I’m being very cautious on this) you just know I like the idea that vig's shot should be decided by town. Unless vigs are veteran, the town are better figuring out who is scum. Also, shots from vigs aren't wasted if more than one shots at the same person are made. I also want to discuss should vigs use their shots early to try to get lucky and kill mafia? Reducing mafia KP is very important and we also have two double lynch to compensate for lack of vig in the later in the game. Continues to advise blue roles, this time focusing on vig. I think it's a terrible, terrible idea to base the town's night kills on luck, enough that I'd call it scummy to ask for it. He also notes that newb blues are likely to base their action on town advice, which is exactly why I'm beginning to find it a bit weird just how much advice LunarDestiny is giving. Any mafia influence over special town roles is good for them.On December 27 2010 14:33 LunarDestiny wrote:
Vigs can only hit on night 2. At that time, we will most likely have multiple suspects. These suspects are likely to be our main lynch targets on day3. So if they are not killed, we have to deal with them anyway. The risk is that they are town and can be proven innocence on night 2 by a dt. But the existence of the framer discourage dts to check on suspects. So dt checks on suspected people returning town aren't convincing information.
Also in most of the games I played, vigs are killed before they were able to make shots. More blue advice.On December 27 2010 14:55 LunarDestiny wrote:
I was trying to give people someone to discuss. There is no better topic that I can find. I find it hard to believe that there's really nothing else to discuss, but I'll let this slide.On December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
People will ask what your opinion is on something and it is safe to respond on these pm. Just don't tell anyone your role. If you strongly sense that someone is trying to fish out your role, you should tell town since it is good indication that the person is mafia.
After night 1, dts would have checked some townies and pms are encouraged between them. There is a slight chance that a mafia will take the risk to fake the dt role, but it would be hard for them to do since they have to predict but role that person is.
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. More blue advice. Also, he wants a list made rather than pressuring inactives on an individual basis -- which other people have mentioned isn't the greatest of ideas.On December 28 2010 03:43 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:56 LSB wrote:EBWOP On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:@LunarDestinyOn December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. What do you think we should do about inactives then? Can you read his post? It doesn't do anything about inactives. It just says we make a list of inactives and see what happens. We've done this practically every single game. Does it work? Not really. LunarDestiny, can you elaborate a bit more then?
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap.Looking at the voting thread, there are 3 people that were voted. Mr.Wiggies quickly responded after pandain voted on him. Pandain also respond after the mass vote on him. But Jackal had yet to respond after being voted by pandain. Accusing someone encourages participation from that that person. But what if that person is afk? He won't be able to respond. Also, IF pandain is mafia, then town will be sidetracked. Other inactive mafia will go under the radar.
We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves.I am saying that we should not target inactive (afk/spam/suspect) at a time for day 1 lynch. At some point on day1, we should come up with a list of possible lynch and that will encourage those people on the list to speak up. Again all of the above is for day 1's lynch when town have almost no information. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. He clarifies that he wants to not target an inactive for a day 1 lynch, but wants to pressure them into posting via his list. Which... I don't really get. Why would they post if there was no actual threat of being lynched? Also, I don't think mafia pressuring inactives would actually be bad, as long as . In addition the last time a complete inactive got lynched day 1 (salem mafia w/BrownBear), they ended up being red, though to be fair it was a traitor role, so the mafia wasn't aware of their alignment.
I don't agree with this post, but I'm more inclined to say that his thoughts come from a town point of view.On December 28 2010 04:08 LunarDestiny wrote:
Also, I somewhat don't agree with Dr.H that dts should check the people they think are the most likely to be mafia. The people that seem to most likely to be mafia are a combination of:
-Lurkers who post bare minimum to stay alive.
There is a lower chance that framer will framer a lurking town. I encourage dts to check these people. There is the downside where these people are more likely to be modkilled because they might be people who lost interest in the game. Without more people as replacement, dt checks might be wasted. So dts have to judge between lurkers who lost interest in the game and those who are posting minimum to stay alive.
-People who have taken a huge stand on issues and are in long debates with others. These people are most likely to be framer's target since there are, at most, a few of people in this categories. The probability of successful framing of these people is higher than probability of successful framing on lurking town. And even if a dt check says that a person of these categories comes out to be mafia, this information is useful, but less compared to other mafia games where there are no framer
To summarize, dts should use checks on lurkers to avoid framer. But should judge between real lurkers and discouraged players. Again with the blue advice.On December 28 2010 04:53 LunarDestiny wrote:
I am not saying that we should go after inactive all game. On day 1 where very few information is available, we should pressure all inactive to speak up. Because this game have the role framer in it, we should let dts deal with inactive and discourage dt checks on people are suspicious because they are in heated debates.
I agree that behavior analyze is important. Especially in this game, mafia check by dt on people who are in long debates are less convincing compared to other games because they are likely to be a framed townie. On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
Yes, my posts are general and are related to how should we play this game because of minor difference (framer) compared to other mafia games.
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
@3)Again, I am not trying to post to make me look town. Heck, I could have lurked from the beginning and not attract attention to myself.
By my "plan", I assume you mean me saying "who should dts check" and "on day 1, we should pressure inactive to speak". Yes, both requires almost no work on my part. The first is advice to dts and the second is relating to generating discussions.
As of now, I do not have good point of why or why not anyone is mafia. I do not want to accuse anyone without good point. Here he's defending himself after Barundar's post accusing him of not posting much in the way of content. I'll go through point by point.
1. I already stated how I disagree with not pressuring players individually. And it's not like a list is going to be particularly persuasive in the way of getting inactives more active, unless people actually act on it. That requires votes.
2. See #1
3. Anyone could say this. Of course you don't have to post anything helpful, but it certainly assists your own case if you're mafia.
Altogether, an inconclusive post.On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:23 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
What's the difference between the two scenarios? In both we are putting pressure on people to contribute. In both we need to make a list of inactives. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. So, it's okay to point fingers at active players because it encourages debate, but it's not okay to do so at inactive players because they might be afk. Again, I disagree, but that's a common theme at this point.On December 28 2010 05:46 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:26 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 LunarDestiny wrote:On December 28 2010 04:57 Barundar wrote:I’m sorry to point it out, but I can’t help but notice how general and unproductive your posts are, LunarDestiny. At some point on day1, we should come up with a list of possible lynch and that will encourage those people on the list to speak up 1) Lists are a good way to appear like you are contributing, without actually adding anything. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. 2) Pressure is not done in general, pressure is specific to make the player unable to hide. Your list of pressuring “all” inactives is the same as pressuring none. 3) There is a fine line between a plan, and suggestions that make you appear to be active while sending the town on a goosechase. Your plan requires no work from yourself (“we” should do this and that), is very general (“at some point”), and it’s limited to inactives instead of scumhunting, making it mechanic, so even when we hit town, the mafia is not guilty. In general, the player list is a little more stacked with active players than Pokemafia/HPmafia, so inactives shouldn’t be as much as a problem (even if I just replaced one…) My respond is above. (Thought I could post right under without quoting) Okay, now your post makes a bit more sense. But the point still stands. Why is it so bad to put pressure on one person and then move? Why is this better than RNG? I think I answered your first question in my post above. For your second question: The list is better because it will affect more inactive. Now I think RNG people to pressure them can be use in combination with having a list because I don't see why we can't use them together. To rephrase what I was saying, only RNG people and accuse them is not a good choice to pressure inactive. Having a list will pressure on a bigger group of people. You can RNG people and pressure them, BUT the list is needed because RNGing people is not enough. More pushing for the all-important inactive list. Why Insanious ended up making it instead of LunarDestiny is beyond me. On December 28 2010 05:57 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:51 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
What's the difference between the two scenarios? In both we are putting pressure on people to contribute. In both we need to make a list of inactives. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. Everyone has to point fingers. Even mafia point fingers at their own for weak posting or inactivity, but they will rarely push for a lynch. It should be our job as town to make sure that all of the necessary people are brought into the spotlight and to lynch those we find lacking. As posted above, I think pointing finger is good but a list is needed because pointing finger is not enough. Also, the list thing is most useful in day1 since that is the day with the least information. After day1, I suppose that the lynch will be based on behavior analysis like other games. Also, I want to ask Pandain to stop voting at random people to pressure them to talk. If we are also pressuring random inactive, then the same person must not be the one pointing fingers. I find this post in particular especially strange. Pandain is getting results and encouraging discussion, and apparently that's a bad thing. The last sentence is garbled, but by the sound of it he means inactives should not be the ones to pressure inactives. Um... okay. So how else can they contribute?On December 28 2010 07:34 LunarDestiny wrote:I am following debates between Annul and LSB. There are something I don't get. Annul's conclusion in his first post about why LSB should be lynched. Show nested quote +in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing.
my vote is on LSB now. Annul, your conclusion for lynching LSB is because he have about 30 posts. All 30 posts, except 2, are posts that means nothing and pure informative posts without analysis? LSB, are your reasons for lynching Annul in page 17? -1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing -2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives -3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced -4. Annul posts without brining anything new I will say what I think of this later, but I want to get these two points straight. Finally he gets involved in the discussion that the town has been most concerned with lately. But whatever happened to pressuring inactives? In his whole post history, he has not actually called anybody out, or even commented on the list he wanted. Also, despite being quite active in the game so far, he hasn't cast a vote, even though he emphasizes pressure.On December 28 2010 08:33 LunarDestiny wrote:I also think that Annul's initial post about LSB being mafia is illogically since the town will definitely not lynch a veteran like LSB because he have some meaningless posts. LSB actually have way more than 2 good posts before annul's accusation. Annul's second reason on p.18 Show nested quote +insistence on going after inactives instead of scumhunting. it would be very easy for a mafia to know his team all happen to be active and then say "hey kill inactives over all else EVEN IF scummy targets exist Well, we know that there is a lot of inactive in this game. I also assume there must a some mafia inactive in this game so LSB going after inactive doesn't say much about him being scum. What I don't understand is why Annul accused LSB without good evidence why LSB is mafia. -I don't think Annul accuse LSB to save Pandain because the bandwagon on Pandain is a joke and there is no good reason to lynch pandain. -LSB also mentioned that Annul do the analysis on LSB to make himself look good by using it as a reference that he did lengthy analysis. But LSB also say that annul want his post to be ignored. I have to question why would annul choose LSB to accuse if he want his post to be ignored. It makes no sense. If annul want his post to be ignore, he could have analyze someone other than LSB, because pointing finger at LSB would certainly result in some lengthy responses that annul can't slip by. More comments on the LSB / annul debate. I'm happy to see him voice his thoughts on the matter, though I would rather see an actual position taken instead of just listing the various issues that are guiding the debate. He could be genuinely unsure of which side to take, or it could be the typical wishy-washy mafia.
So, final thoughts. LunarDestiny, up until commenting on the annul / LSB debate is all about lurkers and blues. Blues, lurkers, blues, lurkers. DTs should check them. We should pressure them this way, not that way. It's a good idea to lynch one. So on and so forth.
Final verdict: undecided. I'm going to leave it at 50/50 for now. His thoughts aren't inherently scummy, but I really wish that he would get a bit more specific and actually start pointing fingers instead of encouraging others to do so. I think what made me suspicious of him was how many of his points I disagreed with. I just think the inactive town list, asking Pandain to stop doing what's clearly working, and the desire to control blue actions are all misguided notions. The key here is that we don't actually know anything about him -- it would be quite easy for a scum to be behind these posts and say "I'm contributing!" even though everything he has said could be summed up in a few sentences. It's true that for most of the game he's been re-iterating the same thing over many posts.
If he is town, I think he could do better.
Ok, what im wondering is, why would you go off posting who's blue, if he is or isn't. You're just making it easier for mafia to pick and choose on who to kill. Explain as to why you did this? If he is a blue I want to know why you did an analysis on him if he's really trying to help the town and hasn't posted scummy at all. I have my FoS on you.
|
On December 28 2010 22:30 Barundar wrote:Show nested quote +He clarifies that he wants to not target an inactive for a day 1 lynch, but wants to pressure them into posting via his list. Which... I don't really get. Why would they post if there was no actual threat of being lynched? Also, I don't think mafia pressuring inactives would actually be bad, as long as . In addition the last time a complete inactive got lynched day 1 (salem mafia w/BrownBear), they ended up being red, though to be fair it was a traitor role, so the mafia wasn't aware of their alignment.
Scumslip?
I meant to finish that sentence. -_-
It should read:
Also, I don't think mafia pressuring inactives would actually be bad, as long as they start posting.
And just because mafia does it doesn't mean it's inherently bad for the town. Are you going to tell me it's bad if a mafia incites an inactive townie to start posting and contributing?
On December 28 2010 22:30 Barundar wrote:Show nested quote +More comments on the LSB / annul debate. I'm happy to see him voice his thoughts on the matter, though I would rather see an actual position taken instead of just listing the various issues that are guiding the debate. He could be genuinely unsure of which side to take, or it could be the typical wishy-washy mafia. That is exactly how I feel about you after reading your analysis :/ Case in point:
Well, after reading LunarDestiny's posts, would you reach a different conclusion? I picked him because he was setting off warning bells in my head, and I wasn't entirely sure why. After doing an analysis, I realized it maybe wasn't entirely warranted, though I will be keeping an eye on him.
|
On December 28 2010 22:42 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 20:15 Node wrote:Analysis of LunarDestiny so far (my comments in blue):+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2010 10:51 LunarDestiny wrote:
Lets discuss about the game. Framer is the only role new to me and the role is damn powerful. If we focus on a small group of people, the framer can easily frame someone who dts will check. We should try to focus on a bigger group of people so the framer could not misled the town easily.
On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. On December 27 2010 11:10 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:08 Mr.Zergling wrote:On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. why would it do that? Because it is unlikely that mafia would frame a lurkering town. So if dts check lurkers, then it will reduce the risk of them mischecking a framed target. He spends his first few posts addressing the framer role, and how it should affect DT checks. I'm not a big fan of directing blues, but I'm not about to call this scummy posting. When people start asking blues to take specific actions (ie put bomb on this guy, check this guy, protect so-and-so), then it sets off alarms.On December 27 2010 12:25 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:50 Pandain wrote:
WHAT TO DO FOR TODAY
I say to do this ery day, I say to do this now. Town should lynch inactives. This is actually a somewhat complicated process. Right now in the beginning I will just begin voting people(pressuring) until they make enough of a meaningful post and then I’ll vote someone else. Now, the point is to lynch those who “contribute without really contributing” not those who are just going to get modkilled. That is why at the end it’ll end up being one of the “semi lurkers”, not the dead ones.
SUMMARY
1.Contribute without spamming
2.Be active, make well thought out posts.
3.Lynch the semi inactives, inactives for now.
Contradiction? Pandain say we should lynch inactive for day1 then vote for Mr. Wiggles? Pandain, please explain. He calls Pandain out on voting Mr. Wiggles. IMO Pandain's vote was justified by his post, but I don't have a problem with this. On December 27 2010 14:17 LunarDestiny wrote:Since there are many new players in the game, they will probably base their night actions, if they have blue roles, on advices of others. Pandain did give out many good advices but I'll nitpick this one: Show nested quote +Vigi- I still think this should really be a town decision who to shoot. There are so many times when town is going to need that extra certain kp in situations in the future, in addition to the fact that most likely you will shoot a town. Only shoot if we tell you too, or(and I’m being very cautious on this) you just know I like the idea that vig's shot should be decided by town. Unless vigs are veteran, the town are better figuring out who is scum. Also, shots from vigs aren't wasted if more than one shots at the same person are made. I also want to discuss should vigs use their shots early to try to get lucky and kill mafia? Reducing mafia KP is very important and we also have two double lynch to compensate for lack of vig in the later in the game. Continues to advise blue roles, this time focusing on vig. I think it's a terrible, terrible idea to base the town's night kills on luck, enough that I'd call it scummy to ask for it. He also notes that newb blues are likely to base their action on town advice, which is exactly why I'm beginning to find it a bit weird just how much advice LunarDestiny is giving. Any mafia influence over special town roles is good for them.On December 27 2010 14:33 LunarDestiny wrote:
Vigs can only hit on night 2. At that time, we will most likely have multiple suspects. These suspects are likely to be our main lynch targets on day3. So if they are not killed, we have to deal with them anyway. The risk is that they are town and can be proven innocence on night 2 by a dt. But the existence of the framer discourage dts to check on suspects. So dt checks on suspected people returning town aren't convincing information.
Also in most of the games I played, vigs are killed before they were able to make shots. More blue advice.On December 27 2010 14:55 LunarDestiny wrote:
I was trying to give people someone to discuss. There is no better topic that I can find. I find it hard to believe that there's really nothing else to discuss, but I'll let this slide.On December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
People will ask what your opinion is on something and it is safe to respond on these pm. Just don't tell anyone your role. If you strongly sense that someone is trying to fish out your role, you should tell town since it is good indication that the person is mafia.
After night 1, dts would have checked some townies and pms are encouraged between them. There is a slight chance that a mafia will take the risk to fake the dt role, but it would be hard for them to do since they have to predict but role that person is.
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. More blue advice. Also, he wants a list made rather than pressuring inactives on an individual basis -- which other people have mentioned isn't the greatest of ideas.On December 28 2010 03:43 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:56 LSB wrote:EBWOP On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:@LunarDestinyOn December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. What do you think we should do about inactives then? Can you read his post? It doesn't do anything about inactives. It just says we make a list of inactives and see what happens. We've done this practically every single game. Does it work? Not really. LunarDestiny, can you elaborate a bit more then?
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap.Looking at the voting thread, there are 3 people that were voted. Mr.Wiggies quickly responded after pandain voted on him. Pandain also respond after the mass vote on him. But Jackal had yet to respond after being voted by pandain. Accusing someone encourages participation from that that person. But what if that person is afk? He won't be able to respond. Also, IF pandain is mafia, then town will be sidetracked. Other inactive mafia will go under the radar.
We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves.I am saying that we should not target inactive (afk/spam/suspect) at a time for day 1 lynch. At some point on day1, we should come up with a list of possible lynch and that will encourage those people on the list to speak up. Again all of the above is for day 1's lynch when town have almost no information. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. He clarifies that he wants to not target an inactive for a day 1 lynch, but wants to pressure them into posting via his list. Which... I don't really get. Why would they post if there was no actual threat of being lynched? Also, I don't think mafia pressuring inactives would actually be bad, as long as . In addition the last time a complete inactive got lynched day 1 (salem mafia w/BrownBear), they ended up being red, though to be fair it was a traitor role, so the mafia wasn't aware of their alignment.
I don't agree with this post, but I'm more inclined to say that his thoughts come from a town point of view.On December 28 2010 04:08 LunarDestiny wrote:
Also, I somewhat don't agree with Dr.H that dts should check the people they think are the most likely to be mafia. The people that seem to most likely to be mafia are a combination of:
-Lurkers who post bare minimum to stay alive.
There is a lower chance that framer will framer a lurking town. I encourage dts to check these people. There is the downside where these people are more likely to be modkilled because they might be people who lost interest in the game. Without more people as replacement, dt checks might be wasted. So dts have to judge between lurkers who lost interest in the game and those who are posting minimum to stay alive.
-People who have taken a huge stand on issues and are in long debates with others. These people are most likely to be framer's target since there are, at most, a few of people in this categories. The probability of successful framing of these people is higher than probability of successful framing on lurking town. And even if a dt check says that a person of these categories comes out to be mafia, this information is useful, but less compared to other mafia games where there are no framer
To summarize, dts should use checks on lurkers to avoid framer. But should judge between real lurkers and discouraged players. Again with the blue advice.On December 28 2010 04:53 LunarDestiny wrote:
I am not saying that we should go after inactive all game. On day 1 where very few information is available, we should pressure all inactive to speak up. Because this game have the role framer in it, we should let dts deal with inactive and discourage dt checks on people are suspicious because they are in heated debates.
I agree that behavior analyze is important. Especially in this game, mafia check by dt on people who are in long debates are less convincing compared to other games because they are likely to be a framed townie. On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
Yes, my posts are general and are related to how should we play this game because of minor difference (framer) compared to other mafia games.
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
@3)Again, I am not trying to post to make me look town. Heck, I could have lurked from the beginning and not attract attention to myself.
By my "plan", I assume you mean me saying "who should dts check" and "on day 1, we should pressure inactive to speak". Yes, both requires almost no work on my part. The first is advice to dts and the second is relating to generating discussions.
As of now, I do not have good point of why or why not anyone is mafia. I do not want to accuse anyone without good point. Here he's defending himself after Barundar's post accusing him of not posting much in the way of content. I'll go through point by point.
1. I already stated how I disagree with not pressuring players individually. And it's not like a list is going to be particularly persuasive in the way of getting inactives more active, unless people actually act on it. That requires votes.
2. See #1
3. Anyone could say this. Of course you don't have to post anything helpful, but it certainly assists your own case if you're mafia.
Altogether, an inconclusive post.On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:23 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
What's the difference between the two scenarios? In both we are putting pressure on people to contribute. In both we need to make a list of inactives. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. So, it's okay to point fingers at active players because it encourages debate, but it's not okay to do so at inactive players because they might be afk. Again, I disagree, but that's a common theme at this point.On December 28 2010 05:46 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:26 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 LunarDestiny wrote:On December 28 2010 04:57 Barundar wrote:I’m sorry to point it out, but I can’t help but notice how general and unproductive your posts are, LunarDestiny. At some point on day1, we should come up with a list of possible lynch and that will encourage those people on the list to speak up 1) Lists are a good way to appear like you are contributing, without actually adding anything. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. 2) Pressure is not done in general, pressure is specific to make the player unable to hide. Your list of pressuring “all” inactives is the same as pressuring none. 3) There is a fine line between a plan, and suggestions that make you appear to be active while sending the town on a goosechase. Your plan requires no work from yourself (“we” should do this and that), is very general (“at some point”), and it’s limited to inactives instead of scumhunting, making it mechanic, so even when we hit town, the mafia is not guilty. In general, the player list is a little more stacked with active players than Pokemafia/HPmafia, so inactives shouldn’t be as much as a problem (even if I just replaced one…) My respond is above. (Thought I could post right under without quoting) Okay, now your post makes a bit more sense. But the point still stands. Why is it so bad to put pressure on one person and then move? Why is this better than RNG? I think I answered your first question in my post above. For your second question: The list is better because it will affect more inactive. Now I think RNG people to pressure them can be use in combination with having a list because I don't see why we can't use them together. To rephrase what I was saying, only RNG people and accuse them is not a good choice to pressure inactive. Having a list will pressure on a bigger group of people. You can RNG people and pressure them, BUT the list is needed because RNGing people is not enough. More pushing for the all-important inactive list. Why Insanious ended up making it instead of LunarDestiny is beyond me. On December 28 2010 05:57 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:51 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
What's the difference between the two scenarios? In both we are putting pressure on people to contribute. In both we need to make a list of inactives. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. Everyone has to point fingers. Even mafia point fingers at their own for weak posting or inactivity, but they will rarely push for a lynch. It should be our job as town to make sure that all of the necessary people are brought into the spotlight and to lynch those we find lacking. As posted above, I think pointing finger is good but a list is needed because pointing finger is not enough. Also, the list thing is most useful in day1 since that is the day with the least information. After day1, I suppose that the lynch will be based on behavior analysis like other games. Also, I want to ask Pandain to stop voting at random people to pressure them to talk. If we are also pressuring random inactive, then the same person must not be the one pointing fingers. I find this post in particular especially strange. Pandain is getting results and encouraging discussion, and apparently that's a bad thing. The last sentence is garbled, but by the sound of it he means inactives should not be the ones to pressure inactives. Um... okay. So how else can they contribute?On December 28 2010 07:34 LunarDestiny wrote:I am following debates between Annul and LSB. There are something I don't get. Annul's conclusion in his first post about why LSB should be lynched. Show nested quote +in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing.
my vote is on LSB now. Annul, your conclusion for lynching LSB is because he have about 30 posts. All 30 posts, except 2, are posts that means nothing and pure informative posts without analysis? LSB, are your reasons for lynching Annul in page 17? -1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing -2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives -3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced -4. Annul posts without brining anything new I will say what I think of this later, but I want to get these two points straight. Finally he gets involved in the discussion that the town has been most concerned with lately. But whatever happened to pressuring inactives? In his whole post history, he has not actually called anybody out, or even commented on the list he wanted. Also, despite being quite active in the game so far, he hasn't cast a vote, even though he emphasizes pressure.On December 28 2010 08:33 LunarDestiny wrote:I also think that Annul's initial post about LSB being mafia is illogically since the town will definitely not lynch a veteran like LSB because he have some meaningless posts. LSB actually have way more than 2 good posts before annul's accusation. Annul's second reason on p.18 Show nested quote +insistence on going after inactives instead of scumhunting. it would be very easy for a mafia to know his team all happen to be active and then say "hey kill inactives over all else EVEN IF scummy targets exist Well, we know that there is a lot of inactive in this game. I also assume there must a some mafia inactive in this game so LSB going after inactive doesn't say much about him being scum. What I don't understand is why Annul accused LSB without good evidence why LSB is mafia. -I don't think Annul accuse LSB to save Pandain because the bandwagon on Pandain is a joke and there is no good reason to lynch pandain. -LSB also mentioned that Annul do the analysis on LSB to make himself look good by using it as a reference that he did lengthy analysis. But LSB also say that annul want his post to be ignored. I have to question why would annul choose LSB to accuse if he want his post to be ignored. It makes no sense. If annul want his post to be ignore, he could have analyze someone other than LSB, because pointing finger at LSB would certainly result in some lengthy responses that annul can't slip by. More comments on the LSB / annul debate. I'm happy to see him voice his thoughts on the matter, though I would rather see an actual position taken instead of just listing the various issues that are guiding the debate. He could be genuinely unsure of which side to take, or it could be the typical wishy-washy mafia.
So, final thoughts. LunarDestiny, up until commenting on the annul / LSB debate is all about lurkers and blues. Blues, lurkers, blues, lurkers. DTs should check them. We should pressure them this way, not that way. It's a good idea to lynch one. So on and so forth.
Final verdict: undecided. I'm going to leave it at 50/50 for now. His thoughts aren't inherently scummy, but I really wish that he would get a bit more specific and actually start pointing fingers instead of encouraging others to do so. I think what made me suspicious of him was how many of his points I disagreed with. I just think the inactive town list, asking Pandain to stop doing what's clearly working, and the desire to control blue actions are all misguided notions. The key here is that we don't actually know anything about him -- it would be quite easy for a scum to be behind these posts and say "I'm contributing!" even though everything he has said could be summed up in a few sentences. It's true that for most of the game he's been re-iterating the same thing over many posts.
If he is town, I think he could do better. Ok, what im wondering is, why would you go off posting who's blue, if he is or isn't. You're just making it easier for mafia to pick and choose on who to kill. Explain as to why you did this? If he is a blue I want to know why you did an analysis on him if he's really trying to help the town and hasn't posted scummy at all. I have my FoS on you.
I didn't even say that he's blue. Where are you getting that from? Did you even read the analysis? I just made my text that color so it would be easier to see.
|
Ahh i read that wrong... this is what happens when you get 2hrs of sleep and are reading/posting from a phone. _.
Anyways, fosing myself cause im an idiot.
|
On December 28 2010 22:42 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 20:15 Node wrote:Analysis of LunarDestiny so far (my comments in blue):+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2010 10:51 LunarDestiny wrote:
Lets discuss about the game. Framer is the only role new to me and the role is damn powerful. If we focus on a small group of people, the framer can easily frame someone who dts will check. We should try to focus on a bigger group of people so the framer could not misled the town easily.
On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. On December 27 2010 11:10 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:08 Mr.Zergling wrote:On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. why would it do that? Because it is unlikely that mafia would frame a lurkering town. So if dts check lurkers, then it will reduce the risk of them mischecking a framed target. He spends his first few posts addressing the framer role, and how it should affect DT checks. I'm not a big fan of directing blues, but I'm not about to call this scummy posting. When people start asking blues to take specific actions (ie put bomb on this guy, check this guy, protect so-and-so), then it sets off alarms.On December 27 2010 12:25 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:50 Pandain wrote:
WHAT TO DO FOR TODAY
I say to do this ery day, I say to do this now. Town should lynch inactives. This is actually a somewhat complicated process. Right now in the beginning I will just begin voting people(pressuring) until they make enough of a meaningful post and then I’ll vote someone else. Now, the point is to lynch those who “contribute without really contributing” not those who are just going to get modkilled. That is why at the end it’ll end up being one of the “semi lurkers”, not the dead ones.
SUMMARY
1.Contribute without spamming
2.Be active, make well thought out posts.
3.Lynch the semi inactives, inactives for now.
Contradiction? Pandain say we should lynch inactive for day1 then vote for Mr. Wiggles? Pandain, please explain. He calls Pandain out on voting Mr. Wiggles. IMO Pandain's vote was justified by his post, but I don't have a problem with this. On December 27 2010 14:17 LunarDestiny wrote:Since there are many new players in the game, they will probably base their night actions, if they have blue roles, on advices of others. Pandain did give out many good advices but I'll nitpick this one: Show nested quote +Vigi- I still think this should really be a town decision who to shoot. There are so many times when town is going to need that extra certain kp in situations in the future, in addition to the fact that most likely you will shoot a town. Only shoot if we tell you too, or(and I’m being very cautious on this) you just know I like the idea that vig's shot should be decided by town. Unless vigs are veteran, the town are better figuring out who is scum. Also, shots from vigs aren't wasted if more than one shots at the same person are made. I also want to discuss should vigs use their shots early to try to get lucky and kill mafia? Reducing mafia KP is very important and we also have two double lynch to compensate for lack of vig in the later in the game. Continues to advise blue roles, this time focusing on vig. I think it's a terrible, terrible idea to base the town's night kills on luck, enough that I'd call it scummy to ask for it. He also notes that newb blues are likely to base their action on town advice, which is exactly why I'm beginning to find it a bit weird just how much advice LunarDestiny is giving. Any mafia influence over special town roles is good for them.On December 27 2010 14:33 LunarDestiny wrote:
Vigs can only hit on night 2. At that time, we will most likely have multiple suspects. These suspects are likely to be our main lynch targets on day3. So if they are not killed, we have to deal with them anyway. The risk is that they are town and can be proven innocence on night 2 by a dt. But the existence of the framer discourage dts to check on suspects. So dt checks on suspected people returning town aren't convincing information.
Also in most of the games I played, vigs are killed before they were able to make shots. More blue advice.On December 27 2010 14:55 LunarDestiny wrote:
I was trying to give people someone to discuss. There is no better topic that I can find. I find it hard to believe that there's really nothing else to discuss, but I'll let this slide.On December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
People will ask what your opinion is on something and it is safe to respond on these pm. Just don't tell anyone your role. If you strongly sense that someone is trying to fish out your role, you should tell town since it is good indication that the person is mafia.
After night 1, dts would have checked some townies and pms are encouraged between them. There is a slight chance that a mafia will take the risk to fake the dt role, but it would be hard for them to do since they have to predict but role that person is.
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. More blue advice. Also, he wants a list made rather than pressuring inactives on an individual basis -- which other people have mentioned isn't the greatest of ideas.On December 28 2010 03:43 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:56 LSB wrote:EBWOP On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:@LunarDestinyOn December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. What do you think we should do about inactives then? Can you read his post? It doesn't do anything about inactives. It just says we make a list of inactives and see what happens. We've done this practically every single game. Does it work? Not really. LunarDestiny, can you elaborate a bit more then?
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap.Looking at the voting thread, there are 3 people that were voted. Mr.Wiggies quickly responded after pandain voted on him. Pandain also respond after the mass vote on him. But Jackal had yet to respond after being voted by pandain. Accusing someone encourages participation from that that person. But what if that person is afk? He won't be able to respond. Also, IF pandain is mafia, then town will be sidetracked. Other inactive mafia will go under the radar.
We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves.I am saying that we should not target inactive (afk/spam/suspect) at a time for day 1 lynch. At some point on day1, we should come up with a list of possible lynch and that will encourage those people on the list to speak up. Again all of the above is for day 1's lynch when town have almost no information. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. He clarifies that he wants to not target an inactive for a day 1 lynch, but wants to pressure them into posting via his list. Which... I don't really get. Why would they post if there was no actual threat of being lynched? Also, I don't think mafia pressuring inactives would actually be bad, as long as . In addition the last time a complete inactive got lynched day 1 (salem mafia w/BrownBear), they ended up being red, though to be fair it was a traitor role, so the mafia wasn't aware of their alignment.
I don't agree with this post, but I'm more inclined to say that his thoughts come from a town point of view.On December 28 2010 04:08 LunarDestiny wrote:
Also, I somewhat don't agree with Dr.H that dts should check the people they think are the most likely to be mafia. The people that seem to most likely to be mafia are a combination of:
-Lurkers who post bare minimum to stay alive.
There is a lower chance that framer will framer a lurking town. I encourage dts to check these people. There is the downside where these people are more likely to be modkilled because they might be people who lost interest in the game. Without more people as replacement, dt checks might be wasted. So dts have to judge between lurkers who lost interest in the game and those who are posting minimum to stay alive.
-People who have taken a huge stand on issues and are in long debates with others. These people are most likely to be framer's target since there are, at most, a few of people in this categories. The probability of successful framing of these people is higher than probability of successful framing on lurking town. And even if a dt check says that a person of these categories comes out to be mafia, this information is useful, but less compared to other mafia games where there are no framer
To summarize, dts should use checks on lurkers to avoid framer. But should judge between real lurkers and discouraged players. Again with the blue advice.On December 28 2010 04:53 LunarDestiny wrote:
I am not saying that we should go after inactive all game. On day 1 where very few information is available, we should pressure all inactive to speak up. Because this game have the role framer in it, we should let dts deal with inactive and discourage dt checks on people are suspicious because they are in heated debates.
I agree that behavior analyze is important. Especially in this game, mafia check by dt on people who are in long debates are less convincing compared to other games because they are likely to be a framed townie. On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
Yes, my posts are general and are related to how should we play this game because of minor difference (framer) compared to other mafia games.
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
@3)Again, I am not trying to post to make me look town. Heck, I could have lurked from the beginning and not attract attention to myself.
By my "plan", I assume you mean me saying "who should dts check" and "on day 1, we should pressure inactive to speak". Yes, both requires almost no work on my part. The first is advice to dts and the second is relating to generating discussions.
As of now, I do not have good point of why or why not anyone is mafia. I do not want to accuse anyone without good point. Here he's defending himself after Barundar's post accusing him of not posting much in the way of content. I'll go through point by point.
1. I already stated how I disagree with not pressuring players individually. And it's not like a list is going to be particularly persuasive in the way of getting inactives more active, unless people actually act on it. That requires votes.
2. See #1
3. Anyone could say this. Of course you don't have to post anything helpful, but it certainly assists your own case if you're mafia.
Altogether, an inconclusive post.On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:23 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
What's the difference between the two scenarios? In both we are putting pressure on people to contribute. In both we need to make a list of inactives. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. So, it's okay to point fingers at active players because it encourages debate, but it's not okay to do so at inactive players because they might be afk. Again, I disagree, but that's a common theme at this point.On December 28 2010 05:46 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:26 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 LunarDestiny wrote:On December 28 2010 04:57 Barundar wrote:I’m sorry to point it out, but I can’t help but notice how general and unproductive your posts are, LunarDestiny. At some point on day1, we should come up with a list of possible lynch and that will encourage those people on the list to speak up 1) Lists are a good way to appear like you are contributing, without actually adding anything. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. 2) Pressure is not done in general, pressure is specific to make the player unable to hide. Your list of pressuring “all” inactives is the same as pressuring none. 3) There is a fine line between a plan, and suggestions that make you appear to be active while sending the town on a goosechase. Your plan requires no work from yourself (“we” should do this and that), is very general (“at some point”), and it’s limited to inactives instead of scumhunting, making it mechanic, so even when we hit town, the mafia is not guilty. In general, the player list is a little more stacked with active players than Pokemafia/HPmafia, so inactives shouldn’t be as much as a problem (even if I just replaced one…) My respond is above. (Thought I could post right under without quoting) Okay, now your post makes a bit more sense. But the point still stands. Why is it so bad to put pressure on one person and then move? Why is this better than RNG? I think I answered your first question in my post above. For your second question: The list is better because it will affect more inactive. Now I think RNG people to pressure them can be use in combination with having a list because I don't see why we can't use them together. To rephrase what I was saying, only RNG people and accuse them is not a good choice to pressure inactive. Having a list will pressure on a bigger group of people. You can RNG people and pressure them, BUT the list is needed because RNGing people is not enough. More pushing for the all-important inactive list. Why Insanious ended up making it instead of LunarDestiny is beyond me. On December 28 2010 05:57 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:51 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
What's the difference between the two scenarios? In both we are putting pressure on people to contribute. In both we need to make a list of inactives. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. Everyone has to point fingers. Even mafia point fingers at their own for weak posting or inactivity, but they will rarely push for a lynch. It should be our job as town to make sure that all of the necessary people are brought into the spotlight and to lynch those we find lacking. As posted above, I think pointing finger is good but a list is needed because pointing finger is not enough. Also, the list thing is most useful in day1 since that is the day with the least information. After day1, I suppose that the lynch will be based on behavior analysis like other games. Also, I want to ask Pandain to stop voting at random people to pressure them to talk. If we are also pressuring random inactive, then the same person must not be the one pointing fingers. I find this post in particular especially strange. Pandain is getting results and encouraging discussion, and apparently that's a bad thing. The last sentence is garbled, but by the sound of it he means inactives should not be the ones to pressure inactives. Um... okay. So how else can they contribute?On December 28 2010 07:34 LunarDestiny wrote:I am following debates between Annul and LSB. There are something I don't get. Annul's conclusion in his first post about why LSB should be lynched. Show nested quote +in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing.
my vote is on LSB now. Annul, your conclusion for lynching LSB is because he have about 30 posts. All 30 posts, except 2, are posts that means nothing and pure informative posts without analysis? LSB, are your reasons for lynching Annul in page 17? -1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing -2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives -3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced -4. Annul posts without brining anything new I will say what I think of this later, but I want to get these two points straight. Finally he gets involved in the discussion that the town has been most concerned with lately. But whatever happened to pressuring inactives? In his whole post history, he has not actually called anybody out, or even commented on the list he wanted. Also, despite being quite active in the game so far, he hasn't cast a vote, even though he emphasizes pressure.On December 28 2010 08:33 LunarDestiny wrote:I also think that Annul's initial post about LSB being mafia is illogically since the town will definitely not lynch a veteran like LSB because he have some meaningless posts. LSB actually have way more than 2 good posts before annul's accusation. Annul's second reason on p.18 Show nested quote +insistence on going after inactives instead of scumhunting. it would be very easy for a mafia to know his team all happen to be active and then say "hey kill inactives over all else EVEN IF scummy targets exist Well, we know that there is a lot of inactive in this game. I also assume there must a some mafia inactive in this game so LSB going after inactive doesn't say much about him being scum. What I don't understand is why Annul accused LSB without good evidence why LSB is mafia. -I don't think Annul accuse LSB to save Pandain because the bandwagon on Pandain is a joke and there is no good reason to lynch pandain. -LSB also mentioned that Annul do the analysis on LSB to make himself look good by using it as a reference that he did lengthy analysis. But LSB also say that annul want his post to be ignored. I have to question why would annul choose LSB to accuse if he want his post to be ignored. It makes no sense. If annul want his post to be ignore, he could have analyze someone other than LSB, because pointing finger at LSB would certainly result in some lengthy responses that annul can't slip by. More comments on the LSB / annul debate. I'm happy to see him voice his thoughts on the matter, though I would rather see an actual position taken instead of just listing the various issues that are guiding the debate. He could be genuinely unsure of which side to take, or it could be the typical wishy-washy mafia.
So, final thoughts. LunarDestiny, up until commenting on the annul / LSB debate is all about lurkers and blues. Blues, lurkers, blues, lurkers. DTs should check them. We should pressure them this way, not that way. It's a good idea to lynch one. So on and so forth.
Final verdict: undecided. I'm going to leave it at 50/50 for now. His thoughts aren't inherently scummy, but I really wish that he would get a bit more specific and actually start pointing fingers instead of encouraging others to do so. I think what made me suspicious of him was how many of his points I disagreed with. I just think the inactive town list, asking Pandain to stop doing what's clearly working, and the desire to control blue actions are all misguided notions. The key here is that we don't actually know anything about him -- it would be quite easy for a scum to be behind these posts and say "I'm contributing!" even though everything he has said could be summed up in a few sentences. It's true that for most of the game he's been re-iterating the same thing over many posts.
If he is town, I think he could do better. Ok, what im wondering is, why would you go off posting who's blue, if he is or isn't. You're just making it easier for mafia to pick and choose on who to kill. Explain as to why you did this? If he is a blue I want to know why you did an analysis on him if he's really trying to help the town and hasn't posted scummy at all. I have my FoS on you.
WOW way to not read the post, since his COMMENTS blue. This is exactly the kind of stupid crap that gets you killed.
Comments on Node's analysis of LunarDestiny: undecided is not an acceptable conclusion. Quite frankly I don't understand why you would post an analysis if you're just going to waffle around the steps to action; at least lay an FoS or something. I honestly don't think there's any benefit to doing analysis this early in the game from mafia to mafia teammate at this point in time, but leaving it so ambiguous doesn't really present a solid case.
As for LD himself, I find myself disagreeing with a lot of his posts thus far, so I'll follow the logical conclusion of the analysis and FoS LunarDestiny.
|
Aaaaaaaaaand me with the hero refresh to see that the first point has already been addressed.
|
Well, after reading LunarDestiny's posts, would you reach a different conclusion? I picked him because he was setting off warning bells in my head, and I wasn't entirely sure why. After doing an analysis, I realized it maybe wasn't entirely warranted, though I will be keeping an eye on him.
I found he responded well to my pressure, so I dropped it. If you analysed him and found it unreasoned, why post a long post discussing it back and forth?
And just because mafia does it doesn't mean it's inherently bad for the town. Are you going to tell me it's bad if a mafia incites an inactive townie to start posting and contributing?
The reason I find your half edited line to be a possible scumslip is beceause it's a controversial line for a mafia to post, making them think twice about it, while an unconcerned townie wouldn't have had a problem posting it.
|
On December 28 2010 17:18 Barundar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 16:50 GGQ wrote:On December 28 2010 16:40 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:18 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:17 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
LSB; while Annul doesn't have a very strong case against you, your defense was pretty pathetic. I've had a bad gut feeling about you for a while, it's not something I was planning on voting on but Annul did bring out all of the problems I had been having with your posts. I'm not voting you quite yet but I would like you to give more than one line answers whenever someone puts a fos on you. Consider this post a +1 for Annul's case against LSB. I'd like to see you take some time in defending yourself and not just brush it off because there were some good points in annul's post. Give me a point to address then. Bump. Why did you OMGUS vote annul when I'm sure you know that's a common scumtell? ... and why did you vote for him while you kept trying to make town look for inactives? Shouldn't you be trying to convince people to your case if you where certain enough to vote? In pokemafia, you said "I was very protective of my Shockeyy lynch", when someone suggested another possible mafia lynch. Now you are fine with the town splitting up attention. How would you explain this change in play style?
OMGUS: The point is, lets say I do an analysis of you, and its all lies. Wouldn't you be suspicious of me?
It would be selfish of me to not do anything about it. As a townie I have a responsibility to attack Annul, even though it may be a bit scummy
Inactives: In case you haven't noticed, I've been dealing with the inactives using blue roles.
I proposed we deal with inactives by a combination of DT checks and mass cover by everyone allowing the DTs to safely .
The thing is, this plan was immediatly dismissed by people who probably didn't read the thread. All they say is "well, lets not rely on DTs".
In addition, as I've said, we should lynch an inactive only when there iw no obvious mafia canditdate. Given that I found a obvious mafia candidate...
|
On December 28 2010 17:39 Barundar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:I'll also say that I find annul's posting to be much scummier than LSB's. The way he's posting reminds me a lot of the way he played Experimental Mini Mafia (which was an interesting experience, as I knew he was scum from the beginning ), whereas LSB's defense and contribution seems a lot more like his posting in Pokemafia, where he was green. In that game annul only posted 1 liners, voted without reason etc. In this game he is providing big analysis and is willing to defend it. How is that the same?
Besides responding to my posts. What else has Annul contributed?
Not much besides an Albus Dumbledor claim
|
If you guys divert the lynch, I will prove, without a doubt, my role at the end of night two.
|
|
|
On December 29 2010 00:34 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 17:39 Barundar wrote:On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:I'll also say that I find annul's posting to be much scummier than LSB's. The way he's posting reminds me a lot of the way he played Experimental Mini Mafia (which was an interesting experience, as I knew he was scum from the beginning ), whereas LSB's defense and contribution seems a lot more like his posting in Pokemafia, where he was green. In that game annul only posted 1 liners, voted without reason etc. In this game he is providing big analysis and is willing to defend it. How is that the same? Besides responding to my posts. What else has Annul contributed? Not much besides an Albus Dumbledor claim
that claim happened before the game even began - you cant count that stuff in analysis. obvious HP mafia reference, too.
and what have i contributed? i dunno, 90% of the fodder of day 1's debate?
|
On December 29 2010 00:37 LSB wrote:
If you guys divert the lynch, I will prove, without a doubt, my role at the end of night two.
On December 29 2010 00:37 LSB wrote:
Maybe earlier
so you hint at vig but then scale it back, making it not vig because you cant kill until night 2, so no "maybe earlier"
what could you be hinting to here? hatter? you could only "prove" that upon death. medic? can't "prove" that "without a doubt" anyway unless you get lucky with hits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
