On December 27 2010 11:50 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Clever. Almost, too clever.
On December 27 2010 11:54 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
And I have perfect timing, posting directly under the post advocating for not posting 1-liners and spamming.
On December 27 2010 12:20 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Ok, that sounds good. Like I said, 1st game, so I was just a little lost that there was no direction haha.
Bunch o' spam at the beginning.On December 27 2010 12:35 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Maybe he thinks I'm spamming? That could be a probable reason for him voting for me, based on his post there. Or else he hasn't noticed I've been posting in here, no matter how short the replies may have been up to this point.
If he is of the belief I'm spamming, I've just been posting somewhat short responses because there hasn't really been anything worth discussing up to this point.
He said we should post the semi-inactives to begin with, those who post without really contributing anything, which I guess is pretty much everyone here up until now.
But then again, if he said he's going to pressure vote people into writing longer, more meaningful post instead of one-liners, I guess it's mission accomplished as far as I'm concerned.
Is forced to post something when Pandain throws a vote on him. Mentions that he's going to make longer, more meaningful posts.On December 27 2010 12:50 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 12:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 12:35 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
If he is of the belief I'm spamming, I've just been posting somewhat short responses because there hasn't really been anything worth discussing up to this point.
What do you feel about lynching inactives / spammers?
What do you feel that the blues should do?
Like I've said, I don't have a ton of mafia experience so most of this is just my opinion:
As far as what blues should do is concerned, there isn't really much they can do right now, besides try to blend in, and wait until it's easier to figure out who's who. Right now their actions are going to be more or less random, though they should try to base their actions a bit on what's been posted in the thread, though as I repeat, it's not going to be the most useful information when there isn't a ton of discussion going on.
I feel inactives are either people who aren't very interested in the game, or people who are trying to lay low and hide, so they should be looked at, and possibly lynched because we really have no way to analyze them besides their lack of participation.
Spammers are people who are trying hard to prove that they are active. So this could be someone trying to blend into the town or something and again, they should be looked at and considered as lynching candidates. However, if I recall correctly, this game has several new people who have not played mafia before, so some spamming from newer players may be either nervousness, or an irrational fear of being considered inactive. (Kind've of like what I did).
So to summarize:
1. I have no idea what blues should do, besides try to make the best of the limited information they have this early into the game.
2. We should look at both inactives and spammers as candidates for lynching, because they may be either trying to hide or they are nervous and trying very hard to fit in. (Though we shouldn't exclude other suspicious people as candidates).
At least, this is my unqualified opinion. :p
Is questioned on what he feels we should do, and responds in length. This post says a lot without saying anything (no actual names are mentioned), but then it is still early in the game, so it's a bit much to ask for more.On December 27 2010 13:13 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I think my vote was a bit of a hair trigger reaction brought on by fear and the desire for self protection. I think your very early votes to pressure people into posting more is going to cause the same sort of reaction in a lot of people. What you are doing, while having the potential to be helpful, can also be seen as very aggressive play. Like tree.hugger said, it's going to be pretty polarizing. If nothing comes of this, or a better candidate arises, I'll probably move on and change my vote.
Justifies his initial vote on Pandain after being called out on it. Note that he dislikes polarization, which is a tactic that is viewed as pretty pro-town.On December 27 2010 13:20 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Also, to add on to what I said earlier, and it pertains to my post above as well, newer players are going to be a lot more unpredictable and more easily influenced, so they're going to be likely to jump on bandwagons when there isn't much guidance. This is also going to cause some obfuscation when people are trying to figure things out.
Further justifies his vote by pulling out the "I'm a new guy" card.On December 27 2010 16:44 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I think it was a bit of a hasty overreaction, I wouldn't be too worried now.
I'm not sure how to use PM's, if I should trust the people who PM me, disregard them completely, just be acquiescent, I'm just not too sure.
Now as for Pandain's plan, should everyone start pressuring, or will that turn into a disorganized mess? Should we coordinate with someone and pressure together, or just let you do it to one person at a time?
Asks how PMs should be used (perfectly legitimate question for a newbie) and addresses Pandain's plan of pressuring inactives. He doesn't actually take a stance on it, though.On December 28 2010 01:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Should we also watch out for people who are sporadically active?
What I mean is that they would post a lot one day, then not very much for a span of time, then post a lot in a short period, repeat.
Would inconsistency in posting frequency reveal anything about a person? It could show someone who wants to post a lot to not be considered inactive or anything, but then lay low and hide once that activities been established.
By this I don't mean someone who starts posting more when it's relevant, like they're being accused of something and need to defend themselves, but rather they post a lot in one day, then almost disappear for the next two. This could also be a blue trying to gather information though, so I don't know.
What's normal procedure for a sporadic poster like this?
Another question. Doesn't actually point out anybody who may be following what he's asking, but seeks guidance for the future.On December 28 2010 03:02 Mr. Wiggles wrote:The problem with that though, is that it almost defeats the purpose, it's a lose-lose situation for the town.
Either the DT says what they check correctly, and the mafia will home in on them, or else they lie to keep them off their trail.
The problem arises when they start to lie. If they are killed, then we would ideally go back and look at what they said peoples roles are, but if they start faking it, we won't know which are real and which are fake, unless there is already an established mouth who comes out and tells us. But then you might get multiple people claiming different things about what the DT told them, which make the DTs claims near useless, as we won't be able to discern truth from falsities.
Unless there's something I"m missing, or don't know about how the game is played, this doesn't look like it'll help that much in the end. If this is actually a tried and true method and I look really stupid right now, please let me know.
Thanks.
This post addresses LSB's plan of managing DTs. He dislikes it, but doesn't take a hard stance.On December 28 2010 08:11 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 07:42 annul wrote: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.
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.
my conclusion is that, yes, PLUS his 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"
I'm not sure what to make of this annul vs. LSB business. Annul says that LSB may be mafia and knows his team is active, so he wants to divert attention away from them towards the inactives. But to play devil's advocate, one could say that annul may be mafia and knows that his team is inactive and laying low, and would rather portray someone else as scummy and divert attention away from the inactives.
I'm of the opinion that if there's a clear target for lynching we should go for it, and if not, pick off one of the inactives, but this whole situation just seems murky.
This whole argument seems to be very polarizing and I can already see divisions being made. =/
Actually addresses what the thread is concerned with instead of vague plans on how to play. Good, but, again, no stance is taken -- his eventual conclusion is that the situation is "murky". Again, dislikes the fact than an issue is "polarizing".On December 28 2010 09:27 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Just a correction to your post above, I've retracted my vote from Pandain to myself, not DrH. I'm not sure who I'm voting for at the moment.
Shows some indecisiveness with his vote after removing it from Pandain, but it's not a big deal at this point since nobody wants to lynch Pandain anymore. On December 29 2010 08:54 Mr. Wiggles wrote:I honestly don't feel that strongly that either LSB or annul are mafia.
This started out as annul's analysis of LSB based on a gut feeling.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 29 2010 07:43 annul wrote:
i do not play this game RNG. if this game was entirely RNG then what is the point of playing at all, of analysis, etc?
i do not have a 6/30 chance of feeling correctly. my "feelings" are not RNG-based.
Granted annul's analysis can make sense, and I initially agreed with it, I did not agree with his conclusions of LSB being mafia based on spamminess and some advice he gave. I don't think there is strong enough a case to take out LSB now, and annul's tunneling of him and his aggression hasn't really done much to sway my own opinion.
I think we should find someone else to lynch right now, and come back to LSB if he cannot "
prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that he is blue once day 2 starts.
Other people we may want to consider:
Seraph based on RoL's analysis.
Brocket based on the strategy of going for lurkers day 1
I'm also not sure what to think of pandain right now based on his recent posts pertaining to the LSB and annul situation.
(I'm not sure why, but my [blue] tag quit working here)
Ah, finally, a clear opinion is reached. Wiggles decides that the whole annul v LSB thing is bull (though he says he agreed with annul's analysis though he never indicated as such earlier). He mentions Seraph and Brocket (candidates put forth by other people), but doesn't reach any clear conclusion regarding who to lynch in this post. Eventually, he ends up moving his vote to Brocket as the last person on that bandwagon. BUT THEN: after voting Brocket, he switches his vote to LSB just before the lynch ends with literally nothing backing it up. Why the hell did he switch to LSB 18 minutes before the vote ended when he thought LSB was town? Why did he switch from Brocket who fit what he was looking for? So many questions, so little answers.On December 30 2010 13:12 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I'm of the belief that we should start looking closely at some of the inactives/lurkers, and see what they've said so far in the thread, and how they've voted.
It looks like the mafia are targeting either experienced players, or people who have been contributing and posting a lot.
While we should look at the people who have been posting a lot, they shouldn't be the only focus of analysis and discussion. I think we should somehow continue to pressure some of the inactives to start posting, so that we have more material to work with.
If not many people post, most of the focus is going to be solely on those who have been posting frequently in the thread. This is basically what happened day 1. Annul analyzed LSB because he was one of the few players up to that point with a decent number of posts. Then we had a large discussion sparked about the LSB/annul argument. However, this discussion was mostly made up of a small number of people posting a lot, and the majority either posting once, shortly, or very seldom.
Now look at where we are. We have all of our most active players pointing fingers at each other for being mafia. Though I'm sure the chances are decent enough that at least one of the active posters or experienced players are mafia, we need to widen our selection of players, until we are able to narrow it down confidently to a few candidates. We're starting some kind of vicious circle, where there are a few players who post a lot, and want to do analysis. But they don't really have anything to analyze, so they have to look at the other frequent posters. That's when the accusations fly and we get situations like annul/LSB, with the frequent posters discussing that. Then when they want to do more analysis, there's nothing to analyze but the discussion to the situation at hand, made by the same people always.
Summary: We need to get more people posting so we have more to analyze. As it is, there are few people posting, so they tend to analyze each other for lack any other content. Then they target each other. If this continues, I fear that all our most active and experienced players are just going to pick each other off one by one, leaving the rest of us to the mercy of the mafia and whichever experienced players survive and happen to be red.
[blue]Mr. Wiggle's most recent post is a classic example of posting a wall of text while saying absolutely nothing. He says we need to look at lurkers and inactives, yet proposes nobody that fits that criteria. He says that we can't lynch active players, despite the fact that he voted for LSB. He summarizes our current situation and what is wrong with it, but proposes nothing specific that could get us out of it.
The only thing that's holding me back from calling him guaran-fucking-teed scum is that he's a new player, and maybe doesn't know how to actually present analysis or is too afraid to have an opinion. However, he falls back on the "I'm a new guy" position enough that it raises my suspicion even more. If this were on anybody who had played at least one game of mafia, I would have absolutely 0 doubt that Wiggles is red. As it is I feel much more comfortable about this than with any players actually contributing, so my vote is on Wiggles for now.
EPT
