|
|
Are there millers in this game? They aren't listed in the player roster, but the role is included in the role list.
|
It looks to me that Pandain just voted the person most against his criteria. I would say that so far Wiggles has spammed, had posts not remotely well thought-out, and in general just cluttered up the thread.
|
On December 27 2010 13:34 TheMango wrote: I thought inactives were automatically mod killed/replaced? Also, isn't it way too early to even vote now, since i'd say half the people have yet to post/read their role PM's?
Only complete inactives -- people who don't vote or post at all -- are modkilled. An inactive person as far as lynching purposes go would be someone who doesn't actually contribute anything to the discussions at hand. Posts that are spammy and few, votes without justification, and a general lack of contribution to the discussion are all pretty indicative of someone who would make a good lynch for inactivity.
|
11/10 on that day post. That was fantastic. :O
|
On December 27 2010 13:45 Soulfire wrote: I had meant to contribute earlier, but I was watching some streamed games of my team's CW.
I'm a new player, so for the most part I've just been reading what everybody has said thus far and trying to come up with any reasonable conclusion, which not surprisingly has been futile. I've gone over previous games and observed common posting habits for many of the more veteran players in this game and I honestly don't notice anything alarming enough to begin to point fingers safely. I'd definitely have to agree with Pandain, Wiggles and others; focus attention on the inactives, but struggle to differentiate between those who just don't care and are probably going to be modkilled and people who are trying to lay low, especially people making pointless posts to avoid the modkill.
But I will speak for other players who are new like I am, it is difficult to post something that contributes in Day 1 - so yet another thing to differentiate: new players who are lost and can only agree with others, and mafia trying to slip under the radar and avoid modkill.
Don't be at all afraid to post whatever your thoughts are, seriously! Honest discussion cannot be bad for the town. Even if you're outright wrong, it will only help to get other people to correct your thoughts and lead others on the fence to the mafia. For every person that asks a question, five don't raise their hands. Keep in mind that Mafia isn't necessarily a game about being correct all the time -- it's about getting people to agree with you and to think like you do.
Also, keep in mind that if you're unsure about your thoughts and analysis, don't be at all hesitant to PM Ver / Foolishness / BloodyC0bbler. While of course they won't tell you whether or not you were right, I'm sure they'd be willing to help make your ideas more presentable, and to comment on whether or not you're thinking the way you ought to.
|
On December 27 2010 21:02 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 18:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On December 27 2010 18:25 Ryuu314 wrote:On December 27 2010 17:57 ilovejonn wrote:On December 27 2010 17:46 Ryuu314 wrote: Probably. I don't see how else the game could run otherwise.
7. Editing posts. Editing posts is not allowed for any reason. Anybody can see if you edited a post, and if you are caught, you will look suspicious. Editing will result in a warning. After that, you will be owned. I do have close connections to people who can check pre-edited material if you are truculent. Please do not edit; this is the one part of the site where it is okay to be double posting, even triple-posting. While I ask for everybody to post as concisely as possible, post again if you have to edit anything. Make sure you read all the rules. =) Oops x[ I remembered after I edited hahaha. I \was basically gonna say that Coag probably couldn't be mafia as the timing of his ban would probably prevent him from making hits? But then I looked up the time of his ban and it disproves my theory. The timing of his ban should have nothing to do with what role he may or may not be. Or rather what role I may or may not be. Well if his ban happened before roles were assigned and thus hits could be made, then there's no way he could've made a hit as he'd be in Disneyland. That said, his ban was after roles were assigned I believe so this point is moot.
No hits were made, the "hits" in the first day post are done on people that aren't in the game / the mods just for flavor. It wouldn't be fair if people didn't even get a chance to start playing before they died. Also, mafia hits aren't usually done individually -- one player sends in the whole team's selection of hits to the mod.
There are far too many people that I consider really smart voting Pandain right now. Bumatlarge, why is your vote there? The only thing we've got remotely close to justification is "lol RNG", and I don't buy it.
On December 27 2010 12:57 bumatlarge wrote: 5 votes in thirty minutes for pandain. Thats a bit unsettling. But it will give us something to work with.
So, bum, what do we have to work with now?
RebirthOfLeGenD, you have yet to post since the game has started, yet you've apparently read enough to vote Pandain. What's going on, man?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I don't buy that LSB is being bussed. At this point in the game, with the votes in as many places as they are, it would be just as easy for annul or OpZ to be in the lead if that was what mafia wanted.
That said, I think RoL brings up a good case against Seraph, but I'd rather see annul / LSB resolved before we focus our attention elsewhere.
|
Pandain has been so wishy-washy that it's completely ridiculous. Check this out.
On December 28 2010 04:49 Pandain wrote: 1.I do not think we should vote LSB. Plainly, he has been contributing alot so far, more than most of the people already. Plainly, if he is mafia, then we'll most likely catch him anyway. We should not be lynching actives, even if we have a slight suspicion that he's mafia. Obviously if we have a good inkling I suppose we should go for it(as in team melee mafia 2 incog fingered lsb day 1) but right now there's really nothing on LSB, and I wouldn't want to lynch an expierenced player. Plus there are some problems with your analysis, but I'll just name a few. 1. If you are hit, then u should claim. LSB was right. Becuase mafia can't tell if ur vet or just protected or what. 2.You're mistaking jokes for real content. (aka when lsb said coag got banned so dr. h could join) 3.The only real suspicious thing about him is his somewhat spammy nature. The most important of which being number 3, but that is certainly not a reason to lynch him when he's already contributed alot.
He starts off saying that it would be bad to lynch LSB. Also, he says "we should not lynch actives". Keep this in mind.
On December 29 2010 05:07 Pandain wrote: Summary: LSB is either vigi or Scum. I'm leaning towards scum. I think there's a 90% chance he is scum, and even if we lose a vigi, it's not like its game over. If he was a DT I would rethink it, but plainly I think I'm confident enough to lynch him despite his blue claim. From his very early blue claim to his pms with me, LSB has been playing very scummy and out of his norm. From super defensiveness and counter aggresion on Annul, to nitpicking at small details when debating, and making contradictions left and right, I feel confident that LSB is scum.
[/b]
24 hours later (after LSB said that he could prove his role), he's pretty sure that LSB is scum.
On December 29 2010 06:45 Pandain wrote: Alright I've decided we should unvote LSB. I've thought about it for a while and while I'm pretty sure, almost certain LSB is scum, there's no real reason we have to do it now. He has said that he can prove without a single, even the tiniest bit of doubt, that he's safe at the start of night two. Not the end, but the start. So if he can't, then we vigi him, or if the vigi's dead, we lynch him.
It's like going for the win when you have an advantage in starcraft, its usually better to just sit back, expand, and get even more of an advantage for the certain win later.
Even better, LSB should say what his plan is to be 100% confirmed at the start of day 2, since it's not like mafia are going to kill him during the day. So then we can even lynch him if he never really had a plan.
Everyone should unvote LSB.
Now, LSB is definitely scum, but we shouldn't kill him.
On December 29 2010 06:59 Pandain wrote:I am going to say we vote D3_crescentia. Thus far he has been what I shall call the "contributors without without contributing." While giving much seemingly "friendly" generic advice, he hasn't really analyzed anyone, gave his opinions on the whole "Annul vs lsb" thing, which almost everyone should have. I would say he's a safe lynch. Show nested quote +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. What do you mean analysis from mafia to mafia teammate? Am I looking to far or does this imply something that he knows that normally people don't I'll leave his posts here so you can see them. Show nested quote +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? Though personally I think one of the best ways to root out mafia is individual pressure. It will become increasingly obvious that the person is town based on how they defend themselves and whoever else supports them. If a person stays afk then that is a huge issue but generally a little pressure will generate a defense by one or more people that we can then analyze. On December 28 2010 01:29 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 00:56 LSB wrote: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 thought it said, "we make a list of inactives and then vote on one of them." Yes, this is virtually identical to what we've done in previous games, and you're right that it doesn't work very well. I don't think further elaboration on his part will really help though, as I don't think any variant or extension on the aforementioned plan is what we need to win. On December 28 2010 04:31 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 03:43 LunarDestiny wrote: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. It doesn't really matter that the person is afk; that's why the day cycles are so long. What we especially have to watch out for is if everyone is *too complacent* in letting the target die. If there isn't adequate discussion that's been generated then we KNOW we haven't picked someone important. With that said I think I'd like to suggest something I was thinking of in my last game: every person take a look at the posts of the person below you on the page 1 list and post an analysis of said person on Day 3. That should give us enough time to accumulate a good amount of analysis. If said person is up for the chopping block then post what you have sooner than later. I think player death shouldn't cause too many problems with this plan and it should help newer players participate. 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. On December 28 2010 12:06 d3_crescentia wrote: Oh wait I totally forgot this was a boot camp game. Definitely gonna ask some neato questions... in the morning~! On December 28 2010 22:59 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 22:42 ShoCkeyy wrote: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.
Now we should lynch d3, a person completely out of left field who hasn't even been talked about yet. We've got like 5 different lynch candidates proposed out of nowhere now, between d3 and seraph and brocket. It's worth noting that Pandain sent me a PM asking to shift my vote to d3.
On December 29 2010 08:51 Pandain wrote:In agreement with Meepack, this is quite evidently a bandwagon to save LSB. Since some of the people voting Brockett are new to the game, I'll explain why this lynch doesn't make any sense. He's made only one post. While LSB and Insanious claim that that shows he is inactive, and therefore mafia, all it really proves is its inactive. Just because he seems different from his normal posting(and he's only played one game? And only made one post thus far?) doesn't give a good indication that he's mafia. Note that the lynches are trying to be diverted in the last 3 hours. And 5 votes in a row, all in a rush. And alot of these people have just suddenly changed their mind. Take Jackal. Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 04:49 Jackal58 wrote:On December 29 2010 04:43 annul wrote:On December 29 2010 04:42 Insanious wrote: I don't see LSB as a red, he doesn't look red to me then this is your real reson. its not his blue claim, its "i do not believe annul's analysis." What analysis? So far - annul: Yes you are. LSB: No I'm not. annul: Yes you are LSB: No I'm not. Ad nauseum. You both look scummy. It seems one or both of you has volunteered to get thrown under the bus. Thinks LSB is scummy. Plus he's made about 5 posts all about how The mango is scum. This change is very suspicious.What we're doing is lynching an inactive instead of lynching either the active scum or the lurkers/CNC'rs. What finally changed my mind(besides the bandwagon) to vote LSB again, however, is that he wanted to lynch me. Now if he were blue, then he would be in the mindset "omg scum want me lynched." However, I was advocating for him to survive at least another day, and he begins to accuse me of being scum. That just doesn't fit.
Wheee, now we should lynch LSB again! I love how his proposal to lynch d3 isn't an attempt to divert the lynch, but clearly the Brocket proposal is.
On December 29 2010 09:09 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 09:00 Insanious wrote: I want to make it clear that the Brocket vote is based on him posting 10+ times in the first 24 hours of pokemafia as a town, and only once in 48 hours here.
Brocket is NOT playing like he did in Pokemafia and that is fishy as he was town there... So he is something different now. Bad reason why. There are so many reasons people act differently. There can be RL issues, he's just trying something new, and just add the fact that its the holidays and he's probably on vacation. Never should town lynch a total inactive. Town needs to be going after the lurkers, not the inactives. Not only do we gain nothing from Brockett's list, but add the fact that there are better people who are either showing signs of true scum or are seeming to contribute without actually contributing, unlike Brockett who isn't doing either. Scum usually want to seem to contribute. Not to mention that just because he has a different posting style(which could just be because he's busy) is no reason to actually lynch someone when we have people like LSB who if you really don't think is scum perhaps then you should fully read my analysis . LSB knows better than to lynch someone like this, I believe you know better than to lynch someone like this.
And now we should never lynch total inactives, despite the fact that much earlier on Pandain clearly says not to lynch actives, even if we think that they're mafia. (which I find to be a pretty odd opinion in and of itself, but whatever)
I'd say that if Pandain is a scum player, he's doing his absolute best to confuse voters and get votes all over the place so it's harder to actually prevent the LSB lynch in the long run. Not to mention that wishy-washiness is a classic scumtell, and Pandain's opinion seems to change every few hours.
|
On December 29 2010 18:32 Brocket wrote: Also LSB was doing a horrible job analysing in pokemafia and got us killed. I hope the next bandwagon leader does a better job.
Sounds like somebody's got a grudge!
On December 29 2010 18:38 Brocket wrote: Also if you know what's good for you don't get on my case. If you say anything dumb or wrong I'm going to call you out on it and it won't be pleasant.
Okay guys, whatever you do, don't analyze Brocket.
|
On December 29 2010 18:55 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 18:38 Brocket wrote: Also if you know what's good for you don't get on my case. If you say anything dumb or wrong I'm going to call you out on it and it won't be pleasant. Threats? :O Seems scummy.
I don't think a member of the mafia would be dumb enough to actually post that. Brocket's been pretty unhappy with his experience as a townie, so I'm not really surprised to hear it coming from him. It's just a really poor mindset to have even as town.
|
For now I'm voting Pandain, as his antics have done little more the cause confusion and split the vote a bajillion different ways. I'll move it pending a more convincing case.
For the next few days I'm not going to be able to post very much as I'm visiting relatives where the internet is scarce and I've only got my phone to compose posts with. Rest assured that I will at least be keeping up with the thread.
|
Well, I said that I'd keep my vote on Pandain unless a better case comes up... well, I think I found one. Someone I'm much more comfortable with lynching has presented themselves.
Analysis of Mr. Wiggles: (my comments in blue)
+ Show Spoiler +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.
TL;DR version for those too lazy to read (shame on you): Wiggles has been carefully avoiding any kind of limelight, is wishy-washy on who he votes, and posts without actually contributing anything. Seriously, this is fish-in-a-barrel level of easy.
|
You guys are seriously still having this argument?
At this point, it's irrelevant. The fact that we're still arguing that LSB is scum just makes me think the people dragging it up are suspicious.
|
|
|
|