|
/in if still room or as replacement
|
im out in pvp, still want in here
|
Hi guys its Pandain, the panda. Just thought to give my own thoughts to everyone on just some basic advice to both the new people and I guess anyone in general, on both some advice for roles as well as just advice in general on what to do today.
But first off I thought by making this post we could steer the town in a positive direction, towards more content oriented pots and less spam one liners. That has been a major problem in almost all games I’ve played in, and there are multiple reasons why it is specifically bad, but I’ll focus on the main two.
1.It makes vital/important information get lost in the spam One thing I personally am going to start doing and suggest others to follow(especially in the case of long posts) is to add a “summary” of what you’re trying to say in your post.
And the second reason, that spam leads to a “wild town”, that is, one that has really no direction and no order, leading to really just a non caring environment. The only way to win this game is through scum hunting, and scum hunting requires both posts to analyze and people that will analyze those posts. When posting, try not only to give your thoughts, but why as well. Spend those extra crucial minutes to think out your post, to make it better. Remember, being active does not mean spamming everywhere. I prize one well thought out post over 10 spammy posts.
ADVICE ON ROLES
Townie- some people don’t like townie, I love it! What’s special about a townie is that really your goal is to take up mafia hits. You want to be so active, and pro town, that mafia have to waste a hit on you. Basically try to act like a blue, but also be active, because dying isn’t bad!
DT- Check people you find suspicious. Those can either be those who fit the category of “contributing without contributing” (people who post just to get by/people who seem to post a lot but don’t really have any real content) or suspicious people in general. If you find a red, don’t claim. Instead, either claim to another person who’s confirmed(post day 1 obviously then) or just make an analysis on him and get him lynched. If you find a green, then keep that in mind. There is a godfather so keep that in mind before you think about claiming, since that’s what happened in another game with south rawrea being a “confirmed blue” but was really godfather. Basically, just don’t claim anytime soon.
Medic-Protect those you think are blue or those who are actively contributing. . 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 Mad Hatter- Lay bombs on people you think are red’s, pretty easy.
Veteran - Same as townie. Be as active as possible(no spam!), your goal IS to get shot.
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.
|
When I say to vote inactives, I mean to vote those who “contribute without really contributing”, which usually fall under the category of inactives, but not always. Mr wiggles so forth has not been really contributing, and until most recently I was not satisfied with his posts, which were all spam. I am satisfied(at the moment) with Mr. Wiggles however, and will go forth with voting another person(Jackal.) However, I would still like to see you, Mr. Wiggles, striving to make long, well thought out posts.
But most curious of all is the sudden bandwagon on me. RoL and Coag I can explain off to jokes, but then Mr. Wiggles and treehugger voting me is quite curious. May both of you explain your votes?
Summary 1.Mr. Wiggles had not contributed well, which is why I voted him.
|
First off, let's try to keep non related things to a mininum? LSB you can PM mango, you're sort of ruining my whole "not spam" agenda :/.
On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote: Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch?
I really should have clarified this. When I say we are lynching inactives, we are not just lynching inactives, we are really lynching people who "contribute without really contributing." As in, we're trying to pressure people who don't talk so that people will talk. Basically, if someone hasn't made a meaningful post, I'm going to vote for them. I'm picking them somewhat at random, but really we should all decide on one(and then another, and so forth like I'm doing) so that the pressure is really there.
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? This would make sense however there is more than one reason to start voting now. By starting out with the "be active or die" stance people are encouraged to post from the start. The main problem with day 1 is the lack of information, and sometimes day 2 happens and since no one posted, we're basically at the same state as day 2. Votes serve a double purpose right now: they generate discussion and they get people to post meaningful content.
|
Okay seems like roughly 8 people have voted for me. I find that slightly disturbing and random but okay, I will defend myself? I wasn't even sure what to defend myself about but lets go forward.
But first, I'd like to congragulate everyone and helping keep this thread so far much better than others, with long posts and everything.
Fadoodle yeah!
But going forward, I still see no reason to vote me. So far I have been doing what I do every game, that is, getting town in a postive way forward with content oriented posts. What I'm doing actually isn't so much getting more analysis(although it is), its encouraging an atmosphere of contribution and thought. I voted Mr. Wiggles because he hadn't really been contributing, he had just been spamming. But lately he has actively been contributing with long well thought out posts. Mission accomplished. I voted Jackal for the same reason, but actually am inclined now to vote for someone else with his excuse, but will actively be pressuring him in PM land to contribute more so. Jackal, that's why your being voted. Contribute more and I'll lay off you.
But as I was reading, Lunar destiny was right. What if they're just afk? Then we could just spend a whole day voting osmeone but they won't even read the thread to be able to respond! Which is partly why I'm unvoting jackal as of now. I will be looking for someone else to vote.
You guys are voting me. I urge you to help me in getting this town on the right track. Too many times town ends up in day 2 with nothing more than like 10 one line posts over the course of day 1, because there was just too much spam/not real discussion. So far I've been pleased with how this has been going so far. But just want to now start talking about what's currently been happening.
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.
As for the DT checks, that's more appropiate for talk during the night(less time for mafia to manipualte) but we can talk about it now. Personally I'm leaning towards checking people who "contribute without contributing." Don't just check the inactives, they're most likely bored townies. Don't just check big name players, most likely they're going to be framed/picked godfather. We should pick those who seem to be pro town, but fail to actually contribute. Obviously this can change. If you really have a good read on someone, check them But that's just some advice.
|
A journey into...
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.
Spam:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2010 10:38 LSB wrote: Nvm, doesn't seem like there are mayoral elections On December 27 2010 10:37 LSB wrote: If there are mayoral elections, will you help me make my campaign poster? On December 27 2010 10:35 LSB wrote: I say we lynch ~OpZ~ because his town play and mafia play is indistinguishable. On December 27 2010 10:27 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:25 TheMango wrote: where are my mafia team mates? lets start getting rid of some people. Flamwheel/Incog forgot to send me who my teammates were, can you PM me them? Thanks!
On December 27 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I wanted to wait for the day post before posting this but w/e All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about: - Should we lynch an inactive day one? Assuming of course, there is no good alternative
- Plans for the roles
Inactives:A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive. Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives. We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. The key is that we have to make sure the town knows it is not okay to just simply sit back and not do anything. This way, hopefully everyone will be active and we won't need to lynch an inactive. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. Generic Blue Activity planOne plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The DTs should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Medics should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. Framer Issue: Framers are much better put to use framing the important townies. So any attempt by the mafia for framing the inactives would be a waste. First real post. I do like this post, for the most part. Gives the traditional opening advice speech thing, and a good overalll post. However, I do want to nitpick a bit at the content of this post. Yes, we don't want inactives. But there's a different between lynching the lurkers and lynching the inactives. Furthormore, having DT's check those people as well, and medics protect active people, just makes it far too easy for mafia to actually manipulate town BY being active. Perhaps he didn't clarify that he wanted to lynch lurkers, but i have a neutral read on this.
On December 27 2010 11:18 LSB wrote: Lets say Coagulation tells Doctor H that he is the medic. That's a claim
Let's not do that this game
k
On December 27 2010 11:25 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:20 TheMango wrote: Isn't that part of the game? assuming you're using it strategically, and not just for fun/out of boredom? Of course. There's a few cases where claiming is okay. 1) You are about to be lynched. Don't expect this to save you, but it would be nice to tell the town what happens 2) DT checks you. The DT then messages you and say that "I know your role is [insert green/blue role here]. This is mainly used when the DT finds a red, and also finds a green. The green becomes the "DT Mouth" and tells the Town what the DT found out. 3) The Medic successfully protects you. Assuming that it wasn't a hit from the mad hatter, if the medic protects someone, that person probably isn't mafia. 4) The town thinks of some super awesome plan. The issue is when blues jump the gun and start claiming before they confirmed someone. That's a great way to get our blues sniped. (See Salem Mafia. For a short summary, look at the article in the Pony Express) I like this post, don't really have anything bad with this.
On December 27 2010 11:27 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:26 ilovejonn wrote:There's already a rule to prevent inactives? Modkills: Inactivity has been a problem in every mafia game so far. Inactivity is most easily defined as failure to vote. If you do miss a vote, you will be modkilled. Special consideration will be exercised if a player in danger of being modkilled by this manner has been an active contributor in the thread. If something comes up and you know you will miss the vote, PM me in advance about it to let me know and you will be spared. Remember again: abstaining votes are NOT allowed. And once again, flaming is not tolerated. Keep it civil, or else you will receive a quick lightning bolt to the back of the head. Furthermore, you must post at least once in this thread per game cycle (from the start of the night to the end of the next day) to avoid being modkilled. Simply voting doesn't work. This is to prevent lurkers from lurking. Unless you mean you have to post a lot to not be labeled as an inactive. Check out Pokemafia. Basically the entire mafia team, except for DCXLIV and Kavdragon posted once a day, and made sure they voted. That's what lurking is. gives info.
On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote: TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history? blah(and then he spams for 3 more posts)
On December 27 2010 12:37 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Gets people to talk.
On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote: That was at Incog/Flamewheel
On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote: Can I write one then?
spam
On December 27 2010 13:26 LSB wrote: I don't believe Pandain is mafia just because he fingered Mr. Wiggles.
Clearly at the time Mr. Wiggles did not contribute anything, and Pandain just voted to accent his point.
Indeed, as Ver put in his town guide, spamming can be detrimental to the town.
Now, I don't belive we should lynch Mr. Wiggles. It is far to early to tell anything about him, and also I'd rather lynch a lurker/inactive than a spammer.
His first real "analysis" post, rather than the what I shall call "informative" posts(those being where you just give information without explanation.) I'm going to note that LSB has been active so far, and has, at least in my opinion, been contributing greatly. So far, LSB has been pro town.
On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote: Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Abstaining=bad. You should know this.
On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 18:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Also DT's shouldn't claim if they find a red and definitely not in PM either. Build a case on that person. Read through their posts and seriously consider them. Read them as though they are mafia, what are they doing to hurt/mislead the town and does it make sense? They might be a miller (there are probably 2, that is the normal count) and they might also have been framed.
When you checked someone and now they are mafia or are nearly certain you build a good case to get them lynched, you don't claim straight away because it's still possible the mafia won't hit you and if they do it become immediately apparent why you pushed so strong for a specific lynch which means the mafia have to do a lot of damage control especially if they tried to spread distrust/attack that DT. DTs should be using mouths to claim if someone is red or not, it shouldn't be an issue since we can use PMs this game. Show nested quote +LunarDestiny's posts so far come off as the most scummy but that's just barely, no good target has presented itself yet to me for the lynch so I'll vote for myself. My work schedule is unpredictable and I don't want to get modkilled for it. Hmm... Never noticed him @LunarDestinyShow nested quote +On 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? another"what do you think"
On December 28 2010 00:43 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 19:59 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On December 27 2010 19:53 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:On December 27 2010 18:57 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On December 27 2010 17:20 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: Coag just got temp banned for two weeks, doch is in... there must be a conspiracy :/ do you really think that because that's really stupid On December 27 2010 18:13 Mr. Wiggles wrote: So what's the infamy surrounding DoctorHelvetica? Would anyone care to enlighten me? Nothing I just always end up the center of attention in games whether I'm mafia or not and it always ends up hurting the town. No need to be so touchy, gosh it was just a joke. Several other people were making similar jokes so I don't really see why there is a problem and there's really no reason to flame out about it. Mr. Wiggles go and read through any game Drh has played... you'll see a) why drh is well known and b) why it's ironic he replaced coag. drh you are right, the attention lavished on you (as I'm doing right now) always hurts the town so I have a proposal for you, let's try and go one mafia day without you being the topic of discusion... k? Your post is: A) Really defensive when I never flamed you. I'm really just worried that joke might be serious, this wouldn't be the first time ridiculous metagame arguments would used against me and whether you were joking or not may not be relevant. I'm pointing out that the IDEA is stupid, not you, so it isn't a flame. B) You aren't lavishing attention on me and you're basically creating an excuse to discourage my posting at all. You're proposing my idea to me and being cute about it in a way that is really irritating. Yeah ok I accept your proposal that has been the thing I've been shouting at people in every mafia game where this happens. I don't really understand what you're trying to imply about me with the last "question" but I'm annoyed by it. The question is whether the defensiveness is because he was a bit touchy, or if it is because he's sweating as Mafia. Note, Meapak has never been mafia yet. And always, someone's first game as mafia is very loose (I should know), and super defensiveness is incredibly telling. Now that I think about it, you have been quite defensive.
On December 28 2010 01:15 LSB wrote:Firstly, pointing out that someone isn’t on topic isn’t analysis. It’s just plain distracting. Why don’t you include my two posts at the start of the game? Their spam too! Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 01:00 annul wrote:On December 27 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I wanted to wait for the day post before posting this but w/e All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about: - Should we lynch an inactive day one? Assuming of course, there is no good alternative
- Plans for the roles
Inactives:A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive. Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives. We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. The key is that we have to make sure the town knows it is not okay to just simply sit back and not do anything. This way, hopefully everyone will be active and we won't need to lynch an inactive. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. Generic Blue Activity planOne plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The DTs should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Medics should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. Framer Issue: Framers are much better put to use framing the important townies. So any attempt by the mafia for framing the inactives would be a waste. "should we lynch an inactive?" <-- probably knows mafia is most likely to at least pay attention to the thread enough to evade being labeled inactive. probably knows even if there are mafia inactives, he can choose any other town inactive and maintain the aura of "hey im helping out town" the rest of this is informative sure, but common sense? but the line "We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one." worries me. much better to hit an active scummy person and LSB should know this. Please read Pokemafia. Show nested quote +"DO NOT CLAIM" is good advice, and i would like to say obvious, but given current history and shit it isnt =\ Thanks! Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:25 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 11:20 TheMango wrote: Isn't that part of the game? assuming you're using it strategically, and not just for fun/out of boredom? Of course. There's a few cases where claiming is okay. 1) You are about to be lynched. Don't expect this to save you, but it would be nice to tell the town what happens 2) DT checks you. The DT then messages you and say that "I know your role is [insert green/blue role here]. This is mainly used when the DT finds a red, and also finds a green. The green becomes the "DT Mouth" and tells the Town what the DT found out. 3) The Medic successfully protects you. Assuming that it wasn't a hit from the mad hatter, if the medic protects someone, that person probably isn't mafia. 4) The town thinks of some super awesome plan. The issue is when blues jump the gun and start claiming before they confirmed someone. That's a great way to get our blues sniped. (See Salem Mafia. For a short summary, look at the article in the Pony Express) 1 and 2 are fine, 3 is not - you don't claim here, you just admit to being hit - preferably to town circle if you know where it is. 4 is a catch-all sure, but claiming day 1 to a "super awesome plan" is a horrible idea. that said though, LSB is providing pure information (some of which is sketchy) and no analysis. this early it is usually fine but consider it in the light of his earlier postings? it is like he wants to be active but isnt contributing valuable stuff. Help me then. What analysis could I do at that point? 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? more "hit inactives" crap - this is bad. also maybe a blue fish? Read the thread please Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote: Can I write one then? On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote: That was at Incog/Flamewheel wants to write a day post. uh huh. keep this in mind with the "try to appear active but not" lens. Do you seriously think that I need to pretend to be active? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:26 LSB wrote: I don't believe Pandain is mafia just because he fingered Mr. Wiggles.
Clearly at the time Mr. Wiggles did not contribute anything, and Pandain just voted to accent his point.
Indeed, as Ver put in his town guide, spamming can be detrimental to the town.
Now, I don't belive we should lynch Mr. Wiggles. It is far to early to tell anything about him, and also I'd rather lynch a lurker/inactive than a spammer. HEY something of content, cool. sort of defense of pandain and blatant defense of mr. wiggles. sadly the rationale of "inactives instead!" is scummy. Why don't you analyze my defense of Pandain, what does it say? 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. Nice ‘analysis’ yourself btw.
Okay, big post. First I want to point out how LSB has constantly said "he hardly defends himself", in both thread and to me in PMs. And I'll later show you pms showing how he claims annul knew LSB wouldn't defend himself, and just posted his analysis of LSB and hoped people would forget about it. But look at how this post is. 1.Criticizes annul for pointing out LSB's spam, saying it isn't "analysis." 2.Only responds to specific portotions, the weakest ones, or ones that don't even have analysis. This post looks long, but really isn't. He's hardly responded, while seeming to.
On December 28 2010 01:34 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +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. Personally, I would like DT checks on the inactives. That could be an easy way to clear people. That does bring up an issue, we should make it so that there is some way for the DT to be able to say what they checked, so that when they die, their information doesn't get lost. What if at the start of every day, people just randomly say a person's name, and a role. The DTs would say who they checked and someone's role. It would look something like this + Show Spoiler +LSB is Townie Infun is Mafia DTA is DT LSB writes I checked Infun, he's medic Infun writes I checked LSB, he's mafia DTA writes I checked Infun, he's mafia And so when DTA dies, we can go back and check out his checks
Innovative, but a bad idea. By this means if a DT did find someone, they couldn't just lead a charge against him via analysis without claiming, it would all be too easy for mafia then to figure that out. Still, for thinking up new ideas, I'm going to call this pro town.
On December 28 2010 02:52 LSB wrote: Well remember, there are only 2 DTs. Although this might help the mafia confirm who is who, there will be a lot more than 2 people getting all the roles right.
Also, once the DT establishes a mouth, this could be a way for the DT to throw off the mafia, by posting false responses in the thread in order to get off the hit list.
This I don't like. Here he actually admits the problems with the plan. He admits that it could help mafia find out who is who, and says "well, maybe more than one person got it right!"Actually, that's pretty unlikely considering again, if they lead a charge against you, its likely they checked you and are dt. And it'll be easy to find out if they did check you.
On December 28 2010 03:08 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +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. Remember, if we pull this off, all thirty people will be telling what's going on. Basically you have a 50/50% of getting someone's role right. (Okay maybe a bit less, but not much). A dt can easily hide within the mass of people getting the roles correct Now as for the fakeout Show nested quote +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. Exactly, the DT will only do this when there is an established mouth. Show nested quote +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. It's alot less. Maybe he just really likes plans(he does) and WANTS it to work, but his insistence is worrying me.
On December 28 2010 04:48 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 04:40 DoctorHelvetica wrote: I'm all for pressuring inactives to speak day 1 but no DT's should absolutely not come public with their claims that is a terrible and awful idea and I won't even begin to consider. What do you think of my plan? What do you think about the use of DT mouths? Show nested quote +The problem is when we focus too much on inactives we start calling people scum just because they didn't post enough when the far more disturbing trend is posting a lot/posting big posts and saying absolutely nothing helpful: aidnai in exmima radfield in salem kavdragon in pokemafia
etc. Indeed I agree that it could be a mafia tell. I do have a few people in mind in this game. However, these people are so much easier to analyze than someone like Oceanic in Pokemafia.
Don't like this. Especialy the end statement, he says he's suspicious of someone without saying why. This is a very commen mafia tell, because unless you're waiting to see how they respond, there's no point not sharing with the town. And you can tell he's not waiting to see how they respond because he said this.
On December 28 2010 04:51 LSB wrote: Lol yay we're not spamming irony yayayayay
On December 28 2010 05:25 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:23 Jackal58 wrote:+ Show Spoiler + I voted Jackal for the same reason, but actually am inclined now to vote for someone else with his excuse, but will actively be pressuring him in PM land to contribute more so. Jackal, that's why your being voted. Contribute more and I'll lay off you. It's all good man. I don't feel like you're picking on me. Like I already said day 1 lynch is a crap shoot. Unless somebody really steps on their dick. I've seen it many times actually. Kenpachi/Coagulation (Almost, but we switched)- Deconduo's Don't lose your village game Me/Pyrr- TLMMM 2 Me- Harry Potter Mafia Masq- Haunted Mafia Bill Murray (Almost, but Ace made us switch x.x)- Penalty Mafia And many others...
doesn't really contribute here either :/
On December 28 2010 05:26 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +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? again asks more from people without giving his own stuff so much.
On December 28 2010 05:40 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yes but we would be pointing fingers at every single inactive. We wouldn't just focus on one (Like how a lynch would work), we would just take notice of people and ask them questions. On a somewhat related note... Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:33 Jackal58 wrote:On December 28 2010 05:25 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 Jackal58 wrote:+ Show Spoiler + I voted Jackal for the same reason, but actually am inclined now to vote for someone else with his excuse, but will actively be pressuring him in PM land to contribute more so. Jackal, that's why your being voted. Contribute more and I'll lay off you. It's all good man. I don't feel like you're picking on me. Like I already said day 1 lynch is a crap shoot. Unless somebody really steps on their dick. I've seen it many times actually. Kenpachi/Coagulation (Almost, but we switched)- Deconduo's Don't lose your village game Me/Pyrr- TLMMM 2 Me- Harry Potter Mafia Masq- Haunted Mafia Bill Murray (Almost, but Ace made us switch x.x)- Penalty Mafia And many others... And the closest I've seen to that is TheMango. Yet he is not getting any love. Well, there's a few good discussion points right now. Like what do you think of me? As for TheMango, I'll PM him then Continues with the inactive speech. And again states the "what do you think."
On December 28 2010 06:15 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:49 annul wrote: you mean like you?
i think ~24/30 of this game will agree that i have contributed much more analysis to this game than you have. the 6 who wont are you and your five mafia teammates. if there are seven mafia or eight mafia then it will be 23/30 and 22/30 who will agree with this. =\ Let's see what you have done this game. 1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 01:00 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:27 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 10:25 TheMango wrote: where are my mafia team mates? lets start getting rid of some people. Flamwheel/Incog forgot to send me who my teammates were, can you PM me them? Thanks! what is the point of this post? acting as if he is mafia to create the impression he is not mafia? WIFOM surely, but think about it Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:35 LSB wrote: I say we lynch ~OpZ~ because his town play and mafia play is indistinguishable. what is the point of this? instant attempt to form a wagon on someone who hasnt even posted yet and the game had just started? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:37 LSB wrote: If there are mayoral elections, will you help me make my campaign poster? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:38 LSB wrote: Nvm, doesn't seem like there are mayoral elections two posts to seem active and he answers his own question a minute later. point of this? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I wanted to wait for the day post before posting this but w/e All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about: - Should we lynch an inactive day one? Assuming of course, there is no good alternative
- Plans for the roles
Inactives:A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive. Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives. We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. The key is that we have to make sure the town knows it is not okay to just simply sit back and not do anything. This way, hopefully everyone will be active and we won't need to lynch an inactive. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. Generic Blue Activity planOne plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The DTs should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Medics should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. Framer Issue: Framers are much better put to use framing the important townies. So any attempt by the mafia for framing the inactives would be a waste. "should we lynch an inactive?" <-- probably knows mafia is most likely to at least pay attention to the thread enough to evade being labeled inactive. probably knows even if there are mafia inactives, he can choose any other town inactive and maintain the aura of "hey im helping out town" the rest of this is informative sure, but common sense? but the line "We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one." worries me. much better to hit an active scummy person and LSB should know this. "DO NOT CLAIM" is good advice, and i would like to say obvious, but given current history and shit it isnt =\ Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:18 LSB wrote: Lets say Coagulation tells Doctor H that he is the medic. That's a claim
Let's not do that this game Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:25 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 11:20 TheMango wrote: Isn't that part of the game? assuming you're using it strategically, and not just for fun/out of boredom? Of course. There's a few cases where claiming is okay. 1) You are about to be lynched. Don't expect this to save you, but it would be nice to tell the town what happens 2) DT checks you. The DT then messages you and say that "I know your role is [insert green/blue role here]. This is mainly used when the DT finds a red, and also finds a green. The green becomes the "DT Mouth" and tells the Town what the DT found out. 3) The Medic successfully protects you. Assuming that it wasn't a hit from the mad hatter, if the medic protects someone, that person probably isn't mafia. 4) The town thinks of some super awesome plan. The issue is when blues jump the gun and start claiming before they confirmed someone. That's a great way to get our blues sniped. (See Salem Mafia. For a short summary, look at the article in the Pony Express) 1 and 2 are fine, 3 is not - you don't claim here, you just admit to being hit - preferably to town circle if you know where it is. 4 is a catch-all sure, but claiming day 1 to a "super awesome plan" is a horrible idea. that said though, LSB is providing pure information (some of which is sketchy) and no analysis. this early it is usually fine but consider it in the light of his earlier postings? it is like he wants to be active but isnt contributing valuable stuff. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:27 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 11:26 ilovejonn wrote:There's already a rule to prevent inactives? Modkills: Inactivity has been a problem in every mafia game so far. Inactivity is most easily defined as failure to vote. If you do miss a vote, you will be modkilled. Special consideration will be exercised if a player in danger of being modkilled by this manner has been an active contributor in the thread. If something comes up and you know you will miss the vote, PM me in advance about it to let me know and you will be spared. Remember again: abstaining votes are NOT allowed. And once again, flaming is not tolerated. Keep it civil, or else you will receive a quick lightning bolt to the back of the head. Furthermore, you must post at least once in this thread per game cycle (from the start of the night to the end of the next day) to avoid being modkilled. Simply voting doesn't work. This is to prevent lurkers from lurking. Unless you mean you have to post a lot to not be labeled as an inactive. Check out Pokemafia. Basically the entire mafia team, except for DCXLIV and Kavdragon posted once a day, and made sure they voted. That's what lurking is. common sense information Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote: TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history? fair question! ? 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? more "hit inactives" crap - this is bad. also maybe a blue fish? wants to write a day post. uh huh. keep this in mind with the "try to appear active but not" lens. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:26 LSB wrote: I don't believe Pandain is mafia just because he fingered Mr. Wiggles.
Clearly at the time Mr. Wiggles did not contribute anything, and Pandain just voted to accent his point.
Indeed, as Ver put in his town guide, spamming can be detrimental to the town.
Now, I don't belive we should lynch Mr. Wiggles. It is far to early to tell anything about him, and also I'd rather lynch a lurker/inactive than a spammer. HEY something of content, cool. sort of defense of pandain and blatant defense of mr. wiggles. sadly the rationale of "inactives instead!" is scummy. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:30 LSB wrote:EBWOP On December 27 2010 13:24 TheMango wrote:On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote: TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history? Hmm, shows up for me, are you going to my profile page and clicking on my post count, or doing a search? both show up properly for me :o Yep, thats what I'm doing. It looks like there is a little time lag between what you post and what shows up in the search function. Maybe this is normal... Haven't actually tried searching for posts this recent before. dunno how to analyze this -- information that isnt common sense (or meant to filibuster) is fine, and even i didnt know this one. id say this gets a pass Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote: Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain yes, lets lynch people with zero meaningful posts. LSB, you up? or yes lets lynch a modkill target because those are almost certainly going to be town and we want to lynch towns, yes. you too. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote: Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L. good idea, i like this, but why sign up and then insta modkill on purpose? if youre replaced its not like you can consider any potential wins by the mafia as wins for you -- you are considered not to have even played the game. seems like something nobody should ever do on purpose and if they do, metagaming at its finest. buuuut then we haaaave..... Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:57 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:45 Soulfire wrote: 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. As for new players, don't worry to much about being inactive. As long as you try to play mafia and spend some time thinking and reading the thread, this won't ever be a problem. Just post you thoughts on the person currently being accused. And feel free to ask questions, in thread, PMing the hosts, or any of the Bootcamp helpers, and I'm always willing to help "DONT WORRY ABOUT BEING INACTIVE LOL" after his entire campaign day 1 was "kill the inactives" -- whaaaat? what is this inconsistency? Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:34 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 21:02 Ryuu314 wrote: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. Remember this post? On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote: Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L. 40 Minutes Later http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=179875#2On December 27 2010 14:20 Coagulation wrote: your sister hot?
User was temp banned for this post. Not a scum tell per say... but still... yes coagulation got a 14 day ban on purpose to "help" his mafia team day 1, this makes perfect sense. ***************** 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. Notice that Annul quotes every single post I made. This is just silly. Sure, I like to spam. But do you really need to point out every single instance? At least put it in a spoiler. The reason why Annul does this is to put some kind of useless contributing so that he can increase his post length. For example take LMNOP in WaW mafia. He just posted long walls of text and came off as green and helpful. He still tries to build this facade of his contributions. + Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 05:49 annul wrote: you mean like you?
i think ~24/30 of this game will agree that i have contributed much more analysis to this game than you have. the 6 who wont are you and your five mafia teammates. if there are seven mafia or eight mafia then it will be 23/30 and 22/30 who will agree with this. =\ He's trying to set up the fact that he's a good contributor. And then he tries to establish his greenies just because he makes long posts. 2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 01:27 annul wrote: 1. i read pokemafia. still a horrible idea to lynch inactives over active scum Comming from a game of Pokemafia, I know the damage that an inactive can do. He simply dismisses any discussion over an inactive without much reason 3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced+ Show Spoiler +Well, let's look at how substantial his posts are 2. you could do whatever analysis you please? all i know is you didnt do any Firstly, up to this point, barely anyone had posted anything. Intrestingly enough, I've posted many reasoning on blue actions, and how to deal with inactives. Yet Annul brushes it aside. I've clearly analyzed Pandain. And yet he claims that I have done nothing? 3. evidently you do need to pretend to be active, since you did for ~30 posts I'm pretending to be active. This would be a valid concern, if I did nothing but spam. However, I have pleanty of posts that arn't spam, and far more than Annul. 4. it says you are defending pandain? i dont understand what you are asking me to do Note: He doesn't analyze my actions At all. All he does it point out spam. From his 'analysis' we can see a few things. 1) His reasoning is incredibly flawed. He ignores all meaningfull posts and focuses on the spam 2) This analysis is probably forced. There are many inconsistancies he can't explain so he simply ignores it. 4. Annul posts without brining anything new+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 05:39 annul wrote:Show nested quote +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.
this worries me i already highlighted LSB's defense of pandain. now pandain is defending LSB on my FOS. in and of itself that is fine but his rationale is "if hes mafia, we'll catch him anyway" ... whaaaaaat? basically pandain is saying "so what if he acts scummy day 1, if hes mafia he will act scummy days 2-X and we can lynch him then" <--- am i missing something here when i call this horrible logic? on point: i am not so sure public claiming of being hit is 100% the smart play, but am willing to be persuaded on this strategy debate. note that even if LSB turns out correct and this is the proper strategy, it does not acquit him of scumminess. second, "mistaking jokes for real content" makes me scratch my head. can anyone just out and say "JUST KIDDING LOL" if someone calls them up on something? i think a big part of my case against him is in the spammy nature, as you call it. he posts a lot without actually posting a lot, you know what i mean? its that plus his case against inactives that bothers me. Lets take a look at what he said 1) I said stuff before 2) I feel that not claiming being hit is a good idea. wtf? Remember, always claim if your hit. The mafia knows who they hit. The town doesn't. Why not share the information?3) Let's talk about something irrevelent 4) LSB spams As you can see. He did not post anything new. All he did was re-highlight points he made before. And then describe his feelings. This is the post that first set me off about LSB. Beforehand, he had been acting what I would call pro town. Contributing, being pretty reasonable for the mots part. But this post, it just doesn't seem right.
First off he picks at annul for silly reasons, like including every post of LSB in his analysis. I do that, why can't annul? LSB then goes on to say that he did this because he wanted to seem to be contributing without really contributing, but I would definitely consider such a post to be contributing.Throughout this entire post LSB is trying to show that annul tried to force his analysis on LSB, but really it just seems like this post is forced.
Furthormore he made a giant leap with his #2, that annul doesn't want to lynch inactives. In fact, LSB quoted a post annul made but totally misinterpeteted it. Annul said that he would rather lynch active scum over inactives, which is something I would most likely agree with. But LSB took this way out of context, similar to what I did with Dr. H in haunted mafia.
For #3 he hardly elaborates on the inconsistencies stated, and I find that suspicious. Furthormore, look at this post.
I'm pretending to be active. This would be a valid concern, if I did nothing but spam. However, I have pleanty of posts that arn't spam, and far more than Annul. Perhaps I am looking to far in, but that post seems to imply: 1.He WAS pretending to be active, but that's okay because he also had meaningful posts. The first part is the most important. And #4 is wrong, as no one had accused LSB beforehand.
On December 28 2010 06:38 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 06:26 annul wrote: point 1 above is pretty lol, insofar as you call a PBPA "giant wall of text pretending to be [contributive]"
if PBPA is a spam maneuver then i really need to quit this game because i must not know a thing about forum mafia + Show Spoiler +And the key point I'm making is that, I did not ignore or brush off your analysis. The key point is that if I can respond to every single one of your points in a post that is a fraction of the length http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=179009¤tpage=14#275, it means that your analysis is fluff Show nested quote +point 2 is a false classification of my position. i want to lynch scummy targets, not inactives. LSB wants to fire on inactives exclusively. it is correct that where there are no other scummy targets, an inactive is a fine kill. but where there is scum, there is no reason whatsoever to leave them alone in favor of inactives, which is what LSB advocates. right now there are scummy targets and there are places to analyze that do not involve inactives. No it is not. You still do not have any solution to deal with inactives. We've been talking about plans, however your voice is suspiciously absent. We cannot just ignore inactives. We ignored inactives in Pokemafia and we lost the game You are asking to "worry about the inactive at a later date". This is not taking a position Show nested quote +point 3, spoiler 2 is false. "yet annul brushes it aside" -- yes, i clearly brushed aside you telling us what you want to do to inactives. clearly. What about my analysis of Pandain? You have not address this in any point. In fact you ignore it right here Show nested quote +point 3, spoiler 3 is sort of false. perhaps they are not "spam" in the common way of thinking about it, but what you post are pure informative posts without almost any actual analytical contribution. yes, you do bring some things to the game, like the pandain/wiggles defense (and, after the FOS post, your attacks on me). but the vast majority of your postings -- as can be found in my PBPA -- are not analytical at all. All right. Tell me what I should have analyized then? Should attack you because you haven't posted yet? No! I did not make any analysis in the first few hours of the game because you cannot. It is impossible to deduce who the mafia are from a simple day post. And when I did make analysis, it was when a lot of post had gathered up. But you chose to ignore this Show nested quote +point 3, spoiler 4 is unfair, because i asked you a question that you did not answer. you said "what does my defense of pandain SAY?" and i told you what it said, asking for more information on your question because there had to be more to it than that; there had to be some underlying question i wasnt seeing. you never clarified and now you seek to use this as a point. unfair at best. This is not unfair. This is me pointing out what happens. Read above Show nested quote +for point 3 non-spoiler 2, show me the inconsistencies please? i will be more than willing to analyze whatever holes you think exist in my case. if i miss something its entirely an error - not an unwillingness to get on the record about a topic. show me what you want me to talk about (SPECIFICALLY) and i will. 1) I analyze Pandain. You pointed out that I analyzed Pandain. 2) You say that I didn't analyze anyone. It's laugable because it's your attempt at posting nothing.
I don't like this post. FIrst off he brushes asides annul's analysis, saying he addressed it(and linking to where he "did." But if you'll look up to when I comment on that post, he really didn't, preffering instead to nit pick at small details. Furthormore, he constantly speaks of his "analysis of me", but that was only like what, one sentence long?
On December 28 2010 07:34 LSB wrote: A big argument between two people never gets much done, so I'll just keep this short.
Before you go vote for me. Go through my posts. There are clear examples of me taking positions and analysis. There is a big difference between what Annul wants you to believe, and what I said. Probably most of it is from a misunderstanding. I don't provide analysis in a game for a while. Annul probably saw the tail end of my Shockeyy analysis. However, that happened on day two.
I'm not letting up on Annul. But just trying to keep the thread focused on inactives.
Tries to stop the huge war between annul and LSB. Possibly pro town, possibly not. It depends. But the most important about this post is here he says Annul is just misunderstanding. As you'll see later he constantly will and has said that annul is saying this because he's mafia. Note the contradictions.
On December 28 2010 07:40 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +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. Indeed. 1/4 are basically the same thing. How about this. With a bit more explanation. 1) Makes posts that don't do much, but pretend to be contributing. Then congratulates himself of all the contributions that he did. This is a mafia manuver. See LMNOP in WaW mafia 2) Although Annul says inactives hurt the town, he has not done anything to attempt to deal with the problem. He has shot down all attempts at working together a solution without offering a reason, let alone an alternative. This is a decidedly anti-town maneuver, as leaving the inactives alone will lose us the game. See Pokemafia 3) Annul analysis is forced. This is incredibly telling. See my analysis on SR in TMM2, I was mafia and I made a forced junk analysis in order to try to take off heat. 1.When did Annul congragulate himself? 2. It's not like annul shot down the plans, he just thinks your mafia and trying to get you lynched. 3.You never showed Annul's analysis is forced.
On December 28 2010 07:49 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 07:47 annul wrote:On December 28 2010 07:40 LSB 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. Indeed. 1/4 are basically the same thing. How about this. With a bit more explanation. 1) Makes posts that don't do much, but pretend to be contributing. Then congratulates himself of all the contributions that he did. This is a mafia manuver. See LMNOP in WaW mafia 2) Although Annul says inactives hurt the town, he has not done anything to attempt to deal with the problem. He has shot down all attempts at working together a solution without offering a reason, let alone an alternative. This is a decidedly anti-town maneuver, as leaving the inactives alone will lose us the game. See Pokemafia 3) Annul analysis is forced. This is incredibly telling. See my analysis on SR in TMM2, I was mafia and I made a forced junk analysis in order to try to take off heat. 1. "no u" defense again. this is precisely what i called LSB out on in the first place. we wouldnt even have these pages of debate if not for FOSing LSB. couldve just sat back and let pandain fall, very easy right? So why didn't I just let Pandain fall? I could have attacked him Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 06:52 annul wrote: my position on inactives is irrelevant. of course id prefer them to not be inactive. but the only way to actually "deal" with them is to get them to stop being inactive somehow or to lynch them. barring some model way to do the former (which isnt obvious considering the state of TL mafia), then the latter is all we have. and right now, we need to kill scum not inactives. so yes, my idea is "wait until later" as that is all we can do. 3. "forced" how? i couldve sat back and let pandain hang, right? why am i calling you out specificallly if i didnt think you were scum? the only way is if pandain and i are both mafia and i am trying to save him, and while i am not clear on pandain, i do know his wagon makes no sense. i realize saying this will mean i hang if he turns red but =\ you are scummier than he is right now. Btw, why is Pandain scum?
ty
On December 28 2010 08:09 LSB wrote:Okay, sure, TheMango voted for me. If you want, you can choose. Just RNG a number from this list Show nested quote +5. Brocket 6. TheMango 7. Mr.Zergling 8. why 15. ShoCkeyy 17. ilovejonn 19. Orgolove 21. bumatlarge 23. GeorgeClooney 26. deconduo 27. Soulfire 29. Ryuu314 30. ~OpZ~ I don't get this. LSB can you explain?
On December 28 2010 08:36 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 08:33 LunarDestiny wrote: -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. My best explanation of this has to do with how I acted in Harry Potter Mafia and Pokemafia. There was this giant bandwagon on me day one, and I didn't really do much about it. In Pokemafia I just dismissed analysis against me and didn't do much about it. This game is different as Annul's analysis was horrendious and sparked some alarms. I then sat back and watched as Annul kept it up. This is why I'm openly attacking him now. + Show Spoiler +Well... Harry Potter Mafia, I didn't bother with the bandwagon because the plan was basically to get me lynched.... thanks DocH x.x
Don't like this post either. First off he says that annul's analysis was horrendus, when really it wasn't. LSB is only saying it was for petty reasons like "he included every post I made." Furthormore, he notes that he defended himself in HP mafia BECAUSE he was mafia. Finally, again contradicts himself with the previous statement that annul is just misunderstanding.
On December 28 2010 11:42 LSB wrote:Let's refocus on inactives. There are two lurkers/inactives that have voted so far. 6. TheMango- I consider him a lurker as he hasn't offered insight on anything. 30. ~OpZ~- Hasn't done much in thread. He has PMed me, but I don't know if he is actually active. If why/Brocket/GeorgeClooney gets around to voting/posting, we could switch the lynch. But currently we should push to lynch the people who actually aren't in danger of being modkilled. People probably with say that I have a conflict of interest with TheMango since he voted for me. So I'm find with voting off ~OpZ~
Interestingly here we find him trying to redirect the conversatino back to the inactives. I prodded him about this and he says it was because he said foolishness told him to try to refocus on the inactives. I will believe him. But I don't like how he's trying to put focus on the mango, when there are far better canidates. The mango, while not doing huge analysis's, has been giving his opinions and analyzing things. There are other people who have hardly even spoken as of yet. So :/
On December 28 2010 15:39 LSB wrote: I'm confused. Can someone point out my scummy posts?
I want to see if you all actually read what I wrote or just mouthing information from Annul.
As for the OpZ inactive lynch, he has posted a bit now. But he hasn't really said anything besides what other people had posted.
Don't like this either. The purpose of voting inactives is so they post. If they do, even if it's not that great, as long as he gives his opinions its time to go to the next person. I find it suspicious that he would rather lynch people like opz instead of people like shockey or brocket.
On December 29 2010 00:33 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 17:18 Barundar wrote:On December 28 2010 16:50 GGQ wrote:On December 28 2010 16:40 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:18 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:17 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: LSB; while Annul doesn't have a very strong case against you, your defense was pretty pathetic. I've had a bad gut feeling about you for a while, it's not something I was planning on voting on but Annul did bring out all of the problems I had been having with your posts. I'm not voting you quite yet but I would like you to give more than one line answers whenever someone puts a fos on you. Consider this post a +1 for Annul's case against LSB. I'd like to see you take some time in defending yourself and not just brush it off because there were some good points in annul's post. Give me a point to address then. Bump. Why did you OMGUS vote annul when I'm sure you know that's a common scumtell? ... and why did you vote for him while you kept trying to make town look for inactives? Shouldn't you be trying to convince people to your case if you where certain enough to vote? In pokemafia, you said "I was very protective of my Shockeyy lynch", when someone suggested another possible mafia lynch. Now you are fine with the town splitting up attention. How would you explain this change in play style? OMGUS: The point is, lets say I do an analysis of you, and its all lies. Wouldn't you be suspicious of me? It would be selfish of me to not do anything about it. As a townie I have a responsibility to attack Annul, even though it may be a bit scummy Inactives: In case you haven't noticed, I've been dealing with the inactives using blue roles. I proposed we deal with inactives by a combination of DT checks and mass cover by everyone allowing the DTs to safely . The thing is, this plan was immediatly dismissed by people who probably didn't read the thread. All they say is "well, lets not rely on DTs". In addition, as I've said, we should lynch an inactive only when there iw no obvious mafia canditdate. Given that I found a obvious mafia candidate...
I don't like this post. First off the statement "As a townie I have a responisibility to attack Annul, even though it may be a bit scummy" sets off alarms in my head. First off, how would you have a responsibility to do that. And he even admits it is scummy. And also contradicts that he just thought annul was misunderstanding, now saying he's mafia.
On December 29 2010 00:37 LSB wrote: If you guys divert the lynch, I will prove, without a doubt, my role at the end of night two.
Ho ho ho. Now this is very intersting. From these statements we can deduce that LSB is either vigi or DT(most likely the former.) And as he says, and will say in the future(and in pms to me) he can PROVE that he's his role. That also hints to him being vigi.
But what I don't like about this claim is he claimed so early. If he is blue, why would he claim already when he still has like 10 hours to go? Usually you wait until like at the very least 3 hours before lynch, not 10 hours before.
On December 29 2010 00:37 LSB wrote: Maybe earlier
On December 29 2010 02:14 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 02:11 annul wrote: furthermore you say its fishing but i mean you just came up to the water surface with a giant open mouth, as if you want to swallow that bait. you are claiming blue, essentially, to save your lynch
so i want to know what you are. convince me and i will drop my attack until the time comes when you say you can prove it and cant actually prove it. I am claiming blue. Just not what role. As for convincing you. It impossible since your attack is forced and you left reason a long while ago.
Don't like this either. Note that LSB has never really address Annul, instead poking at small details. And this is very similar to what I did vs. DR. H, saying that you can't debate with someone because you won, when really you just won irrelevant arguments(and LSB hasn't even won his!)
On December 29 2010 02:23 LSB wrote: Yeah, but I'm blue. And I can prove this.
The point is, the fact that you are willing to lynch one of your blues means that this lynch has become something else to you. It no longer is about helping out the town, it's about proving to yourself that you can get someone lynched.
It's time to abort. Don't like this either. IT's pretty obvious that Annul could just be a townie who thinks your lying. And there's nothing suspicious about that. By saying this, LSB is very scummy to me.
On December 29 2010 02:25 LSB wrote: WTF? As a blue player I need to keep myself alive.
So why did you claim so early?
On December 29 2010 03:05 LSB wrote: I'm going to ignore Annul for a while.
Right now, all the votes are split. What we need to do is refocus the votes on a few candidates. I propose the candidates be Me, annul or OpZ.
If you want to vote for a blue who can confirm himself, go for it. It will help us find scum on day 2.
As for Annul. I feel like with the mass of people voting me, we should refocus onto OpZ, or we won't get enough votes.
OpZ is the inactive vote. He hasn't done much this game besides reiterated points that people have already spoken. I'm up for redirected the inactive vote to someone else. I don't like this either. He still is trying to get Opz lynched when there are other people we should be focusing on(like Shockey or Jackal). Furthormore now he's hinting at being dt with the "I'll help u find scum on day 2"(at least it seems that way to me.) But it's pretty obvious up to this point that he was either vigi or mafia.
My PMS WITH HIM Ya, that's spam. ----------------------------------------- Original Message From Pandain: On December 28 2010 00:43 LSB wrote: Show nested quote +
<3 you too. I want to see the analysis.
----------------------------------------- Original Message From LSB: wut? ----------------------------------------- Original Message From Pandain: but before hand you said you were eagerly awaiting it.
----------------------------------------- Original Message From LSB: 1 standalone post does not warrent attention in most games.
----------------------------------------- Original Message From Pandain: so if an analysis is good you won't respond to it? (most games) and if an analysis is bad you will (this game) ----------------------------------------- Original Message From LSB: read the thread
----------------------------------------- Original Message From Pandain: some theory youg ot. so 1.Why did you defend yourself? 2.Why did he pick you on the basis of one game.
----------------------------------------- Original Message From LSB: 1. Annul Hosts Harry Potter Mafia. Figures that I ignore analysis 2. Annul is Mafia in XXXV 3. Annul decides he's going to pretend to be active by making a large analysis. So he picks someone that probably isn't going to respond. He picks me. ----------------------------------------- Original Message From Pandain: now restate to me what your theory is. from annul reading in harry potter mafia, remembering it, to annul being mafia. ----------------------------------------- Original Message From LSB: Go read the beginning of Harry Potter Mafia.
Annul Hosted it and expected that I would react the same way.
----------------------------------------- Original Message From Pandain: but now your saying that he made a long post in the beginning because he thought you wouldn't defend yourself because he knew that for some strange reason, and yet you defend yourself now(why) and say he's mafia because of that.
Your theory is getting more and more stretched. Not only that you're using wifom. I'm voting you, mmkay? ----------------------------------------- Original Message From LSB: Normally I don't defend myself. Harry Potter Mafia? I only defended myself since it was horrendously bad.
----------------------------------------- Original Message From Pandain: obviously you would defend yourself. But annul thought that everyone would just ignore it? why would he be so bold on day 1, at the very start, just to "gain town favor" and hope its ignored. ----------------------------------------- Original Message From LSB: Nope, I defended myself and put pressure on him. That's why he's continued to post.
This is what pressure is. ----------------------------------------- Original Message From Pandain: So he made a long thing analysis, even saying beforehand "Guys im making analysis of LSB"(thus bringing more attention), then has continued to do this because he wanted it to get ignored? ----------------------------------------- Original Message From LSB: He wants to win the town favor by making a long post and hoping that it gets ignored. That way he can go back and say "Look at all the analysis I did!". And indeed he has done that.
Also, check this out. Take out my arguments with him and his analysis of my. What else does he have left? Not much.
----------------------------------------- Original Message From Pandain: why would he force himself to do an analysis on you so early? don't you think if he was really red he wouldn't be this so much out in attention?
----------------------------------------- Original Message From LSB: Yeah. His analysis is forced.
----------------------------------------- Original Message From Pandain: do you really think he's red?
I've been pming him and do not like what I see. If you read, you can see that he has this whole theory on that "Annul knew I wouldn't defend myself so he made a long post hoping it would get ignored." Yet Annul even brought attention that he would make that post, so LSB's theory doesn't make sense. It just seems to me that LSB is reaching at straws.
|
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.
|
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.
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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. 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. Show nested quote +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~! Show nested quote +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.
|
There's a chance he can't reveal it now because either 1. His plan involves night actions, mafia could influence that 2.that might risk revealing his role, meaning mafia might be more likely to shoot him.
Again, if he can't tell the plan at the start of DAY 2, we just found a 100% mafia and can lynch him day 2. Why should we risk lynching a blue, even potentially a dt on day 1. Again, with the starcraft analogy, its like attacking when you have an advantage. Sometimes you just want to sit back, expand, and go for the certain win later.
|
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.
On December 29 2010 04:49 Jackal58 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
On December 29 2010 09:12 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 09:09 Pandain wrote: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. 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. Isn't Brockett lurking? He didn't contribute anything at all with his 1 post
No he's inactive. That's different from lurking. Lurkers are those who follow the thread but don't post, or who post but don't contribute. Brockett is just inactive.
I'm still up for a D_3 lynch, but since that doesn't seem to happen anytime soon I guess I'll settle with LSB.
|
On December 29 2010 10:31 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 10:24 Barundar wrote: I understand you want to save yourself, but Brocket is the worst scapegoat you could possibly find. He is as scummy as Kenpachi when posting, and now he is even afk. Voting him is the same as abstaining, and really gets us nowhere. Between Brocket and LSB, I would much much much rather Brocket dead then LSB... There really isn't another choice now due to time constraints... Annul brought us to this point, a 1 person bandwaggon is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to the town. 0 analysis can be done concerning votes, mafia can hide where ever they want to when voting for a town... You need at least 2 candidates every day for voting or it might as well just be a random.org vote. LSB has a high chance of being a blue, and killing a blue, especially early is terrible.\ Brocket is most likely green or a lurking mafia... and since there have been 4 people comming out of no where to defend Brocket it makes me think Brocket is even more red.
I vehemently disagree. FIrst off, LSB doesn't have a high chance of being blue, he's claimed everything from vigi to dt, and his supposed plan which no one knows what possibly could be he refuses to tell.
Furthormore now your saying that we're forced to either vote brockett or LSB, and previously you had been saying you were voting him because "he played differently."
Plus right now we can find out so much from LSB's flip. I know people usually say not to lynch for information but this is a special scenario. IT's all because LSB has claimed blue, and mafia know that, or that LSB is mafia, and they're trying to swing a bandwagon onto brockett to save him.
If LSB flips red- Great! We caught probably at least 3-4 scum who tried to swing the bandwagon onto Brockett, in addition to information from posting. Furthormore we caught a scum! IF LSB flips blue LSB is not DT, so we don't have to worry about that. Why? -Claimed very early to be blue, DT wouldn't have done that being most important role. Would've waited. -Revealed pms where RoL said LSB might be DT, and hinted strongly because it was the only role that could fit the plan. Why would DT be so reckless, especially when he seemingly doesn't want to claim?
So we don't have to worry about losing a DT. So when, if blue, he would most vigi, then that's not even that bad of a loss. But most importantly mafia would be wanting him dead, since he's blue, and they know it. So people who voted for LSB should be looked upon with suspicion, myself included.
But again I would like to stress people that LSB is 99% not blue, that he is 99% red. And I urge you to read my analysis I made of him, and realize whats happening here.
Vote LSB. Stop the Bandwagon.
|
On December 29 2010 10:52 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 10:48 Pandain wrote: If LSB flips red- Great! We caught probably at least 3-4 scum who tried to swing the bandwagon onto Brockett, in addition to information from posting. Furthormore we caught a scum!
Just to give you something to chew on. Last time I was red and I got pushed day one. That was pokemafia And it was completely orchestrated. Everyone who attacked me was either mafia, or working with me. Everyone who defended me was town.
And was there a huge counter bandwagon at the last second? I can also share an example. insane mafia, me and ace are about to be lynched, and we're both mafia. At the last second I swing a massive bandwagon onto KtheZ.
|
On December 29 2010 13:43 Jackal58 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 13:18 DoctorHelvetica wrote: lol i bet coag is playing on jackals account either that or they have nearly identical diction Coagulation has been no fucking help at all. You wanna know why we have nearly identical diction? I'll tell ya why. But sexual favors are required to unlock the secret. I'm drunk. I'm going to bed.
LOL wtf
Anyway i just played an hour long game O.O
|
For the love of God I don't mean to only make a one liner but its Pandain, not Pandrain,Paindrain, or Paindan.
|
Just found out I have around 15-45 minutes until I go, and I probably won't be back until after night actions are over. So in case I die. So I was going to make a bigger post but it seems that this'll have to be shortened.
People who are probably pro town: + Show Spoiler +Decondou-gave analysis of people, contributing. Insanious: I honestly don't know why I voted LSB, but Insanious advocated what I should've done. Besides making long posts with plenty of reasons, he is most likely town. Furthormore he almost saved LSB. Now RoL says this is because he believes that as mafia insanious knew that LSB was town, but why then would he try to and almost save him from a lynch? As mafia they would've just wanted to sit back and let a blue get lynched while appearing afk. Jackal-hunch based on both pms and his general attitude. People who are likely scum in my eyes: + Show Spoiler +Orgolove-What happened to the super (semi)spammy agressive Orgolove. He says its holidays, but he's being TOO lurkerish. Mr-Zergling: Very unsure in his posts, not making any strong opinions. More importantly when he was under the impression day had ended early, he said "sorry LSB, too late." Besides possibly(note that word) showing that he knew LSB was blue, the fact that before hand and after hand he hadn't been helping. Compare that with his previous post saying he only contributes when he feels he can. The only thing saving him is that its semi-consistenent with his previous play in games, but major FoS on him nonetheless. Dr.H: I'm always unsure about him, but the major thing I notice about him is that he hasn't been really contributing, as in to discussion. Sure he's given his thoughts every once in a while(and admittedly they were pretty long) but from lack of pming people to noticable lack of seeming "enthusiasm", it just sets of alarms. Probably the weakest feeling to be mafia, however.
People to watch: + Show Spoiler +RoL-advocated putting bombs on three people I believe are innocent. Tried to control blue actions. Watch him. Opz-generic contributing without really contributing. d-3- see my analysis on him.
|
Oh woops I forgot Ilovejohn, while in the last game he made a whole bunch of relevant, semi long posts, in this game he's just really been talking about issues that we weren't really talking about. Sorry I can't do an analysis as of now but go through his posts and compare them with haunted mafia(or something)and you'll see what I'm talking about.
|
Alright sup ya'll. Tonight was good, and bad. It was good because we didn't lose any blues and I didn't die, but it was bad because we lost alot of really good people. But right now what we have to be doing is getting all these inactives to talk. Until these people post a good post, or start to really help, FoS on them.
Opz George CLooney Shockkey Ryu/DArthien\ Brockett(another) Orgolove
Right now I'm going to be voting Orgolove, but these people we should especially keep an eye on Why Orgolove? HE claims he's been busy during the holidays but not posting, but really, he's way TOO quiet. I mean, he's always super spammy/agressive, and even the holidays he wouldn't have been this busy. Let's see his posts:
On December 27 2010 16:02 orgolove wrote: Oh wow. This started fast.
I hardly think the sudden bandwagon against Pandain less than an hour after the game started was appropriate. States the obvious, already said.
On December 28 2010 12:53 orgolove wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 11:42 LSB wrote:Let's refocus on inactives. There are two lurkers/inactives that have voted so far. 6. TheMango- I consider him a lurker as he hasn't offered insight on anything. 30. ~OpZ~- Hasn't done much in thread. He has PMed me, but I don't know if he is actually active. If why/Brocket/GeorgeClooney gets around to voting/posting, we could switch the lynch. But currently we should push to lynch the people who actually aren't in danger of being modkilled. People probably with say that I have a conflict of interest with TheMango since he voted for me. So I'm find with voting off ~OpZ~ On December 28 2010 11:41 LSB wrote: ##unvote ##vote ~OpZ~ I hardly feel that focusing on inactives, especially on Day 1, is a good idea at this point. I highly doubt mafia will be inactive on day 1, exactly to deflect the kind of suspicions you are raising. It's much more likely, probability wise, for there to be mafia among the people who already posted, compared to the inactives. hell, I know I'd be more inclined to post and make time during the holidays if I was red 0.0 I'm getting really suspicious of the people who keep trying to refocus the town on lynching inactives instead of HUNTING REDS. i.e. why, LSB, ilovejonn. I'm especially looking at LSB right now, given his past track record and his current behavioral patterns. Accuses people who try to get people to talk. Note that Orgo says we should be focusing on trying to find red's, but orgolove hasn't done ANYTHING.
On December 29 2010 12:32 orgolove wrote:Oh. I failed terribly. Sorry LSB. This is all he says. A short while after LSB died. Now, what does this post do? First of all orgolove barely did anything, and he's immediately apologizing for getting it wrong. This is a very obvious scum tell if I'm correct, and he still hasn't really contributed.
He has obviously had time to read the thread, at different points during the day. There is no reason why he should not be contributing more unless he was red.
|
|
|
|