Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (73 users)
Active: 5672 users | |
|
| EchelonTee United States. April 30 2012 15:36. Posts 3404 | Profile # |
RE: Gonzaw
On April 30 2012 13:23 gonzaw wrote:
Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 13:11 Cephiro wrote:
On April 30 2012 13:00 gonzaw wrote:
One thing I was thinking is, for instance to scumhunt normally this round, and have EVERYBODY claim what their answer will be in the thread (YES or NO)
We force the "scummy" players to vote for the mayority, and the most townie ones vote for the minority to save them from Round B.
And how would that be useful? As nice as it would to believe people will vote for something co-operatively in a game of this size, it just won't happen. If you somehow manage to gather and confirm all townies, and ensure they vote in a certain pattern, that still enables scum to do whatever they want, and even if they outed themselves, they may still be able to get in the minority constantly. It's just not gonna work in a game where votes are hidden until the results. (Where it will be obvious who voted for what)
If everybody follows the plan, then those that vote different than they told are scum. After that, you can either get a vig to shoot them (if there is any), maybe luckily have the other scum team shoot them, or change the voting system on later days to ensure that player becomes mayority. The point is that either you have a claimed scum, or the plan goes through
Gonzaw, the problem with what you have been advocating (everyone announce votes, we force scummy people to be in majority) is that non-cooperative overconfident players (read: Palmar, Ace), will want to be in the minority, and that doesn't imply that they are scum or town. Simply that they would not want to follow the plan doesn't mean they should be autovig'd. While I do agree that people who announce a vote, but end up voting otherwise should be scrutinized to hell, this sort of hardline plan will not work.
@Foolishness: Do you have any ideas that would actually allow town to control how many people end up in the majority/minority (I'm abbreviating that as M/M from now on). PM me if you don't want to put it in thread.
@Sandroba: Last time you were town in a PM game you broke the hell out of it; if I don't see similar efforts then it's tunnel city. |
| | learn lots. dont judge. laugh for no reason. be nice. seek happiness. -D[9] || Na`Vi - LGD - Dignitas - Liquid - Fnatic |
|
|
| Mr. Wiggles Canada. April 30 2012 16:03. Posts 4685 | Profile Blog # |
On April 30 2012 15:19 EchelonTee wrote:
So upon reviewing the thread I have concluded that Mr. Wiggles' plan for "put everyone in the majority" is either gross negligence or a malicious scum plan.
Why? If everyone is in the majority (assuming everyone followed the plan, which they wouldn't), that means there are 18 people up for lynch. Normally this would be no problem at all, as everyone is always up for lynch, but due to the rules of this game anyone with 0 votes, or tied for lowest is lynched. If this plan were to be followed, I can all but guarantee that we will have 3+ townies dying simply because no one thought they were important enough to be voted, while scum players can obviously get votes on them. This plan allows for suboptimal townies to be culled at no cost to the scum teams. Mr. Wiggles arguement is that if you're bad then it's fine if you die. I heavily heavily disagree with this.
Honestly, I just want to randomly put my vote down and focus on scum hunting because whether I'm in the majority or minority, I don't plan on being mislynched. However, since it's starting to seem like scum may try to abuse the system, I'll follow any plan that has decent logic behind it.
Meapak, do you not care about any of the plans that have been put forth so far?
The thing about this, is I don't think there can be any other plan that will actually work, and doesn't have the possibility to be heavily abused. I agree that this could end up being somewhat swingy, but based on what you said, what's the difference between my plan and a plan that splits the vote another way? If no one's going to vote for those townies, and I think we could get a way to vote and save them, what makes you think people will vote for them otherwise? If they die in my plan, there's no reason they won't die in someone else's plan, so I don't really get your point at all, since it doesn't say anything. The only difference is I'll have a few deaths on day 1 as the worst case scenario, whereas other plans will simply have them die out over time whenever they hit the majority.
Also, since we're only talking about hypothetical players so far, who are these people who nobody is going to vote to save at all? The only person I think you could make a case for would be Katina, but even then, that's only one person. So, please point out all these useless players who are going to be left by the wayside because not a single person will vote for them and thus we'll have multiple people at zero votes. The player-list is very strong in this game. I don't think there's any player who everyone will think isn't worthy of their vote. Every player on that list is capable of playing a strong game, and showing themselves to be town if they put in the effort. I don't see anyone there who'd be left without votes if they put in even a modicum of effort this game.
So, it seems that so far people don't really agree with my plan, so here's my counterpoint: What's your idea?
It's fine to disagree, but if you have nothing of your own to put up against it, we aren't really accomplishing anything. If no one puts up some other plan to go against mine, then if people don't agree we're going to just fall into random voting, which will be even swingier and unpredictable than any plan someone could come up with. It will wreak havoc with reads and scumhunting, since anyone in the minority is sure to have suspicion on them dissipate, and public analysis and discussion on these players will be squashed as we can't lynch them. All focus will go to players in the majority, making the minority a safe haven for scum, and a place where they can hide until any pressure on them goes away by itself. If you can think of a way to stop this, then I'm all ears, but as of right now, I only really see a mass majority as the way to be able to keep pressure on people and make sure we can lynch who we want. |
| | "Dulce et decorum est pro Aiur mori" -Zealot | TL Mafia is the best sub-forum around, no lie! |
|
|
| gonzaw Uruguay. April 30 2012 16:06. Posts 3087 | Profile # |
To ET:
On April 30 2012 15:36 EchelonTee wrote:RE: Gonzaw
Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 13:23 gonzaw wrote:
On April 30 2012 13:11 Cephiro wrote:
On April 30 2012 13:00 gonzaw wrote:
One thing I was thinking is, for instance to scumhunt normally this round, and have EVERYBODY claim what their answer will be in the thread (YES or NO)
We force the "scummy" players to vote for the mayority, and the most townie ones vote for the minority to save them from Round B.
And how would that be useful? As nice as it would to believe people will vote for something co-operatively in a game of this size, it just won't happen. If you somehow manage to gather and confirm all townies, and ensure they vote in a certain pattern, that still enables scum to do whatever they want, and even if they outed themselves, they may still be able to get in the minority constantly. It's just not gonna work in a game where votes are hidden until the results. (Where it will be obvious who voted for what)
If everybody follows the plan, then those that vote different than they told are scum. After that, you can either get a vig to shoot them (if there is any), maybe luckily have the other scum team shoot them, or change the voting system on later days to ensure that player becomes mayority. The point is that either you have a claimed scum, or the plan goes through
Gonzaw, the problem with what you have been advocating (everyone announce votes, we force scummy people to be in majority) is that non-cooperative overconfident players (read: Palmar, Ace), will want to be in the minority, and that doesn't imply that they are scum or town. Simply that they would not want to follow the plan doesn't mean they should be autovig'd. While I do agree that people who announce a vote, but end up voting otherwise should be scrutinized to hell, this sort of hardline plan will not work.
@Foolishness: Do you have any ideas that would actually allow town to control how many people end up in the majority/minority ( I'm abbreviating that as M/M from now on). PM me if you don't want to put it in thread. @Sandroba: Last time you were town in a PM game you broke the hell out of it; if I don't see similar efforts then it's tunnel city.
If those players make it apparent they are town, then there's no problem in leaving them be in the minority.
If they don't, then well they should just keep their mouth shuts, suck it up and be in the majority. If they are town it's their own fault for appearing scummy, and if they are scum it will prevent them from creating much chaos and maybe we'll even lynch them on Round B
The point of the plan is that they should comply, sacrifice their vote and maybe their opportunity to be in the minority for the greater good of town.
I mean, that's the whole premise of "mass plans".
Also, remember the actual manga. If everybody works together with trust and shit, then everybody wins very easily.
If everybody starts creating chaos, voting randomly, etc, then it makes it harder for town to win.
Speaking of which
If someone PMs an answer, can they change it afterwards?
About people voting random:
On April 30 2012 15:19 EchelonTee wrote:
Honestly, I just want to randomly put my vote down and focus on scum hunting because whether I'm in the majority or minority, I don't plan on being mislynched. However, since it's starting to seem like scum may try to abuse the system, I'll follow any plan that has decent logic behind it.
Meapak, do you not care about any of the plans that have been put forth so far?
On April 30 2012 13:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Not I. :d
Well then, let's get started.
As always, I cynically feel like any plan we hope to enact is doomed to fail so let's just vote how we want to vote for round A. We have a number advantage over scum, so voting randomly (according to how we feel) will put town at the advantage imo.
I haven't decided how to use my votes for Phase B yet. I'm still pondering the matter.
So if you guys put down your vote randomly just to scumhunt, what happens if the players you figured out were scum end up in the minority? Who will you lynch instead? Will you use Round B for something productive at all? |
|
|
| syllogism Finland. April 30 2012 16:46. Posts 5337 | Profile # |
On April 30 2012 13:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Not I. :d
Well then, let's get started.
As always, I cynically feel like any plan we hope to enact is doomed to fail so let's just vote how we want to vote for round A. We have a number advantage over scum, so voting randomly (according to how we feel) will put town at the advantage imo.
I haven't decided how to use my votes for Phase B yet. I'm still pondering the matter.
Hi, can you elaborate on this? Surely you don't mean to imply you are going to vote based on something other than information you have gained from reading the thread, and possibly your PMs?
Everyone should be able to justify their round B votes on something other than just vague notions of how useful that player generally is when town aligned.
Also, I propose we will vote which player(s) to lynch as normal. Those player(s) should then not receive any votes in round B; we could have everyone claim their votes in round B to at least have something to analyze in case they still do. Actually I suppose the downside of having everyone claim their votes in public is that mafia will is possible then less likely to vote for each other as they can tell whether their players are in danger of being voted off or not. Ideally we would choose a person who is most likely to be town (that would be me) and just have everyone PM him their votes instead. |
|
|
| gonzaw Uruguay. April 30 2012 18:14. Posts 3087 | Profile # |
@syllogism: Maybe we can have a plan for using the Round B votes as well.
For instance, if we unanimously decide that Player X should be lynched (and he's eligible to be lynched of course), then we can do this:
Player 1-Gives player nº2 5 votes
Player 2-Gives player n3 5 votes
...
Player X-does whatever he wants
Player X+1-Gives player nºx+2 5 votes
..
Last player- Gives player nº1 5 votes
Players not in Round B vote whoever they want but not X.
That way, the only player lynched will be player X and all the rest will be saved.
However this depends on people unanimously deciding to lynch player X and following the plan, which I doubt will happen.
We can come up with other things when the time comes, since it also depends on how many people are in Round B.
Speaking of which syllo, what do you think about the plans regarding Round A being discussed at the moment? |
|
|
| syllogism Finland. April 30 2012 18:45. Posts 5337 | Profile # |
| Haven't thought about it much, but it seems to me it would be best if players who we will definitely not be lynching on the given day would be in the minority and everyone would agree to vote with the majority. Random voting seems awful. |
|
|
| Palmar Iceland. April 30 2012 18:49. Posts 7607 | Profile Blog # |
On April 30 2012 18:45 syllogism wrote:
Random voting seems awful.
More like awESOME
This game sounds really complicated and I wasn't joking when I said I'd need someone to explain the mechanics to me (feel free to PM me, but only if you're town).
Let's all discuss plans and such, that'll be helpful.
|
| | ♥ http://www.iron-edge.co.uk ♥ | |
|
|
| Palmar Iceland. April 30 2012 19:02. Posts 7607 | Profile Blog # |
Okay, I got it.
So we just force the people we want to lynch to be on the majority side of the thing right? Actually, we should just say "everyone votes YES" unless given an exemption. That way we can just weed out obvious townies and spend the rest of the day figuring out whom to lynch.
Also lynching a lot of people sounds fun. |
| | ♥ http://www.iron-edge.co.uk ♥ | |
|
|
| Palmar Iceland. April 30 2012 19:30. Posts 7607 | Profile Blog # |
Okay, so here goes, all those plans are bad. In order to restore stability and intelligence, I have decided to proclaim myself king.
- Everyone must default to voting "Yes" to the simple question in the day-post.
- Only if given a pardon by your King shall you vote "No" to the question presented in the day-post.
- Do as you're fucking told, bitch.
- Anyone breaking the law will be executed.
- pls buy ward
This is not a joke, this is seriously how we're going to run this game. I will present a justification to each of my pardons when I post the list of pardoned people. Do not appeal directly for a pardon, prove your worth by posting fuckton of useful shit (as opposed to most of the useless shit that has been posted so far).
|
| | ♥ http://www.iron-edge.co.uk ♥ | |
|
|
| syllogism Finland. April 30 2012 19:40. Posts 5337 | Profile # |
Based on my short discussion with Palmar, I'm supporting that plan. As long as all the "pardons" are adequately justified, there is little reason for anyone else to object either.
That is to say, All hail King Palmar |
|
|
Radfield  Canada. April 30 2012 19:44. Posts 2681 | Profile # |
| I'll get involved tonight, but skimming Palmars plan it looks good. |
|
|
| Palmar Iceland. April 30 2012 19:50. Posts 7607 | Profile Blog # |
| The King will be accepting Role-Claims throughout the day. Please PM me for further information. |
| | ♥ http://www.iron-edge.co.uk ♥ | |
|
|
| syllogism Finland. April 30 2012 19:52. Posts 5337 | Profile # |
| Actually, the King is too busy to handle such matters personally, so you should direct the claims to me, his advisor |
|
|
| Palmar Iceland. April 30 2012 19:52. Posts 7607 | Profile Blog # | |
| | ♥ http://www.iron-edge.co.uk ♥ | |
|
|
| prplhz Denmark. April 30 2012 20:02. Posts 3951 | Profile Blog # |
I hope this doesn't end in Ace being shot again.
We don't know how many (or even if) we have a vigilante, scum who want to avoid lynch will have like a ~40% chance each day of avoiding the lynch, and they don't even need their scumbuddies' help for this! If we go through with the pardon plan for days then they will even get 100% chance of avoiding lynch and we will need vigilantes to take care of them so potential vigilantes should not use their shot to enforce plans.
I imagine that there are roles more related to the central game mechanic, maybe M/M inverters or people who can throw other people from one pool to the other, maybe some hidden votes for round B.
I thought about how the vote trading panned out in Hammer Mini Mafia (for those who haven't read, everybody had 5 votes and we had to give some away to other people every night). In that game people might not give votes to the most townie player just because "he would already get a bunch" and then he would end up with none. Also, I think charismatic people might get relatively many votes compared to how "townie" they really appear but we still don't want people like me to die just because no one thought to trade me (goes for other people too).
I'm unsure about what to think about big round B plans, I'm always worried about what powers scum may have and I think that just relying on people to do their best should suffice (at least in this game with this infinitely stacked player list). What I'm going to do is that I'm going to split my votes up and throw a bunch of them into people I think other people are likely to vote for, and throw some of them into people I think other people are more unlikely to vote for. If everybody else does this then we're not going to have any problems (and we're going to have a lot of information this way) but if only I do it then there's not really much harm in that anyway.
I think it was gonzaw/syllogism who proposed that round B should be an unofficial vote and then we try to kill the "winner" of that vote, but I don't know about that. This is a game about finding townies and if we all agree that someone is scum then we're not going to need a huge plan for getting him lynched, people are just not going to vote for him or they're going to get into trouble. I have never seen an unofficial voting system in action either, at least not one that worked.
It seems that there is already a big plan in place for round A and it's kinda alright with me, syllogism and Palmar have good reads on each other so I'm going to go along with whatever they feel like for now. |
| |
|
| prplhz Denmark. April 30 2012 20:07. Posts 3951 | Profile Blog # |
On April 30 2012 14:32 Foolishness wrote:
We want as few people as possible in the majority. It needs to be as close to even as possible. If we have 10 or 11 people in the majority we can control the lynch. This is because we have more votes than there are people up for lynch.
I don't understand this.
10/8 split, three scum in each. Who is "we", how does this entity have more votes than there are people up for lynch, and how does this benefit us? |
| |
|
| prplhz Denmark. April 30 2012 20:22. Posts 3951 | Profile Blog # |
Also: How I plan to be active in PMs this game.
If I end up in majority I plan on pleading my innocence to a bunch of people in PMs. Other than that I'm probably going to play the most of this game in the thread. |
| |
|
| syllogism Finland. April 30 2012 20:50. Posts 5337 | Profile # |
Oh I just noticed that votes will be made public after voting is over, but just to make sure
After round B is over, are we told who voted for whom or just given the tallies?
|
|
|
| syllogism Finland. April 30 2012 20:55. Posts 5337 | Profile # |
On April 30 2012 13:11 Cephiro wrote:
Regarding PMs... anyone can PM me and say/ask anything they want, but I promise nothing to no-one as of yet.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? You don't promise to answer questions in private or what kind of promises are you exactly talking about here?
|
|
|
| Mr. Wiggles Canada. April 30 2012 22:31. Posts 4685 | Profile Blog # |
| I can half get behind this plan. I don't like the idea of Palmar being some arbitrary judge of towniness, but if we want to do the everyone votes for the same person, and we can discuss and exempt certain people, then I'll support it. It's close enough to my plan, with some added benefit. |
| | "Dulce et decorum est pro Aiur mori" -Zealot | TL Mafia is the best sub-forum around, no lie! |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Next | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
![[image loading]](http://www.playdota.com/img/art/90550447/fanart/f1332540963.jpg)
