|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 19:29:24 GMT -5
Post by lightfoot on Nov 26, 2012 19:29:24 GMT -5
Lightfoot (3): Burbs (66), Guiri (99), Pizzaguy (112) Peeker (3): Dizzy (88), Chucara (109), Gnarly (150) Wombat (2): Lightfoot (113), Drain Bead (138) MHaye (1): Wombat (67) Chucara (1): MHaye (72) Hockey Monkey (1): Astral (145) if this is accurate we have shennanigans already with Drain Beads vote
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 19:48:32 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Nov 26, 2012 19:48:32 GMT -5
mod question: is it copacetic to quote someone from a different forum than this one to kind of prove a point? Sure.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 19:51:50 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Nov 26, 2012 19:51:50 GMT -5
Lightfoot (3): Burbs (66), Guiri (99), Pizzaguy (112) Peeker (3): Dizzy (88), Chucara (109), Gnarly (150) Wombat (2): Lightfoot (113), Drain Bead (138) MHaye (1): Wombat (67) Chucara (1): MHaye (72) Hockey Monkey (1): Astral (145) if this is accurate we have shennanigans already with Drain Beads vote Shit, my bad. That's not accurate. This should be better. Lightfoot (4): Burbs (66), Guiri (99), Pizzaguy (112), Drain Bead (138) Peeker (3): Dizzy (88), Chucara (109), Gnarly (150) Wombat (1): Lightfoot (113) MHaye (1): Wombat (67) Chucara (1): MHaye (72) Hockey Monkey (1): Astral (145) Better for everybody besides you, I mean.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 20:17:38 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 26, 2012 20:17:38 GMT -5
I feel kinda invisible right now. Does anyone see what I'm saying about Hockey Monkey, or am I way off base here? man i just felt a spectral presence but will ignore it for now.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 21:05:02 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Nov 26, 2012 21:05:02 GMT -5
I would argue that it will be more effective because there are more teams who know each other. It's actually *less* effective against only one team because the odds are worse that you'll hit anyone who could possibly flinch. The caveat is you may get neutrals flinching as well, but they are potentially scum, and it's also advantageous to figure out who they are so you can screen out their behavior from the actual scum's behavior. Knowing someone is neutral puts the question mark on them, which makes it easier to avoid hitting Lawful Good. I think I disagree, but I'm going to talk myself through my own suppositions to make sure. There are four factions. Lawful Good (aka Town) wants to eliminate Chaotic Evil first. Once that's done, they will win regardless, because they share alignments with both Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil. Similarly, Chaotic Evil (aka Scum) wants to eliminate Lawful Good first for the same reasons. This is standard-ish mafia. The wrinkle is the Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil parties. They could care less if LG or CE are lynched, their goal is to eliminate each other because if they get rid of all the opposite alignment, they coast to victory and don't have motivation to help one side or the other. So as Lawful Good, we don't want to out the "neutral" CG and LE parties, because we're essentially helping the third-parties identify who they need to get rid of while not advancing our own win condition. In essence, identifying who isn't Lawful Good helps the Chaotic Evil faction just as much because it gives them a smaller pool to target. Plus, in standard games, there is always the argument of "well, if we lynch a third party at least it's not town" but in this game lynching a third party is beneficial to another non-town faction. I think I'm getting a headache, but I also think that means I've concluded that creating and outing neutral third-party flinchers would be overall a bad idea. Or at least more useful to anyone not Lawful Good. I feel kinda invisible right now. Does anyone see what I'm saying about Hockey Monkey, or am I way off base here? As guiri (and others) have said, I feel like Hockey Monkey's line of reasoning can also be attributed to a standard Townie line of thinking. She's probably either LG or CE, so it'd be good to keep an eye on her. But just from initial postings I'd lean slightly LG over CE from how she's presented herself.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 21:05:30 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Nov 26, 2012 21:05:30 GMT -5
I need to catch up before I have anything of value to add to this game * * Disclaimer: Provided my poor logic will allow to provide anything in that direction I'm reading through now. FOS Totallost for downplaying self.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 21:06:45 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Nov 26, 2012 21:06:45 GMT -5
No FOS on peeker because I don't see anything he's said that is suspicious.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 21:09:25 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Nov 26, 2012 21:09:25 GMT -5
NETA the bottom line is- anyone that can communicate off board is NOT Town ( LG) even if my initial concept was flawed no PIS here I don't get how the bottom line indicates that and I've read your post(the previous one) a couple times.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 21:15:19 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Nov 26, 2012 21:15:19 GMT -5
Pizza's idea is neat, but wouldn't it work better in a normal game? By normal I mean a two-faction scum vs. town game.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 21:17:24 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Nov 26, 2012 21:17:24 GMT -5
Sorry for the multiple posts; I'm posting as I think. I do find Hockey's statement about traditional setup odd, but if the monkey hasn't played in 3 years, I guess it isn't that suspicious. I see no gain in saying traditional when it isn't; how does this confuse the opponents in a beneficial way?
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 22:14:02 GMT -5
Post by Colby11 on Nov 26, 2012 22:14:02 GMT -5
Hockey and Total's comments are pinging me hard. Total is a good player, Hockey I haven't had the privilege of playing with before (Hi by the way)
The whole Peeker issue, I am going to wait to see where he takes us. I don't see a scum player putting themselves out there unless they are possibly a bomb.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 22:18:06 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Nov 26, 2012 22:18:06 GMT -5
NETA the bottom line is- anyone that can communicate off board is NOT Town ( LG) even if my initial concept was flawed no PIS here I don't get how the bottom line indicates that and I've read your post(the previous one) a couple times. I’m not sure if this addresses your quandary- clarify if it does not please It was a culmination of sorts on many of my previous posts although it appears it didn’t help anyone see my point . it’s a gift I guess Since there was no Night 0 and players that claim to not be CE ( but who wouldn’t?) seem to know who is on their team- I must entertain the fact that this game started a tad different from the first ( as previously posted) It’s a theory that I often advocate in sequels that has fallen on deaf ears more times than not-.So I tried to look at it both ways- unsuccessfully for me it seems Note peeker says something that could be suspect and “Scum wouldn’t do that” I have logic that appears askew to some and I’m Scum
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 22:22:04 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 26, 2012 22:22:04 GMT -5
I have logic that appears askew to some and I’m Scum <snipped> oh really. methinks we should all retrench a touch. but i will certainly look for the numbnuts that vote this turd in the punch bowl as a matter or course.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 22:25:34 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 26, 2012 22:25:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 22:34:17 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 26, 2012 22:34:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 26, 2012 22:43:31 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 26, 2012 22:43:31 GMT -5
and this is another no shit moment. i just got divorced from ex 2. so peekkid 1, 2 and 3 are coming over for christmas. so i pumped this up with a fog machine when they came running in to see what santa brought them at daddy's house. ex 1 and ex 2 were left sitting in the driveway while we just got after it. i just closed the front door.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 0:38:37 GMT -5
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Nov 27, 2012 0:38:37 GMT -5
So as Lawful Good, we don't want to out the "neutral" CG and LE parties, because we're essentially helping the third-parties identify who they need to get rid of while not advancing our own win condition. In essence, identifying who isn't Lawful Good helps the Chaotic Evil faction just as much because it gives them a smaller pool to target. Identifying a person as not Chaotic Evil can only help the Lawful Good side. I am struggling to follow your conclusion. It seems diametrically opposed to what seems like basic and fundamental mafia truth. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself well or vice-versa, but every person ID'ed as non-CE is good for town.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 0:39:27 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Nov 27, 2012 0:39:27 GMT -5
Sorry for the multiple posts; I'm posting as I think. I do find Hockey's statement about traditional setup odd, but if the monkey hasn't played in 3 years, I guess it isn't that suspicious. I see no gain in saying traditional when it isn't; how does this confuse the opponents in a beneficial way? Wait. You mean you guys don't post as you think?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 4:33:19 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Nov 27, 2012 4:33:19 GMT -5
Wait, let me rephrase. Nobody unvote or change their vote is what I shoulda said. Feel free to add new votes to the pile. Were you hoping to find someone had voted a player they were told they could not vote? Hockey and Total's comments are pinging me hard. Total is a good player, Hockey I haven't had the privilege of playing with before (Hi by the way) Colby, could you elaborate on this? What exactly about Total's single post so far toDay is ping you hard? The whole Peeker issue, I am going to wait to see where he takes us. I don't see a scum player putting themselves out there unless they are possibly a bomb. Wait and see? You've made a comment about your xbox, stuffing, a single non-comittal comment regarding pizza's suggestion ("good idea, probably won't work, it worked before though") and then this one, lurk much? You mean you guys don't post as you think? I usually post before I think, don't you?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 7:55:10 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Nov 27, 2012 7:55:10 GMT -5
Starting at midnight on Wednesday (prox 18 hours from now), I'll start checking for countdown triggers.
To be clear - 1/3rd of existing players voting for the same player will trigger a 24 hour countdown. In addition, 24 hours passing without a valid vote being placed will trigger a countdown. A given player may use unvote/revote once to reset the timer. Votes placed before midnight Wednesday won't exist for purposes of whether a players vote resets the timer.
And before I get flooded with PMs: IF there are players that are not allowed to vote for their teammates, then any vote they place for their teammates obviously won't count in terms of whether countdown triggers are set or not.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 8:33:18 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Nov 27, 2012 8:33:18 GMT -5
So why's he claiming mason? A team like that is kinda like a masonry in a way.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 8:38:59 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Nov 27, 2012 8:38:59 GMT -5
I have said many times that I didn’t recall all the specifics of the first game guiri remembered more than I did about my role even I was trying to help this game with my albeit flawed memories of the set up then The last game started Night 0, all non-LG players had access to their offsite boards to introduce themselves and begin strategizing. Your two colleagues simply didn't show up so you went into D1 unaware who was on your team, I don't believe it was by design I didn’t think it was by design either- You’re remembering/researching better than I Since we’ve not had a Night 0 this go – my two points are valid- Okay, I'm caught up now after my nice long Thanksgiving weekend. Given my long break, I'm not sure how much my pet theory still stands...but LightFoot has basically epitomized it. Throwing a smudge on peeker due to supposed PIS, but not bothering to actually vote on it--just putting it out there and letting others start the bandwagon. And given that the rules specifically state that multiple roles could have off-board communications, I think his PIS is ultimately meaningless as to whether or not we should lynch him. Vote: LightFoot [/color][/quote] Can you show me where I started anything on peeker I don’t think so [/quote] www.idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=awt&thread=2075&post=102125
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 10:40:30 GMT -5
Post by astralrejection on Nov 27, 2012 10:40:30 GMT -5
Wait, let me rephrase. Nobody unvote or change their vote is what I shoulda said. Feel free to add new votes to the pile. Were you hoping to find someone had voted a player they were told they could not vote? Well, yeah. It was a long shot, but obviously there was confusion over the issue, or Kid wouldn't have clarified in thread. Therefore, there was a chance we could catch someone before they had a chance to change their vote. It costs us nothing to try, so I figured why not? Free information. If someone was voting for a teammate, we know their case on that person is dishonest, and can evaluate them accordingly.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 10:43:44 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Nov 27, 2012 10:43:44 GMT -5
Finally, given the last game on giraffe, I now strongly support lynch the lurker. While I don't disagree at all, I still have to point out that this is IMO no the right way to go on Day 1. But after Day 3 or so, I'll be willing to follow this strategy to the extend that I don't see a more valid case on active players. After a lot of food-talk (made me hungry and just want to add that *anyone* eating a goose cooked by me will love it), this was a post that got my attention: otie dotie. someone is a runaway based on whatever reasoning was used. let's fuck the reasoning and the people behind it by just voting some poor schlub that has no votes because, "gosh darn they just have to be scum" and it will smoke them out. pizza has gotten into the parthenon. i know he is not on my team. anything that he says will be filtered that way. Okie Dokie.....So you know who is on your team and who isn't on your team Peekers? Is that how you know that Pizza isn't on your team? I'm going to assume from that that you know who is on your team, and therefore are not on one of the "good" teams. [ Vote: PeekersSeems so very, very weak a vote - even for a Day 1 vote. Peekers' nonsense is harder to parse than usual. I think he's a good nominee for me. Vote PeekerI haven't even read page 4 yet, but I know I'd lurve to see him dead. This however was somewhat of a change from the Random-vote-plan… And even without an explanation as to why we should abandon the original idea. And then there was this: To those voting me for a drive by post: I told you BEFORE the game started that I wouldn't be able to participate much this weekend. The post you all think is scummy was written from my cell in the car on the way to a party. A party where I got drunk, and am now hungover. The following was written in a stupor: My feelings about the game thus far: I am at best indifferent to askpizzaguys suggested strategy on closer inspection. I don't believe there is a really good D1 strategy that will actually work. But the theory of distributing the votes is sound. We *are* forcing scum to make public decisions by voting and often breaking a tie. *shrug* I don't think the strategy will work though. Much like herding cats. It sounds possible, to it requires everyone to play along. Also, what I don't like is the random.org part. That is essentially a freebie vote for scum. Peeker: I always want to vote peeker. His ramblings distract me, and makes it harder to play that game IMO. I assume this is his strategy to conceal himself when he is scum, and that he also has to play that way when he is town. Alternatively, he is just plain old incoherent. However, peeker rambling is a null tell for me. Much like fish being wet. However, peeker claiming that he knows someone is not on his team on D1 without being able to perform a night action is enough to warrent a vote from me at this stage in the game. So as much as I hate bandwagons, I have to: vote peekercpafor now. I seem to read this as: 1. Yes, I liked the theory posted by AskTPizzaG 2. No, I didn't like the random-part to it That is somewhat confusing to me. Because the way I read it the random-premiss was sort of the basis for the plan. The I read: 1. Peeker posting in Peekish is a null tell 2. I think he slipped and showed PIS And I would expect that followed by a "Therefore I Vote…" but I read more of a "If this turns out wrong then please remember that I jumped a bandwagon (thought not liking it) and voted with so many other players". But maybe I just read it wrong ;-) And this I simply just don't follow at all: guiriYour logic is internally consistent but I do not believe you can reliably infer Lightfoot's alignment so far. AGAINST MY BETTER JUDGMENT I will move to Lightfoot to give your vote more traction and keep the horserace close. But I am so warning yall- peeker attracts my vote like a powerful electromagnet at this point. In a tie, I'm switching back to peeker because I think I can either work with or at least try to analyze Lightfoot. She's worth the effort. Have we ever played in the same game before? And then I stopped at this: Are we voting the information, or are we voting the Peeker? That is, would the same number of votes be in place in someone else has made the same play as Peeker has here, instead of Peeker? Because for a change I actually understood and agree with Meeko - and that was by itself a bit scary ;-) Not that I disagree with the way to define Masons, but… Well no, if they are not town, they are not masons, they are just a faction of third party players who can with with either scum or town and who can strategize on an off-site board. Based on your explanation both the LE and the CG teams would be "masons" - that is not the case so it's best not to call them "masons" as that will lead to confusion. We have had games where the Masons coulees win with Town but also had a wincon on their own (being able to take the win for themselves and Town would lose with Scum). So I can actually see why *some* might think that either of the *not* Scum/Town-teams could be described as Masons. My guess is that peeker is not Scum--Not to say "Scum wouldn't do that" but I don't think that a Scum peek makes that slip early on Day One. My admittedly uneducated guess is that he's a member of one of the teams who could win with Town or Scum, and he knows exactly who his teammates are, and atpg is not one of them. Wasn't it in Evil Dead II that Scum-Peeker made a huge slip Day 1 and was lynched for it? So why's he claiming mason? Maybe he's reliving Ragnarok… Starting at midnight on Wednesday (prox 18 hours from now), I'll start checking for countdown triggers. To be clear - 1/3rd of existing players voting for the same player will trigger a 24 hour countdown. In addition, 24 hours passing without a valid vote being placed will trigger a countdown. A given player may use unvote/revote once to reset the timer. Votes placed before midnight Wednesday won't exist for purposes of whether a players vote resets the timer. And before I get flooded with PMs: IF there are players that are not allowed to vote for their teammates, then any vote they place for their teammates obviously won't count in terms of whether countdown triggers are set or not. I have to think some more about this - but to me it makes the plan Pizza posted even more hard to figure out. If we all place votes on Player A, B, C, D and E wouldn't it make it very hard indeed to even get the Day to end. I am running out of time as I am catching up. So as I said… will need to think about this some more.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 10:44:54 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Nov 27, 2012 10:44:54 GMT -5
Were you hoping to find someone had voted a player they were told they could not vote? Well, yeah. It was a long shot, but obviously there was confusion over the issue, or Kid wouldn't have clarified in thread. Therefore, there was a chance we could catch someone before they had a chance to change their vote. It costs us nothing to try, so I figured why not? Free information. If someone was voting for a teammate, we know their case on that person is dishonest, and can evaluate them accordingly. Where they roles like this in the first game? /Oog I miss the wiki
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 10:46:23 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Nov 27, 2012 10:46:23 GMT -5
I need to catch up before I have anything of value to add to this game * * Disclaimer: Provided my poor logic will allow to provide anything in that direction I'm reading through now. FOS Totallost for downplaying self. This is a joke, right? Because I have never ever join the spoilers after a game and read "Wauw, Total did such a good job this game"
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 10:49:48 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Nov 27, 2012 10:49:48 GMT -5
This game, with its unique Day end mechanism, is going to demand a variation to my usual playstyle. If I wait until the countdown starts, I might miss the chance altogether. So I'll have to be more ready to vote quickly. I think this might be a pure grammar-question. But what do you mean by the word "quickly"? Is it the same as you want to vote early (to have voted before the countdown) or do you mean vote as soon as possible after the countdown begins (to make sure you have a vote on record)?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 11:15:04 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Nov 27, 2012 11:15:04 GMT -5
I have said many times that I didn’t recall all the specifics of the first game guiri remembered more than I did about my role even I was trying to help this game with my albeit flawed memories of the set up then I didn’t think it was by design either- You’re remembering/researching better than I Since we’ve not had a Night 0 this go – my two points are valid- Can you show me where I started anything on peeker I don’t think so www.idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=awt&thread=2075&post=102125Seriously peeker said And I said How the hale do you see a smudge there?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 11:27:52 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Nov 27, 2012 11:27:52 GMT -5
Hockey and Total's comments are pinging me hard. Total is a good player, Hockey I haven't had the privilege of playing with before (Hi by the way) The whole Peeker issue, I am going to wait to see where he takes us. I don't see a scum player putting themselves out there unless they are possibly a bomb. Vote Colby11Not a fan of this. Smudging Total for her comment about how well she plays strikes me as really, really off. Seems like reaching. Her post came across to me as kind of a joking self-deprecation, not a fishy scum tactic. I've also got a stinky eye on mahaloth since he was the first to do it, but I honestly can't tell if his FOS was a joke or not, as opposed to Colby's which was a definitely serious smudge. Identifying a person as not Chaotic Evil can only help the Lawful Good side. I am struggling to follow your conclusion. It seems diametrically opposed to what seems like basic and fundamental mafia truth. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself well or vice-versa, but every person ID'ed as non-CE is good for town. Okay think about it like this. Town's priority is to lynch Chaotic Evil. If we identify Lawful Evil/Chaotic Good elements, it gives the third-parties targets to eliminate. If Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good is completely eliminated before Chaotic Evil is, Town will be under much more extreme pressure. So we want to keep third-party identities under wraps for as long as possible while we hunt for CE, so we have the most wiggle room possible in terms of winning. Identifying third-parties may very well be helpful, but it's MORE helpful to the other third-party and I'm not sure if the net gain will be worth it.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 27, 2012 12:02:24 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 27, 2012 12:02:24 GMT -5
So, I just got caught up. <font style="font-size: 12px;"> Nov 23, 2012, 7:00am, KidVermicious wrote:<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" class="quote" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="100%"> Nov 22, 2012, 6:59pm, Sister Coyote wrote:<table bgcolor="000000" class="bordercolor" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr><td width="100%"><table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" class="quote" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="100%">Actually, I like neither dressing nor stuffing, </td></tr></tbody></table>
You are dead to me.</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table> Magic bag? No, just the mod giving me shit. Or me giving the stuffessing eaters shit, take your pick. The rules say "Some roles may be able to communicate on a hidden board" which isn't specific, but I take it to mean more than just the CE. This has mostly been covered, but I was CG in the last iteration and we were able to communicate on a hidden board. Which, fat lot of good that did us I might add. Given my long break, I'm not sure how much my pet theory still stands...but LightFoot has basically epitomized it. Throwing a smudge on peeker due to supposed PIS, but not bothering to actually vote on it--just putting it out there and letting others start the bandwagon. And given that the rules specifically state that multiple roles could have off-board communications, I think his PIS is ultimately meaningless as to whether or not we should lynch him. Every time I have voted Lightfoot for exactly this behavior she has been Town. In fact, I owe her cookies for the last game I was so sure she was Scum. I usually post before I think, don't you? I usually post while I'm thinking, but then hit the "post reply" button and realize I needed to finish the thought before doing so. Also, what Pollux said about third-parties. Look at Dirx's chart from the last game again.
|
|