Re: Mafia Championship Scrimmage
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 5:15 pm
You always vote for Silver day 1?ika wrote:silverwolf
As always
fyi I'm out of state so I'm mobile till probably night 1, posting will be lower then normal
Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
You always vote for Silver day 1?ika wrote:silverwolf
As always
fyi I'm out of state so I'm mobile till probably night 1, posting will be lower then normal
This was directed at Frog.Sloonei wrote:I've never said I townread Marco. I said I disagree with your interpretation of one post he made. I have no read of him beyond that.
Oh. It's your fault.MovingPictures07 wrote: Let's drown Golden out so he knows what to expect from MU.
Your vote is on me, you swine.sig wrote:You should join me with who I'm voting for I'm sure you'll see the sense in my case.Golden wrote:147 posts before I even wake up lol. I imagine this is only a taster of what the actual thing will be like.
Catch up time
Yep, I got that the second time around. It first appeared to me that you were operating from a position of knowledge, or as you called it "TMI".Frog wrote:I retread the thread and I see where your misunderstanding was. You assumed my hypo claiming strategy revolved around mafia's privileged knowledge with respect to the existing power roles on a specific vertical/horizontal - where the claims would revolve around the specific unknown set of actual power roles. I'm saying- every power role should be hypoclaimed precisely because the vertical/horizontal is unknown to everyone except for scum.Sloonei wrote:What did you misinterpret and how has he changed your mind?Marco wrote:As my suspicion of Frog was because of my own misinterpretation, UNVOTE
B) How do the numbers hold up in this case? Do you think fake-claims would be easy enough to discern for mafia? Doesn't look like it should be unless your fake-claims are really bad but what do you think?I'm assuming we're playing with most championship rules where:
A) no last wills
B) claiming (fake or otherwise) is allowed
C) I've never heard of a rule where players aren't allowed to answer for others
Comments wrt above:
A) because there are no last wills, we must divulge our information and actions with appropriate cover
B) I'd urge you, especially if you rand village in the championships, to hypoclaim. You can expect quite a lot of straight up fake claiming, especially from town for decoy purposes
C) my vote remains on you for a few reasons, most notably to inform players of the existing buddying and butting in between you two (Marco and Sloonei)
Did the following post of mine actually give you the impression that I hard town-read Sloonei? Because I definitely didn't town-read, let alone hard, Sloonei.Extra notes-
Sloonei- you're asking me WHY I'm bring up your introductory troll posts.
The answer is simple - clearly Marco hard town read you based on that prior to defending you going into the second page of posts.
So my question to you, Sloonei, is this:
Clearly you town read Marco based on amswering for him.
Clearly Marco town reads you based on answering questions for you.
Aren't you skeptical of HOW Marco could possibly V read you based on your intro troll posts?
To me, it doesn't add up AT ALL.
And I'm VERY skeptical of this reciprocal relationship.
I'd like everyone to look into this as well.
Caution-
Only half the players have checked in so far
We must be cautious of TvT (Town vs. Town) arguments
Scum has NO incentive to solve, be mindful of this
Marco wrote:He wasn't calling you out for low participation.Spoiler: show
Despite my no u vote (which was just in fun) I didn't find sig's entrance to be indicative of a scum sig (or, particularly, a town sig either).Zexy wrote:I’m not that sure IAWY’s entrance in the thread was towny, sig. But it’s not necessarily scummy either. Thanks for the meta advice on MP.
Can someone give us meta on Long Con? That’s a strange entrance they make there, but it feels like it’s their thing.
Sloonei, do you know sig well enough to consider their actions as scummy? I can see your points, but if it’s something sig does regardless of alignment we need to cut some slack. Sig gave thoughts on Sloonei and I can't say I disagree either.
It depends game to game amongst players.Golden wrote:147 posts before I even wake up lol. I imagine this is only a taster of what the actual thing will be like.
Catch up time
The Syndicate is not very used to fake claims. It's done a bit at RYM where I've played a bit. I have a couple of questions about this postFrog wrote:Sup! I randed Town so GG.
I'll read what you guys have posted so far, but insofar as tempo control to immediately move out of the RVS stage, I'm going to bring up a polarizing strategy related question:
I've JUST finished a C12 match on MU where many vanillagers were fake claiming TPRs, and fake counter claiming TPRs all over the place. Some of them worked, some of them didn't. Those that didn't work were because of a cognitive dissonance between players. With this in mind, if you are town reading a player, and they fake claim a power role, would you counter claim them?
Furthermore, with respect to claims, I'm planning on following this format every day:
If I'm X role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
If I'm Y role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
If I'm Z role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
I do agree with this, but do you think it is abnormal for sig?Sloonei wrote:I don't feel like the content in the thread prior to your string of posts warranted everything you said.
Sometimes very early reads are the most accurate. Frequently people make their biggest mistakes before they find their footing in the game. If sloonei really believed in his read, why would it be expected for him to 'not only rely on that'?Zexy wrote:I don't think you are the kind of person who would base a read only on that anyway when so much more is going to happen.Sloonei wrote:What I didn't like about your posts is that they seemed like an easy opportunistic set of early observations when there wasn't a whole lot of content to analyze. It's a good and easy way to establish yourself early on as a town leader.
I'd like to believe same goes for sig.
I'm on my phone atm, excuse the huge nested quotes and disorganized response:Marco wrote:Yep, I got that the second time around. It first appeared to me that you were operating from a position of knowledge, or as you called it "TMI".Frog wrote:I retread the thread and I see where your misunderstanding was. You assumed my hypo claiming strategy revolved around mafia's privileged knowledge with respect to the existing power roles on a specific vertical/horizontal - where the claims would revolve around the specific unknown set of actual power roles. I'm saying- every power role should be hypoclaimed precisely because the vertical/horizontal is unknown to everyone except for scum.Sloonei wrote:What did you misinterpret and how has he changed your mind?Marco wrote:As my suspicion of Frog was because of my own misinterpretation, UNVOTE
B) How do the numbers hold up in this case? Do you think fake-claims would be easy enough to discern for mafia? Doesn't look like it should be unless your fake-claims are really bad but what do you think?I'm assuming we're playing with most championship rules where:
A) no last wills
B) claiming (fake or otherwise) is allowed
C) I've never heard of a rule where players aren't allowed to answer for others
Comments wrt above:
A) because there are no last wills, we must divulge our information and actions with appropriate cover
B) I'd urge you, especially if you rand village in the championships, to hypoclaim. You can expect quite a lot of straight up fake claiming, especially from town for decoy purposes
C) my vote remains on you for a few reasons, most notably to inform players of the existing buddying and butting in between you two (Marco and Sloonei)
C) How is it buddying Sloonei to tell Sig that he misinterpreted Sloonei because I'm interested in Sig's actual response?
Did the following post of mine actually give you the impression that I hard town-read Sloonei? Because I definitely didn't town-read, let alone hard, Sloonei.Extra notes-
Sloonei- you're asking me WHY I'm bring up your introductory troll posts.
The answer is simple - clearly Marco hard town read you based on that prior to defending you going into the second page of posts.
So my question to you, Sloonei, is this:
Clearly you town read Marco based on amswering for him.
Clearly Marco town reads you based on answering questions for you.
Aren't you skeptical of HOW Marco could possibly V read you based on your intro troll posts?
To me, it doesn't add up AT ALL.
And I'm VERY skeptical of this reciprocal relationship.
I'd like everyone to look into this as well.
Caution-
Only half the players have checked in so far
We must be cautious of TvT (Town vs. Town) arguments
Scum has NO incentive to solve, be mindful of this
Marco wrote:He wasn't calling you out for low participation.Spoiler: show
Lol, nothing is scummy- I'm suggesting optimal strategy and pointing out things to keep eyes on. Literally none of my points have been refuted on a logical basis- all of my perspectives, warrants and basis for claims remain intact. Instead we see Sloonei and Marco discrediting my content based on fallacious logic, often times side stepping my points entirely.Zexy wrote:I lean town on Psittaciform’s first post. Because meta. Only a lean, though.
What Frog’s done in the beginning is scummy (strategy talk + RVS hypocrisy), but votes piled up a bit too easily which made me paranoid, mostly about Marco. And Frog’s accusations of Marco are really good and he brings up towny points, although he overdoes it with TMI at some point. And there’s some tunneling going on here. I have more trouble accepting a Marco/Sloonei team than just Marco being mafia in the two.
Yet when it comes to Sloonei VS Frog, while Sloonei looks like he wins the argument easily, there is paranoia that kicks in as well. Sloonei’s cases are a bit too perfect. If he is so good, assuming he’s town, it means he could be good scum as well…
That’s it for now, will be back later.
I can confirm that sloonei doesn't let a single sentence slip.Zexy wrote:I like this post. You really don't let a single sentence slip, don't you?Sloonei wrote:Sig, what is the nature of your ping on me? How strong is it and why is it there?
I love sig's neologisms.sig wrote:I misliked his push on me
I've added them in a spoiler to the very first post.Golden wrote:@Jay - any chance you could put a link in the OP to your description of each of the possible roles? For ease of reference.
Sure thing, I'll throw together a more complete post before EOD.Golden wrote:The Syndicate is not very used to fake claims. It's done a bit at RYM where I've played a bit. I have a couple of questions about this postFrog wrote:Sup! I randed Town so GG.
I'll read what you guys have posted so far, but insofar as tempo control to immediately move out of the RVS stage, I'm going to bring up a polarizing strategy related question:
I've JUST finished a C12 match on MU where many vanillagers were fake claiming TPRs, and fake counter claiming TPRs all over the place. Some of them worked, some of them didn't. Those that didn't work were because of a cognitive dissonance between players. With this in mind, if you are town reading a player, and they fake claim a power role, would you counter claim them?
Furthermore, with respect to claims, I'm planning on following this format every day:
If I'm X role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
If I'm Y role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
If I'm Z role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
1) Are you referring to the concept of knowing someone has fake claimed because you ARE that role, and so your counter-claim would be real? If so, I think my choice of whether or not to counter claim would be entirely circumstantial. I would be trying to figure out why they fake claimed.
2) I like your format, but are there risks of greater exposure through the use of 'if I'm x, if I'm y'. Why is this better than simply saying 'If I am a role that can target, I did this N1, N2, N3'?
I may have a few questions like this throughout the game as I do want to get a got grip on the tactics around power role claiming, including how I can best aid the town in using it whenever I'm vanilla townie.
Haha, nothing new wrt low post count Ika ;-)Silverwolf wrote:Holy shit, I had no idea this game started!!
I have to catch up but I do want to let everyone know ika is out of town, and may not be able to post for a bit.
Hi Frog, and welcome to the site!!Frog wrote:Haha, nothing new wrt low post count Ika ;-)Silverwolf wrote:Holy shit, I had no idea this game started!!
I have to catch up but I do want to let everyone know ika is out of town, and may not be able to post for a bit.
Glad to see you've made it SW
Well, if he's posted, he's doing better than me. LOLFrog wrote:Haha, nothing new wrt low post count Ika ;-)Silverwolf wrote:Holy shit, I had no idea this game started!!
I have to catch up but I do want to let everyone know ika is out of town, and may not be able to post for a bit.
Glad to see you've made it SW
Yes, I meant hypo-claiming. But how easy would it be for mafia to discern the fake-claims according to you?Frog wrote:I'm on my phone atm, excuse the huge nested quotes and disorganized response:
Wrt fake claiming, it's decent enough to decoy. It also makes for decent claim battles. Hypo claiming is superior to fake claiming
Again, I did not answer for Sloonei. Sloonei made a read of Sig. Sig responded to that read but misinterpreted it and pushed on Sloonie. I pointed out that Sig misread the post. That can pass as defending, I guess, since I'm discrediting Sig's push. But it's onl because Sig misinterpreted Sloonei's post. If I had been answering for Sloonei, I would've answered the questions Sig asked, not pointed out that the questions weren't entirely valid. Besides, I was interested in what Sig's response to Sloonei's actual read would be.Wrt you V reading Sloonei, and vice-versa - you both are defending each other and answering the others questions for the other. Why would you do that for a null or wolf read? You MuST town read each other, or be buddying each other for pockets, or power wolfing like a pack.
I thought we had cleared this misunderstanding. As I told you, I discredit you because I had misinterpreted you. And then you corrected me so I rescinded my vote. It wasn't fallacious logic and I never side stepped your points. I just misread your strategy.Frog wrote:Lol, nothing is scummy- I'm suggesting optimal strategy and pointing out things to keep eyes on. Literally none of my points have been refuted on a logical basis- all of my perspectives, warrants and basis for claims remain intact. Instead we see Sloonei and Marco discrediting my content based on fallacious logic, often times side stepping my points entirely.
Frog is llama 2.0.Frog wrote:Vote: SlooneiSloonei wrote:Frog wrote:Long Con wrote:Yeah man! You in? You Mafia?Sloonei wrote:Hey, I hear we're playing a mafia game in here?Please don't self lynch baitSloonei wrote:Yea to both, King Con.![]()
Imagine the setup further down the line and there is no way to prove your alignment (aka vanilla-esque game). By opening with a self-lynch bait and no way to 'clear' yourself, if you end up in F3 scenario, you're going to be untrustworthy from the beginning.
1. You are either lying about your alignment - untrustworthy
or
2. You are mafia - untrustworthy
It's a lose-lose type of situation.
I'm just going to ask you straight up:
1) Were you kidding about being in the mafia?
2) Tell me you're town.What do you think of all my other posts?
It's very simple - tell me you're town in your own unique way
Yes. Which is quite foreign here, but in a game that is entirely team-wincon focussed and with no anti-infodumping rules, entirely makes sense.Long Con wrote:Doesn't this cause games to devolve into a bunch of counter-claiming and informed defending?
I really like this post Marco.Marco wrote:Yep. This also works best in a setup you actually know. Right now, majority of us will be clueless about the actual setup. So, hypo-claiming this game is probably going to be an advantage to mafia more so than town. They have the liberty of knowing the exact setup we're playing on Day 1 whereas most townies are clueless. So, I'm quite against trying Frog's strategy this game. And I wonder why he'd suggest this strategy without actually knowing what setup we're playing.
At this point my gut read is to see it opposite. Zexy + sig scum, marco + sloonei town.Frog wrote:Zexy is towny as flip.Zexy wrote:So, sig: what is TS? What do you think of Sloonei’s push on you? You defended, but what does that mean in regards to his alignment?
I disagree on the fake claiming part because in MU there actually a power role cover system where everybody claims all the roles so that the real ones get to “naturally” throw their real results in without standing out too much. And others fakeclaim to draw NKs.
Zexy + Sig = Town
Marco + Sloonei = scum teamish - On page 2 Marco randomly defends Sloonei. Lol. Obv slip is obvious.
I think Frog's suggestion works very well. Basically, we claim all the roles from all the possible setups.Golden wrote:I really like this post Marco.Marco wrote:Yep. This also works best in a setup you actually know. Right now, majority of us will be clueless about the actual setup. So, hypo-claiming this game is probably going to be an advantage to mafia more so than town. They have the liberty of knowing the exact setup we're playing on Day 1 whereas most townies are clueless. So, I'm quite against trying Frog's strategy this game. And I wonder why he'd suggest this strategy without actually knowing what setup we're playing.
What do you think of the 'if I'm a pr, I did this N1, n2, n3' etc. Wouldn't that lead to much better info later for the town and minimising the possibility of it giving too much info to mafia?
These kind of slips are nearly always bullsuit. You gotta do better than that. How would you expect Marco to have phrased the same sentence if he were town?Frog wrote:"How did you think about going about it accurately if you don't know what setup we're playing?"
Do you mean, that you can't say who you targetted after a hammer or nk, or are you suggesting that you can't give a legacy post even if you simply suspect you may be up for death (rather than after death is certain)? Is this the MU champ rules?Frog wrote:A) no last wills
Some boards allow you to make one final post after dying. There are some which let you set a "last will" post going into every phase which is revealed if you die that phase. I think he's referring to something like that.Golden wrote:Do you mean, that you can't say who you targetted after a hammer or nk, or are you suggesting that you can't give a legacy post even if you simply suspect you may be up for death (rather than after death is certain)? Is this the MU champ rules?Frog wrote:A) no last wills
Just pointing out this post seems really cautious. Putting one vote on someone and then being afraid of hammer is weird. It takes 9 to lynch. I'm used to hammer votes. What you do here, is declare L-1 when you put the 8th vote on and the next person declares intent to hammer, giving the opportunity for the lynchee to give final reads and claim. We are nowhere near that so this is a really odd thing to worry about early game with one vote on a person.MovingPictures07 wrote:Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not. VOTE METALMARSH89 because it always feels good.![]()
Well, now that you're here and self-voted, I don't feel like voting for you anymore. :P
More notably, I'd advise all Syndicateers to note that we have a hammer mechanic in this game, which is 100% new to any game on The Syndicate thus far (though I plan on utilizing it in some of my games going forward). I was OK with putting a single joke vote on you at the beginning, but I'm not OK with putting you any closer than that to a potential hammer, so...
VOTE A2THEZEBRA
to make her appear.
I encourage everyone to spread the "love" around with your votes, but be aware of the hammer function.
MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, now that you're here and self-voted, I don't feel like voting for you anymore. :P
Is it normal for you to not have any suspects or not at least someone worth putting pressure on? It seems strange to me, cause I feel very different about voting. Voting is good. All the cool kids are doing it.Marco wrote:Thanks for the info. I was asking particularly because of the hammer mechanic. As I might want to not have my vote count against anyone while I'm offline. eg: I vote for MovingPictures07 but he convinces me that he's town. I don't have any suspects for now, so I don't change my vote. While I'm away and offline, MP can get hammered.
Should he?/What's the story?sig wrote:Two things
1. MP didn't place his vote for Zebra
Nope.sig wrote:So why is it scummy that I'm posting and trying to get some content, since from where I sit it looks like your trying to stifle discussion.
This post points in all directions.Zexy wrote:I’m not that sure IAWY’s entrance in the thread was towny, sig. But it’s not necessarily scummy either. Thanks for the meta advice on MP.
Can someone give us meta on Long Con? That’s a strange entrance they make there, but it feels like it’s their thing.
Sloonei, do you know sig well enough to consider their actions as scummy? I can see your points, but if it’s something sig does regardless of alignment we need to cut some slack. Sig gave thoughts on Sloonei and I can't say I disagree either.
Quite active. There was a time when I lurked a lot as scum, but that's been a while now. Otherwise it depends on how much time I have. Don't know how new format/people will factor in on this or any other aspect of my play. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Marco wrote:Dyslexicon, what would you say your normal activity level in a game is?
As much as I find that debate potentially interesting, I don't think that is a very relevant question? How will it help you find mafia?Sloonei wrote:What do you define as RVS and why is it "not game solvey"?
I understand none of this post and I think we have rather different playstyles.Frog wrote:Please don't self lynch bait![]()
Imagine the setup further down the line and there is no way to prove your alignment (aka vanilla-esque game). By opening with a self-lynch bait and no way to 'clear' yourself, if you end up in F3 scenario, you're going to be untrustworthy from the beginning.
1. You are either lying about your alignment - untrustworthy
or
2. You are mafia - untrustworthy
It's a lose-lose type of situation.
I'm just going to ask you straight up:
1) Were you kidding about being in the mafia?
2) Tell me you're town.
This is useful information. Does it usually take the form of the rather inconclusive maybe this, but maybe this? Zexy can clarify this too if he wants. Thing is he is commenting on a lot, but no stances. Not sure it's a problem, cause I definitely can relate to a point (probably doing it right now), but it is a thing I noticed.Psittaciform wrote:I'll just note on this that Zexy is also prone to analyze anything he can and try to set himself up as a town leader, which can (at least partly) explain why he's going to Sig's defense here over that.
Sloonei wrote:If you are town it is always useful for you to help other townies to read you as town.
This is peculiar! I kind of love it, cause I'm confused now. Why do you think I'd tunnel you or tunnel at all? I'm merely joking around/taking RVS seriously.Zexy wrote:Well, Dizzy, all previous posts weren’t really about analysis on things… this would be your second and it involves only me, again. Hope I don’t end up being your tunnel target…
Town.sig wrote:I want a kiss.Unless you have diseases then I don't want a kiss.
![]()
You'd rather have the mafia NK pr before they have the chance to share useful information?Well that's a town mindset if I ever saw one!Long Con wrote:Seems like an attempt to get through loopholes. I wouldn't allow it as a host.
Why?? Why are people so afraid of voting. Wagons are fun. Give me wagons and lots of votes plz! Bloooood!Sloonei wrote:@ sig: I would never encourage an early bandwagon. I just moved my vote off my top suspect at the moment (Frog) because 2 other people voted for him.
Didn't you hard call Zexy town like a paga ago?Frog wrote:It's quite sad to see your scum game Zexy
Ultimately you're shoving a false narrative that straddles every side. I don't like it.
So you are proposing we would say what the result of each is as well?Frog wrote: 2) the risks claiming every role and seperate actions for each? There's hardly a risk. E,g,
If I'm tracker I tracked player A to no where
If I'm cop I found inno result on player B
One of the above may be WRONG, which serves to protect that player even if they ARE a power role.
Nope, I wouldn't cc but I get why some would for WIFOM. I have mixed feeling on WIFOMing results like this. Part of me wonders why it is necessary and part of me understands it's a protown thing to do. I really don't want to discuss this topic any further as it seems somewhat helpful to scum as well.Frog wrote:Sup! I randed Town so GG.
I'll read what you guys have posted so far, but insofar as tempo control to immediately move out of the RVS stage, I'm going to bring up a polarizing strategy related question:
I've JUST finished a C12 match on MU where many vanillagers were fake claiming TPRs, and fake counter claiming TPRs all over the place. Some of them worked, some of them didn't. Those that didn't work were because of a cognitive dissonance between players. With this in mind, if you are town reading a player, and they fake claim a power role, would you counter claim them?
Furthermore, with respect to claims, I'm planning on following this format every day:
If I'm X role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
If I'm Y role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
If I'm Z role, I did this N1, N2, N3, etc.
Is this something you think of as a scum tell for sig or just unusual playstyle behavior? Also, did you agree or disagree with sig's observations?Sloonei wrote:sig is usually an active player, but I can't recall any time he's made that many early posts with so little content preceding him.Zexy wrote:I’m not that sure IAWY’s entrance in the thread was towny, sig. But it’s not necessarily scummy either. Thanks for the meta advice on MP.
Can someone give us meta on Long Con? That’s a strange entrance they make there, but it feels like it’s their thing.
Sloonei, do you know sig well enough to consider their actions as scummy? I can see your points, but if it’s something sig does regardless of alignment we need to cut some slack. Sig gave thoughts on Sloonei and I can't say I disagree either.