Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

That's garbage reasoning. You're essentially saying the perfect strategy for Mafia is to not play. It is impossible to get actual reads on people not participating so we just continually lynch active town that COULD have helped solve. I guess if that's something you're fine with then so be it, but it made for the least enjoyable game of mafia I've been in thus far. I would rather try and force those not playing to contribute more when they do post instead of the garbage that some of our low post count players have shared thus far.

high posts, high content > low posts, high content > low posts, low content > high posts, low content

first is great, good town play. second is fine, can even be better play if it helps control the pace. third is bad play because you get no information from that player. fourth is worst play and kills games because you get no informatio AND it creates persistent white noise drowning out information from other players too.

why do i care if X player hasn't posted much this game? in terms of actual content contribution, not posting anything puts you equal with a fair few players with tonnes of posts in this game.

 

[Bronx-Man]

You don't have 50 posts where you engage and encourage Blarg's shit posts?

That's annoying, not anti-town.

I'll ask again, what have I done that's actively harming town?

 

[*Splinter]

That's garbage reasoning. You're essentially saying the perfect strategy for Mafia is to not play. It is impossible to get actual reads on people not participating so we just continually lynch active town that COULD have helped solve. I guess if that's something you're fine with then so be it, but it made for the least enjoyable game of mafia I've been in thus far. I would rather try and force those not playing to contribute more when they do post instead of the garbage that some of our low post count players have shared thus far.

If I post a lot as town and not a lot as scum, people are going to figure out my alignment pretty quickly and I'll lose all my scum games.

If I (and everyone else) posts not a lot in every game then I'll lose all my town games.

If I post a lot in every game, then we're playing Mafia.

Point being, there is no "perfect strategy" and people will generally post as much as they are comfortable with or have time for.

 

[Kawl_USC]

That's garbage reasoning. You're essentially saying the perfect strategy for Mafia is to not play. It is impossible to get actual reads on people not participating so we just continually lynch active town that COULD have helped solve. I guess if that's something you're fine with then so be it, but it made for the least enjoyable game of mafia I've been in thus far. I would rather try and force those not playing to contribute more when they do post instead of the garbage that some of our low post count players have shared thus far.

You don't know which is which though. The best outcome of all of these is to have players actively engaged so that you don't have low activity posters who aren't producing material of merit. I prefer smaller games for that exact reason. Zelda was an incredibly frustrating game. It was so because our meta allows such low activity and low contribution posters to be the norm. I want that to go away. I do not believe that policy lynching inactives is the way to rectify that. Policy lynching inactives gives you far far less to work off of than lynching an active player, regardless of alignment. You can say that you will force those not playing to contribute more, but that's impossible when its a slew of 5+ people. Its an institutional problem at this point.

But this is going far beyond the scope of this game, but suffice to say that you don't understand what my position is if you are calling my reasoning garbage.

 

[Faddy]

I call inactives people who are really inactive. People with lack of actual content are coasters to me. Look at the post I made before where I separated the low posting players in two groups.

Nin and OA are inactives. They haven't posted for a long time. If they don't post before day's end they will be replaced. Lynching them would be wasting a lynch.

Crab, Kalor, TWE, LP and gryvan are coaster. They posted very little and almost none content. They are way more dangerous than the inactives.

And then we have people like Blarg, Kyan and Acohrs who had posted a lot but the contribution is almost none existant. This group is are also dangerous. It may be because day 1, but if all their post keep being like that in the future they need to be lynched.

Of all those names, who do you think we should lynch day 1?

You know what I am usually against the game runner posting advice or whatever but this seems like a matter of fact so

Ouro if nin and OA do not post before end of day will you replace them? Yes or No

 

[Kawl_USC]

That's annoying, not anti-town.

I'll ask again, what have I done that's actively harming town?

the fact that you don't see that this is one and the same is one of your largest problems

 

[Bronx-Man]

the fact that you don't see that this is one and the same is one of your largest problems

I'll ask again, what is your contribution to town so far this game?

 

[*Splinter]

You know what I am usually against the game runner posting advice or whatever but this seems like a matter of fact so

Ouro if nin and OA do not post before end of day will you replace them? Yes or No

They'll be prodded and replaced if necessary, check the rules under "Activity and Deadlines".

 

[Sorian]

I don't know what I expected on catch-up but at least it got slightly better when Crab popped in.

Sorian, are you still leaning this way?

Yes, plus it helps that Faddy is right on Fran, he is trying to referee our votes and it was quite obvious. He's reigned in now ever since Faddy pointed it out but the point was still clear.

A team of 5? I don't think Ouro would do something that bastard.

I don't know if this was sarcasm or not but the scum team is definitely 4-6. 5 is 20% of the player list which matches up perfectly with a "regular" game. If there are less neutrals then scum goes up, more and it goes down.

What about neutral factions with their own win condition. With the large number of players that has crossed my mind.

Why? I mean vampires (basically recruitment style neutrals) are a thing but this isn't exactly a huge game.

Sorry been busy since work yesterday. Will post more thoughts tonight after I get back from my emo show.

But it's curious to me that people are scum reading faddy from the earlier interactions. I think his expressed methodology for building an expected neutral reaction to things and using that in the future is strong. I think a scum!Faddy who was getting all this blow back based on being aggressive would have taken the foot off the gas a bit. Instead they've doubled down and I town read that.

A lot of the argument boils down to the good ole fashion disagreement on how votes are used and this often seems a common thread that comes up on day 1 and I don't particularly find not voting Willy Nilly or voting Willy nilly as alignment indicative. It's just a difference in approach.

If I had to pick out of the vocal three, I'd break onto Bronx and then fran. Bronx for the general unhelpfulness, and Fran seems a bit all over the place.

But I don't think we should get laser focused on such a small subset at this point. Still a good amount of play left.

Splinter, who from the players we haven't heard much from worries you the most?

Sorian, why did you think that it was my place to "reign in the kids" last night?

Blarg, can you just not man? Like get into serious mode sooner rather than later. Kyan you too, albeit to a lesser extent since you deign to at least occasionally make a serious post.

You tried to set the tone with your early posts which was great and all but that is easily scripted. I expected for someone who cared to do that that they'd actually follow up and try to make it happen as well.

VOTE: Bronx-man

Look, I got to page 15 and I just gave up. That was half an hour of my life I want back. There are too many people posting too much inane and trivial shit, to the point it is massively anti-town. Any time I want to look for material, I have to look through 17 pages of mostly shit. It's difficult to extract everything just because there's so much volume and only so little time. It's good volume, either. There's like two or three half-arguments in there which don't really go places, but the vast majority is memes and shit, just creating awful fog that is woefully easy for scum to hide in. I've made a larger contribution to town in this post than like half the players, and that's just sad. Accordingly, I'm voting for the worst offender, and will continue to policy lynch on that basis until town reaches the state where bothering to read posts is actually a useful application of my time.

This is lazy. It sounds good and I don't even mind the Bronx vote because he is high up on shit posting (though slightly better now) but we both know that just policy lynching down a line does not win games. If there was one offender then fine, policy lynch is actually viable but you're specifically calling out a large swatch of the player list.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

but you're specifically calling out a large swatch of the player list.

correct.

worked though, hasn't it? last page has been most useful page so far.

 

[Ourobolus]

Ouro if nin and OA do not post before end of day will you replace them? Yes or No

They've posted during this day phase at least, and I don't have a minimum post requirement other than "once per day phase."

If it becomes a habit I'll probably poke them more often, but so far they are still in.

 

[Bronx-Man]

correct.

worked though, hasn't it? last page has been most useful page so far.

The wonders of when people actually show up to play the damn game!

 

[Faddy]

They'll be prodded and replaced if necessary, check the rules under "Activity and Deadlines".

Ok here are the rules

8. Treat this game as a commitment. Remember that other players' fun is dependent on your participation; this game only works if you remain reasonably active.
9. If you do not post in this thread at least once per Day Phase period without prior permission, you will be sent a PM requesting you respond immediately (a "prod"). If you do not respond to a prod by the end of the following Night Phase, you will be replaced.

Even OA has over come the hurdle of posting once in the day phase. So if I am reading correctly even if he didn't post again the earliest he would be replaced is the start of Day 3.

 

[squidyj]

That's annoying, not anti-town.

I'll ask again, what have I done that's actively harming town?

no it's anti fucking town because it makes parsing real discussion fucking impossible.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The wonders of when people actually show up to play the damn game!

why do you think they've showed up now?

 

[Bronx-Man]

no it's anti fucking town because it makes parsing real discussion fucking impossible.

WHAT REAL DISCUSSION?!

THERE ARE 5 OF US PLAYING THIS SHIT ON A REGULAR BASIS

CCS AND ACOHRS ARE DOING GOD KNOWS WHAT, THEN THERE'S BLARG AND I TRYING TO KEEP THIS THING FROM DROPPING TO PAGE 2

THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT WHEN YOU HAVE A MAFIA GAME WHERE NO ONE IS HERE PLAYING MAFIA???????

 

[Sorian]

correct.

worked though, hasn't it? last page has been most useful page so far.

You got a temporary focus and that's great, I certainly don't mind it because getting from page 13 to 19 was annoying and I started skimming when it was getting good because the front load was bad but what you were threatening still isn't realistic.

 

[Bronx-Man]

why do you think they've showed up now?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. It can't be for last minute votes since we still have a real-life day left.

 

[Kawl_USC]

why do you think they've showed up now?

Because its early evening in America which is the time of day when schedules align best for the most part for our community....

I mean you're posts have been more useful than most others this game, but you aren't the coming of christ, single handedly resuscitating a ded gaem

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You got a temporary focus and that's great, I certainly don't mind it because getting from page 13 to 19 was annoying and I started skimming when it was getting good because the front load was bad but what you were threatening still isn't realistic.

No, I am completely serious. I will policy lynch the next person to post a series of space-wasters. I will do my best to persuade everyone to follow me. I have a very particular set of skills, developed over a long career, etc.

Of course, ideally, people understand how real that threat is, I don't have to enforce it, and I can make a real lynch based on the information from that point onwards. But the underlying threat is real. It has to be.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Because its early evening in America which is the time of day when schedules align best for the most part for our community....

I mean you're posts have been more useful than most others this game, but you aren't the coming of christ, single handedly resuscitating a ded gaem

why not yesterday?

 

[franconp]

They've posted during this day phase at least, and I don't have a minimum post requirement other than "once per day phase."

If it becomes a habit I'll probably poke them more often, but so far they are still in.

This needs to change.

The 10-post minimum that Ynny used on her game was a good idea and that should be the standard for the next batch of games. If I end up running a game S8 I would use that same rule.

 

[Bronx-Man]

At least Crab is here, WorthyEdge still has yet to explain his vote on me.

 

[Kalor]

why not yesterday?

The fact that the thread is more intelligible now probably encourages people to post.

 

[Bronx-Man]

This needs to change.

The 10-post minimum that Ynny used on her game was a good idea and that should be the standard for the next batch of games. If I end up running a game S8 I would use that same rule.

This should be standard for games going forward.

The fact that the thread is more intelligible now probably encourages people to post.

This is bullshit. If people could get off their asses to play in DR3 when Blarg was at his Blarg-iest, they can do it here.

 

[Faddy]

Why? I mean vampires (basically recruitment style neutrals) are a thing but this isn't exactly a huge game.

I am going to claim inexperience but I thought 24 was a large number for a mafia game on here?

I was thinking of a neutral faction like me, CCS and L_P in quarantine where our goal wasn't to eliminate the threat it was to escape. Like in flavor it could be patients held against their will (have you seen/read Cloud Atlas) and they need to kill/steal something to meet the win condition and leave.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The fact that the thread is more intelligible now probably encourages people to post.

correct. This is why Bronx, acohrs, CCS and co were all playing so anti-town. They destroyed the ability of town to hold a meaningful conversation.

 

[Natiko]

I call inactives people who are really inactive. People with lack of actual content are coasters to me. Look at the post I made before where I separated the low posting players in two groups.

Nin and OA are inactives. They haven't posted for a long time. If they don't post before day's end they will be replaced. Lynching them would be wasting a lynch.

Crab, Kalor, TWE, LP and gryvan are coaster. They posted very little and almost none content. They are way more dangerous than the inactives.

And then we have people like Blarg, Kyan and Acohrs who had posted a lot but the contribution is almost none existant. This group is are also dangerous. It may be because day 1, but if all their post keep being like that in the future they need to be lynched.

Of all those names, who do you think we should lynch day 1?

I would probably put a vote on acorns right now if it was day end because that's what we do as town. We lynch people that have actually posted. I don't think I've been a part of a single game where we actually lynched someone that had very few posts. Doesn't change the fact that I've seen several towns lose due to it though. Persona, Zelda, etc.

high posts, high content > low posts, high content > low posts, low content > high posts, low content

first is great, good town play. second is fine, can even be better play if it helps control the pace. third is bad play because you get no information from that player. fourth is worst play and kills games because you get no informatio AND it creates persistent white noise drowning out information from other players too.

why do i care if X player hasn't posted much this game? in terms of actual content contribution, not posting anything puts you equal with a fair few players with tonnes of posts in this game.

Then why did you vote Bronx over Blarg who has almost certainly the highest white noise volume in this game? I get that I've only played in four games before this but of those four the ONLY one that featured a high post count player that ended up being scum was DR3. And that player was me.

If I post a lot as town and not a lot as scum, people are going to figure out my alignment pretty quickly and I'll lose all my scum games.

If I (and everyone else) posts not a lot in every game then I'll lose all my town games.

If I post a lot in every game, then we're playing Mafia.

Point being, there is no "perfect strategy" and people will generally post as much as they are comfortable with or have time for.

And I want people to contribute more so that we can all say we're playing Mafia. I don't mind low post count players that contribute when they show up, but the ones that clearly aren't engaged in the game and come in and post either filler or say things that expose the fact that they aren't paying attention are very suspect to me.

You don't know which is which though. The best outcome of all of these is to have players actively engaged so that you don't have low activity posters who aren't producing material of merit. I prefer smaller games for that exact reason. Zelda was an incredibly frustrating game. It was so because our meta allows such low activity and low contribution posters to be the norm. I want that to go away. I do not believe that policy lynching inactives is the way to rectify that. Policy lynching inactives gives you far far less to work off of than lynching an active player, regardless of alignment. You can say that you will force those not playing to contribute more, but that's impossible when its a slew of 5+ people. Its an institutional problem at this point.

But this is going far beyond the scope of this game, but suffice to say that you don't understand what my position is if you are calling my reasoning garbage.

If those slew of 5+ people have scum amongst them and we never lynch any of them we will lose. The game will get to a point just like in Zelda where every town player that was attempting to solve and contribute has been lynched or NKed. If scum are amongst those five they will likely never kill any of them off. I mean why should they?

 

[Bronx-Man]

correct. This is why Bronx, acohrs, CCS and co were all playing so anti-town. They destroyed the ability of town to hold a meaningful conversation.

This such a stupid excuse I'm honestly surprised I never used it in a previous game.

 

[Ourobolus]

This needs to change.

The 10-post minimum that Ynny used on her game was a good idea and that should be the standard for the next batch of games. If I end up running a game S8 I would use that same rule.

This should be standard for games going forward.

I'm not going to debate this here - but for now, this is typically a D1 problem. Just play the game.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

honestly, just meta. I've given up on attempting to make blarg play normally. even I have limits. but one person alone can't create fog. you need two, to create ongoing conversations of bullshit.

 

[Natiko]

I am going to claim inexperience but I thought 24 was a large number for a mafia game on here?

I was thinking of a neutral faction like me, CCS and L_P in quarantine where our goal wasn't to eliminate the threat it was to escape. Like in flavor it could be patients held against their will (have you seen/read Cloud Atlas) and they need to kill/steal something to meet the win condition and leave.

I don't think this game is bastard enough for factions like that. I don't think it was ever given a rating but it's the impression I have. I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of neutrals in the mix, but they won't be paired I don't think.

 

[Kawl_USC]

I would probably put a vote on acorns right now if it was day end because that's what we do as town. We lynch people that have actually posted. I don't think I've been a part of a single game where we actually lynched someone that had very few posts. Doesn't change the fact that I've seen several towns lose due to it though. Persona, Zelda, etc.


Then why did you vote Bronx over Blarg who has almost certainly the highest white noise volume in this game? I get that I've only played in four games before this but of those four the ONLY one that featured a high post count player that ended up being scum was DR3. And that player was me.


And I want people to contribute more so that we can all say we're playing Mafia. I don't mind low post count players that contribute when they show up, but the ones that clearly aren't engaged in the game and come in and post either filler or say things that expose the fact that they aren't paying attention are very suspect to me.

If those slew of 5+ people have scum amongst them and we never lynch any of them we will lose. The game will get to a point just like in Zelda where every town player that was attempting to solve and contribute has been lynched or NKed. If scum are amongst those five they will likely never kill any of them off. I mean why should they?

Because the goal is to get to a state where town understand being in that low lying group is an auto loss by providing cover for scum. So they post more. So then scum has to post more or they stand out. We want the same thing. We disagree on thinking policy lynching low posters will lead to any meaningful adaptation there. And in the mean time it actively lowers my enjoyment of the games I'm playing.

 

[Bronx-Man]

honestly, just meta. I've given up on attempting to make blarg play normally. even I have limits. but one person alone can't create fog. you need two, to create ongoing conversations of bullshit.

What a poor excuse.

 

[Lone_Prodigy]

I don't think this game is bastard enough for factions like that. I don't think it was ever given a rating but it's the impression I have. I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of neutrals in the mix, but they won't be paired I don't think.

I'm just waiting for the copycat.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What a poor excuse.

why am i making an excuse? what reason do i have?

 

[Bronx-Man]

why am i making an excuse? what reason do i have?

For all we know, you and Blarg could be scummates.

 

[Sorian]

I am going to claim inexperience but I thought 24 was a large number for a mafia game on here?

I was thinking of a neutral faction like me, CCS and L_P in quarantine where our goal wasn't to eliminate the threat it was to escape. Like in flavor it could be patients held against their will (have you seen/read Cloud Atlas) and they need to kill/steal something to meet the win condition and leave.

Like I said, It's possible, but this is a medium sized game in terms of forum mafia. I'm not discounting but I wasn't sure why your mind jumped there though I guess you were just in quarantine so that makes more sense.

 

[Natiko]

Because the goal is to get to a state where town understand being in that low lying group is an auto loss by providing cover for scum. So they post more. So then scum has to post more or they stand out. We want the same thing. We disagree on thinking policy lynching low posters will lead to any meaningful adaptation there. And in the mean time it actively lowers my enjoyment of the games I'm playing.

I guess I'm just pessimistic because I've not yet seen it pan out like that. Those who start out inactive have generally stayed that way all game in the ones I've played so far. Like I said, it's not as if I think we're actually going to just policy lynch inactives repeatedly, but it doesn't change that it's frustrating to try and solve when there's a significant number of people that will never give me anything to work with.

 

[Bronx-Man]

The funny part is that for game after game I had people up my ass for not posting enough, now I've got people up my ass for posting too much. C'est la vie.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

For all we know, you and Blarg could be scummates.

Do you have reason to think we are?

You need to substantiate your posts. All of your posts are variations on "aha! a ruse!". Like, yes. This is mafia. Everything can be a ruse. Explain to me: what is the purpose of the ruse? What are the implications if true? How likely is it to be a ruse? Because right now, all your posts read to me is "blah, blah, blah".

 

[Kawl_USC]

I guess I'm just pessimistic because I've not yet seen it pan out like that. Those who start out inactive have generally stayed that way all game in the ones I've played so far. Like I said, it's not as if I think we're actually going to just policy lynch inactives repeatedly, but it doesn't change that it's frustrating to try and solve when there's a significant number of people that will never give me anything to work with.

We one hundred percent agree on that last statement. I dont think this is something that is correctable during a single game. It's plagued us for some time. But regardless I feel like any more of this conversation is best had in a post mortem. Any more is just derailing

 

[Natiko]

The funny part is that for game after game I had people up my ass for not posting enough, now I've got people up my ass for posting too much. C'est la vie.

To be fair if you spent more of your posts doing something besides defending yourself it may not look as suspicious. The best case scenario for someone like that is they're town that care more about themselves than their team.

 

[Bronx-Man]

To be fair if you spent more of your posts doing something besides defending yourself it may not look as suspicious. The best case scenario for someone like that is they're town that care more about themselves than their team.

I care about the team! I'm not even doing any OMGUS votes when I've had plenty of opportunities to. I'm just calling out weak reasons for voting me.

 

[Sorian]

I care about the team! I'm not even doing any OMGUS votes when I've had plenty of opportunities to. I'm just calling out weak reasons for voting me.

Lies detected

 

[Bronx-Man]

Lies detected

I did one for Blarg and dropped it when I realized he was just doing his Blarg shtick. My vote on Faddy isn't an OMGUS vote.

 

[Swamped]

Man am I really seen as that inactive? Here I thought I was doing a better job than usual lol.

I don't really see Bronx as scum. His frustration reads like townie to me.

Natiko thinks that Fran's posts were 'erratic' (and I think Kawl expressed something sentiments about Fran). Can you go into more detail? I actually thought Fran's posts were pretty good responses to Faddy and Vere, he seemed like he was doing some real hunting and looking at reasons for votes, but then again I've only skimmed the thread and need to re-read.

 

[Natiko]

Man am I really seen as that inactive? Here I thought I was doing a better job than usual lol.

I don't really see Bronx as scum. His frustration reads like townie to me.

Natiko thinks that Fran's posts were 'erratic' (and I think Kawl expressed something sentiments about Fran). Can you go into more detail? I actually thought Fran's posts were pretty good responses to Faddy and Vere, he seemed like he was doing some real hunting and looking at reasons for votes, but then again I've only skimmed the thread and need to re-read.

I'm cooking and on mobile so I can't go quote it all, but it was the way he got defensive for no real reason. It's not as if he had a bunch of heat on himself. He fumbled around with what he was quoting and his basis for some of his stance as well. The whole exchange between Faddy and Fran didn't really leave me with great impressions of either, but not in a way that makes me certain one of them is scum. I do think it's fair to say they both aren't scum though.

 

[franconp]

I'm cooking and on mobile so I can't go quote it all, but it was the way he got defensive for no real reason. It's not as if he had a bunch of heat on himself. He fumbled around with what he was quoting and his basis for some of his stance as well. The whole exchange between Faddy and Fran didn't really leave me with great impressions of either, but not in a way that makes me certain one of them is scum. I do think it's fair to say they both aren't scum though.

I didn't got defensive. I asked question on the relations between Sorian, Bronx, Faddy and Vere and for their votes. I got some answers (as from Sorian, which made sense and I accepted it), I didn't got some answers (like why Vere changed is LP vote) and got some reactions (as Faddy starting attacking my post when I pressured him a little).

Then there was some misunderstandings between Sorian and me but that was mostly semantic. English is not my first language so we both made mistakes.

 

[Natiko]

It wouldn't be the first time.



I'm scum because you can defend your vote? Come on!!!! It's only missing a vote to go full OMGUS on me.

You voted Vere for a really stupid reason. It was a joke vote. Sorian vote made a lot more sense than yours. And Vere's post that triggered Sorian's vote was just before you made your vote on him. Also Sorian never voted Bronx. Only you did.

I didn't got defensive. I asked question on the relations between Sorian, Bronx, Faddy and Vere and for their votes. I got some answers (as from Sorian, which made sense and I accepted it), I didn't got some answers (like why Vere changed is LP vote) and got some reactions (as Faddy starting attacking my post when I pressured him a little).

Then there was some misunderstandings between Sorian and me but that was mostly semantic. English is not my first language so we both made mistakes.

I believe it was this post that stuck out to me at the time as being defensive. Reading through it again all at once made it not stick out quite as much. The whole conversation still seems more intense than the situation really seems like it called for. I've made it clear I agree that Faddy's attempt to justify his Vere vote in hindsight as establishing a baseline is hilariously flawed, but I don't know that it was worth all that. Also it seems like after that exchange you didn't continue to push people over unjustified votes like squidy's on acohrs awhile back before he moved it.