Remove ads

[Mafia] Scarlet Hand Finale

Reader mode
-Rosen said:
I don't buy this strategy tbh; I find it REALLY unlikely that the scum-team is just full of inactive players at this point. I might have bought it a bit more if Pawn flipped Town, but given he didn't, we have a lot of concrete information to work on based on Pawn's posts and interactions with other players, and if we get complacent on that trying to go for inactives instead, I guarantee you that scum somewhere will sit laughing at us for not considering actual evidence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While this is true to an extent, we also don't have much of that concrete information on the inactive players, since they had few if any interactions with Pawn. So I do think there's merit to applying some pressure there.

Like, I agree that we shouldn't disregard EoD2, but fundamentally if (e.g.) Happerry is Scum how the fuck would we know? EoD2 sure isn't gonna help. So I think it's a good idea to try generating some activity from the inactives, especially when we already have some decent suspicions to work with among the more active players. If anyone refuses to participate when pressed, that's suspicious; if not, and if their contributions don't change the way things look, then a meso or Shadell lynch is probably a decent fallback plan even if we fail to generate any more valuable analysis today.
 
UnderlingMaster said:
I will ask you one final time. Did you copy and paste your role name directly?

I'm not trying to get you banned from the game.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
... That you have to say you're not trying to get someone banned should really say enough about why you shouldn't be doing it.
UnderlingMaster said:
Even if he did, this is clearly okay, and it's been done before.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No. No it's not. Questioning people on rolecard information is like my definition of "Not okay"

-Rosen said:
I'm unsure of that myself; you would have to ask @Nictis on that one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not really, haven't had reason to suspect it would be worthwhile, and it wasn't so chaotic or coinciding with a scum lynch at the time. I might make one later though.
Shadell said:
So no, I dont see much value in pushing a player like Meso right now because Meso has actually been playing, and that kind of close reading of a very narrow time window (again not the aftermath of earlier stuff) should be a very low priority atm.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...

Like, I agree that the inactives need pressure, and need to be incentivized to speak up, but you do realize that it is more than just the EoD stuff for why Meso is getting pressured, right? And that we can't just ignore people because they've been posting. If I was scum, and I was caught with what appears to be bad contradictions and a scum motive/plan of action, this would be a really bad move for Town to make.
 
Wiadi said:
While this is true to an extent, we also don't have much of that concrete information on the inactive players, since they had few if any interactions with Pawn. So I do think there's merit to applying some pressure there.

Like, I agree that we shouldn't disregard EoD2, but fundamentally if (e.g.) Happerry is Scum how the fuck would we know? EoD2 sure isn't gonna help. So I think it's a good idea to try generating some activity from the inactives, especially when we already have some decent suspicions to work with among the more active players. If anyone refuses to participate when pressed, that's suspicious; if not, and if their contributions don't change the way things look, then a meso or Shadell lynch is probably a decent fallback plan even if we fail to generate any more valuable analysis today.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean yeah, of course we should be pressing inactives to generate more activity. What I'm against is Shadell's timing for doing so -- we should be pressing on EoD information while it's still fresh and falling back to pressure on inactives in the event that we don't get anything solid to work with. Considering we actually have a pretty significant amount to work with here, I feel like Shadell is trying to get us to ignore it, potentially giving scum time to correct EoD2 mistakes so they aren't viewed just as critically as they would be in the current moment.
 
Wiadi said:
While this is true to an extent, we also don't have much of that concrete information on the inactive players, since they had few if any interactions with Pawn. So I do think there's merit to applying some pressure there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
... This is a really interesting line considering who it is coming from.
 
@Nictis I'd like to repeat my questions to you. Why did you vote for ItzNarcotic and why did you do so in a way that won't actually show up on the tally?

This isn't an accusation or rhetorical question or something. I am just confused.
 
mesonoxian said:
@Nictis I'd like to repeat my questions to you. Why did you vote for ItzNarcotic and why did you do so in a way that won't actually show up on the tally?

This isn't an accusation or rhetorical question or something. I am just confused.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Was phoneposting and slightly past my break time when I did so. As for why, see previous stated suspect list.
 
Again, I mostly wanted to use yesterday and today for a concerted push, which's have left the last day of D3 for a more investigative approach.

The more the experienced players, particularly souls who we know, talk amongst themselves, the easier it is for someone to step in with a minimally controversial take whenever pushed.

Hyperbole aside, I don't think scum's only there, but I'd be shocked if none of the least active are scum, and I'd be willing to lynch at least the most likely there if it can get the rest more active to better flush scum out, and cut off an easy target for endgame suspicion when we're down to the wire on lunches.

Nictis said:
... That you have to say you're not trying to get someone banned should really say enough about why you shouldn't be doing it.

No. No it's not. Questioning people on rolecard information is like my definition of "Not okay"


Not really, haven't had reason to suspect it would be worthwhile, and it wasn't so chaotic or coinciding with a scum lynch at the time. I might make one later though.

...

Like, I agree that the inactives need pressure, and need to be incentivized to speak up, but you do realize that it is more than just the EoD stuff for why Meso is getting pressured, right? And that we can't just ignore people because they've been posting. If I was scum, and I was caught with what appears to be bad contradictions and a scum motive/plan of action, this would be a really bad move for Town to make.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You just quoted me saying I thought the rest of the read was more productive. Am I miscommunicating this? That's not meant to be pedantic or snide, I'm honestly a bit baffled on how people are reading the objection a lot more strongly than I intend here.
 
-Rosen said:
I mean yeah, of course we should be pressing inactives to generate more activity. What I'm against is Shadell's timing for doing so -- we should be pressing on EoD information while it's still fresh and falling back to pressure on inactives in the event that we don't get anything solid to work with. Considering we actually have a pretty significant amount to work with here, I feel like Shadell is trying to get us to ignore it, potentially giving scum time to correct EoD2 mistakes so they aren't viewed just as critically as they would be in the current moment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The problem is that if we start on discussing EoD2 stuff, and settle on a solid lynch for the day, before pressuring inactives then any such pressure will be fundamentally pretty toothless. They know who's dying today and it's not gonna be them. If it's still up in the air then votes are a more real threat.

Like, yeah, recency bias is a potential risk - one we should watch out for - but it's not as if Scum is gonna be able to make the evidence go away if we delay acting on it. The outcome I want to make sure we avoid is one where we've burned up all our good evidence without finding all of the Scum & are left frantically flailing to generate more on a later Day.
 
Hey all, I need to be in bed. I probably won't have internet access for most of tomorroe, but I'll try to poke my head in when I can.

Hope you all have a good night.
 
Wiadi said:
The problem is that if we start on discussing EoD2 stuff, and settle on a solid lynch for the day, before pressuring inactives then any such pressure will be fundamentally pretty toothless. They know who's dying today and it's not gonna be them. If it's still up in the air then votes are a more real threat.

Like, yeah, recency bias is a potential risk - one we should watch out for - but it's not as if Scum is gonna be able to make the evidence go away if we delay acting on it. The outcome I want to make sure we avoid is one where we've burned up all our good evidence without finding all of the Scum & are left frantically flailing to generate more on a later Day.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm of the mindset that complacency is the biggest reason for most Town losses; frankly I don't really want to risk letting scum make up for their mistakes over time by delaying pressure on these things. Like I said, its VERY unlikely that all the remaining scum are among the inactive players, which is why I'd rather push to sort the active players as quickly as possible, that way we don't have to actually work as hard when it comes to the inactives.

Basically, the more we wait on trying to sort the active players, the more we have to play the game at an extremely high level once we do get around to sorting them.
 
Opinion: sorting inactive players is inherently much easier than sorting actives, especially when giving actives the time to develop their plays/stances while pursuing inactives.
 
That being said I don't find Wiadi's stance on the matter particularly suspect here. It's mostly Shadell that worries me because of the whole "minimizing the impact of EoD2" idea which I've already expressed.
 
-Rosen said:
That being said I don't find Wiadi's stance on the matter particularly suspect here. It's mostly Shadell that worries me because of the whole "minimizing the impact of EoD2" idea which I've already expressed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And a portion of my paranoia is how it seems as though people really didn't want me copping Shadell.
 
Shadell said:
Like we're three days in and 1K aside, most inactive players remain so even though this actively antithetical to town's goals.

So no, I dont see much value in pushing a player like Meso right now because Meso has actually been playing, and that kind of close reading of a very narrow time window (again not the aftermath of earlier stuff) should be a very low priority atm.

[x] Kill Deathvon


Absolutely fair. Gimme like an hour to eat dinner and get off my phone so I can pull quotes more efficiently and I'll go through one by one?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't see benefit in ignoring suspicious actions on the basis of high activity, and the onesidedness of that makes me suspect you are in fact allied with meso
 
-Rosen said:
Opinion: sorting inactive players is inherently much easier than sorting actives, especially when giving actives the time to develop their plays/stances while pursuing inactives.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Elaborate on this one? My view is that sorting inactives should be harder because there's less basis on which to sort them.
 
Wiadi said:
Elaborate on this one? My view is that sorting inactives should be harder because there's less basis on which to sort them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
An active player has the potential to mask themselves entirely from living players just by having the time to develop themselves. Inactive players forfeit this luxury by being inactive, so you effectively read them based on their posts in relation to the rest of the game where they weren't around, rather than trying to dig through everything like you would have to do for an active player.
 
-Rosen said:
An active player has the potential to mask themselves entirely from living players just by having the time to develop themselves. Inactive players forfeit this luxury by being inactive, so you effectively read them based on their posts in relation to the rest of the game where they weren't around, rather than trying to dig through everything like you would have to do for an active player.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That being said, if they still aren't around when starting to pressure them, then that in itself is also inherently suspicious and can be pushed much more easily.
 
-Rosen said:
An active player has the potential to mask themselves entirely from living players just by having the time to develop themselves. Inactive players forfeit this luxury by being inactive, so you effectively read them based on their posts in relation to the rest of the game where they weren't around, rather than trying to dig through everything like you would have to do for an active player.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

With a smaller sample size you may be more likely to read a remark in isolation as suspicious but are less likely to get a true understanding of their goals
 
UnderlingMaster said:
With a smaller sample size you may be more likely to read a remark in isolation as suspicious but are less likely to get a true understanding of their goals
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Devil's advocate: these goals should actually be more clear because an inactive trying to win a game for scum will have to REALLY haul ass in order to force Town misplays. I don't think the smaller sample size matters as much because of that.
 
Hell, a potential scum tell for QT is suddenly getting more active after scum is lynched. If you kill off their teammates they have to be more active to make up for the slack.
 
Point being that scum can't win if they all hide amongst the inactives unless town is playing very poorly, so they need to be poking their fingers into the conversation to get it in tracks that favour them.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top