By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Stefl1504 said:

Sorry about the very... but I like to exaggerate...

Exageration is not a good thing in a Mafia game. It makes it seem like you're manipulating facts to push an idea...



Signature goes here!

Around the Network
Hephaestos said:
theprof00 said:
Hephaestos said:


wellI played one round with him and what I recall is that he's a good and thourough player... I think you've been overanalysing his words too much as it is understandable that you sound wierd and overactive to people who haven't played with you before. Just my take on the two of you.

I want to know what you think about his response to stelf. It's shown above.

Stefl made a list of people who hadn't posted, and gniz responded with what I saw as an insult (basically calling townies headless chickens).

He denies defending these players who haven't posted on top of it.


I didn't read it with an other meaning than what he said. I find the discutions (especially the mafia number) to be pretty poor myself and I don't think it should be read as a defence of the non posters but more at an attack on the level of the discution.

listen Heph.

Stefl simply posted a list of people who hadn't posted along with the recency of their presence.

HOW? How is attacking the discussion any kind of a response to stefl's post. Please enlighten me. I understand that the discussion is bad, but how is the quality and tone of his response, relevant as a response?

I'm not reading deeply into it, I'm simply pointing out what I see.

I see a good post...one that I myself was wondering about but too lazy to look up, and then an aggressive comment as a response.



theprof00 said:

I felt I was reaching a bit at linkz because I wanted to pressure him, but I thought my comments on Gniz were good.

Well i could be wrong too, but i think you gave too much meaning to his words.... mostly cause i agreed on the level of the discution.... and you don't know the player yet so i though it was a bit premature.

As  i said (or thought? :p), i understand his safe vote on you for the same reason, he doesn't know your playstyle.



OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

Linkzmax said:

@zexen: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3815865
But if given the .0001% chance that it's non-vanilla or noname borked the balance, if there's 7 mafia:
we'll be 13 to 7 tomorrow with a no lynch, which is disadvantageous.
we'd be 12 to 7 tomorrow with a lynch, which is two more mislynches away from lylo.
Of course we'd have better odds of randomly lynching mafia correctly and going to 13 to 6, though it's still below the magical ratio.

Basically I'd agree with nen's point that the number of mafia shouldn't affect our actions today. The actual amount certainly is important, but whatever it may be doesn't change our progression to day two. If you can also without a doubt rule out multiple factions or an SK, than that could actually make a difference in the best action for today.

My only opinion on the matter is I think for a largely vanilla(no cop, or no doc, or both) town, the ratio should be tweaked more towards fewer mafia. That'd be up to the mod of course, and still shouldn't make a difference day one.

 

Wait, you can't be serious, you're really even analyzing a possibilty of 7 mafia? That's...what a waste of time.

And yes, the number of mafia should definitely influence our course of action.

Given there are 5 mafia, there are 16 town (for the sake of the analysis, I'll assume it's a real Vanilla game and thus no SK, no vigs and such), if we don't lynch mafias, we'd lose by getting to 5-5. That means, we'd lose after 11 townies have been killed. Let's analyze

If we mislynch today, we'd be 14-5 by tomorrow (all this assuming doctor doesn't protect correctly)
Day 3: 12-5
Day 4: 10-5
Day 5: 8-5
Day 6: 6-5

That means we'd see 5 more days worst case

On the other hand, by not lynching today

Day 2: 15-5
Day 3: 13-5
Day 4: 11-5
Day 5: 9-5
Day 6: 7-5

So we wouldn't see any more day because we'd lose before the start of Day 7

Hence, the conclusion of my post is that not lynching today doesn't give us any advantage, hence, it's convenient to lynch someone today.

That's a good thing you can get by analyzing the number of mafia




zexen_lowe said:
nen-suer said:

Looks like your the one who didnt read my post(s). You could have at least read my response to vette.

I wont vote for personal reasons, but you need to accept that some may disagree with you.

You do this every game, you get upset vote( night kill) that poor innocent soul :(

You & Hat are my top suspects, but not enough to warrant a vote.....yet.

You posted that while I was doing my post, can't do much about that specially considering editing isn't allowed.

You're allowed to disagree with me in things that are my opinion, like whether someone is scum or not. I don't think you should disagree on things that are a fact, though, because, well, you can't disagree with facts.

I'll hop into this discussion against my better judgement but while highly probable the number of Mafia members in the current game can't be consider fact at this point.



Signature goes here!

Around the Network
Hephaestos said:
theprof00 said:

I felt I was reaching a bit at linkz because I wanted to pressure him, but I thought my comments on Gniz were good.

Well i could be wrong too, but i think you gave too much meaning to his words.... mostly cause i agreed on the level of the discution.... and you don't know the player yet so i though it was a bit premature.

As  i said (or thought? :p), i understand his safe vote on you for the same reason, he doesn't know your playstyle.

and you don't comment on anything else I said.

I'm starting to get annoyed Heph.

I feel like you're pressuring me into chilling out, and aren't responding to ANYTHING I've said, just saying superficial things like, "you're reading too  much into it".

I feel like I'm being raped, and there's a hand over my mouth, and a whisper saying "it's ok. It's ok. It'll be over soon. Shhhhhhhh.. Shhhhhhhhhhhh it's ok". XD



theprof00 said:

listen Heph.

Stefl simply posted a list of people who hadn't posted along with the recency of their presence.

HOW? How is attacking the discussion any kind of a response to stefl's post. Please enlighten me. I understand that the discussion is bad, but how is the quality and tone of his response, relevant as a response?

I'm not reading deeply into it, I'm simply pointing out what I see.

I see a good post...one that I myself was wondering about but too lazy to look up, and then an aggressive comment as a response.

well my reaction when reading that was that it wasn't an answer but a comment, with which i agreed.

_ they don't post

_ duh! the discution is crap

i'll point you to my only post before this where i used facetious (and meant it in its 3rd definition: lacking serious intent; concerned with somethingnonessential), to show he wasn't alone thinking this.

not attacking your investigtions... on my part it was mostly the 5 scum debate ^^



OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

Hephaestos said:
theprof00 said:

listen Heph.

Stefl simply posted a list of people who hadn't posted along with the recency of their presence.

HOW? How is attacking the discussion any kind of a response to stefl's post. Please enlighten me. I understand that the discussion is bad, but how is the quality and tone of his response, relevant as a response?

I'm not reading deeply into it, I'm simply pointing out what I see.

I see a good post...one that I myself was wondering about but too lazy to look up, and then an aggressive comment as a response.

well my reaction when reading that was that it wasn't an answer but a comment, with which i agreed.

_ they don't post

_ duh! the discution is crap

i'll point you to my only post before this where i used facetious (and meant it in its 3rd definition: lacking serious intent; concerned with somethingnonessential), to show he wasn't alone thinking this.

not attacking your investigtions... on my part it was mostly the 5 scum debate ^^

well I thought stefl's post was relevant. There WAS bad discussion, and so, there might be scum just letting us lash out at each other and staying silent. That's a normal scum reaction.

It's good to know these things, and hard to keep track of when there are 20 other people to watch.

I felt that Stefl's post voiced my own concern. Mafia might be watching us fighting amongst each other.

The response by Gniz seemed to me more like "why should they post, TOWNIES are clueless"



theprof00 said:

and you don't comment on anything else I said.

I'm starting to get annoyed Heph.

I feel like you're pressuring me into chilling out, and aren't responding to ANYTHING I've said, just saying superficial things like, "you're reading too  much into it".

I feel like I'm being raped, and there's a hand over my mouth, and a whisper saying "it's ok. It's ok. It'll be over soon. Shhhhhhhh.. Shhhhhhhhhhhh it's ok". XD

ah sorry, your logic is sound but i believe you shouldn't have revealed it yet. hence why i didn't comment.

oh and it was xzen commenting on gow, not links.



OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

Hephaestos said:
theprof00 said:

and you don't comment on anything else I said.

I'm starting to get annoyed Heph.

I feel like you're pressuring me into chilling out, and aren't responding to ANYTHING I've said, just saying superficial things like, "you're reading too  much into it".

I feel like I'm being raped, and there's a hand over my mouth, and a whisper saying "it's ok. It's ok. It'll be over soon. Shhhhhhhh.. Shhhhhhhhhhhh it's ok". XD

ah sorry, your logic is sound but i believe you shouldn't have revealed it yet. hence why i didn't comment.

oh and it was xzen commenting on gow, not links.

linkz did actually make a comment on it.