Zoo Mafia-End-The Evil Penguin is Dead!

For your simulated organized crime needs.

Moderators: jestingrabbit, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Brooklynxman » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:54 am UTC

Misnomer wrote:Quick post as I'm currently under the influence.

I sent in neurotic, and I got avenging. I don't doubt therefore that mpolo is telling the truth in that he's neurotic, but I still find the apparent disconnect between his attribute and his claimed posting restriction troubling.


Someone had a similar vain of thought to mine. I will claim, I am bipolar.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Elvish Pillager » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:08 am UTC

From this post:
MartinW wrote:Hi all. This is me confirming. Just a quick but necessary claim on my part: A side effect of an ability I have is that on the nights I use that ability, the next day I can only vote in the last 24 hours of day and I take (1 + p/8) (p is number of players) less votes to lynch. So please don't lynch me by accident or find my non-voting suspicious.

It just occurred to me that this claim is rather strange. How would the mods define "the last 24 hours of day"? MartinW, do you mean that, if you use your ability, you can only vote if the mods set a deadline, and then only in the 24 hours directly before the deadline? I don't think it would be bastardly, but I do think it would be bad modding to make a player who actively wants to drag out the day. Hence, I find the vote-restriction part of this claim rather hard to believe.

I also note that Lataro hasn't listed the vote-restriction part of this claim in their claim list.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
_infina_
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:55 pm UTC
Location: R'lyeh

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby _infina_ » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:40 am UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote: Lataro hasn't listed the vote-restriction part of this claim in their claim list.

it is on there, just not in as much detail. I am quite happy, as several of you have guessed, but I really shouldn't have to say it.

My theory about the state of mind the animal is in having more to to with alignment than the animal chosen is because it would fit with the flavor. Why would the happy and content want to kill? It makes no sense. the bitter and other bad temperaments would most likely be scum. We could ask the mods about such a theory, but I bet it wouldn't get us anywhere.
Spoiler:
keozen wrote:It took us exactly 3 pages to turn a discussion of a loved children's book series into smut...
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Only if your friends know what rhino dong smells like.

Malo mbwa mwitu

User avatar
Krong
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:49 am UTC
Location: Charleston, South Cackalacky

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Krong » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:16 am UTC

You know what time it is? It's business posting time.

First off, I was specifically suggesting we DO NOT all post received emotion claims, unless it's something that really hurts town to keep hidden. I consider my emotion to be one of those, as it has an effect that spreads a bunch of mud which I'd like to keep as clean as possible. Some of the voting restrictions being claimed, if true, are also good to know about -- if you really have to votehop constantly, by all means tell us so we treat it as a neutral action rather than a scummy action.

Along the same lines, when BXM was pushing me for an animal claim, I'd say that we shouldn't claim until we (a) know keeping the information hidden will likely hurt town ("Hey guys, I'm a mutant raptorbear, miller.") or (b) have some idea of how Silknor assigns PyP roles. The latter point is particularly critical -- if someone picked Nurse Shark and Silknor isn't being terribly contrarian with his role assignments, we've just exposed that person as a doctor if we've hit a massclaim. Of course, they could lie to stay hidden, but that has the problem of confusing our rolecop.

Also, it's not like we're hurting for information or material to post here. That being said, I'm obviously willing to claim my role if there's a town consensus for a massclaim.

Finally, since Lataro seems to have missed it: I sent the emotion AMOROUS. I have the emotion PUNCTUAL. (Whether or not it's good for that information to be out there, it already is in my previous post... I see no strategic reason to rely on security by obscurity for those from now on.)

Regarding posting submitted emotion claims, there's a counter argument:
Mavketl wrote:So what if everyone agreed to do this, and I submitted 'punctual'. And for the sake of the argument, I'm scum (I'm not :P ). Wouldn't I just claim something else, so you'd look bad?

Hm... yeah. I was looking forward to the idea of having some semi-confirmed, usually unbiased information out there so much that I forgot the "semi-" and "usually" parts. It's also got the reverse effect: If I say that I submitted X, and the person with X is scum and claims Y should we massclaim later, I end up looking bad. Even worse, we're pretty sure one of two people is lying, and only one of those choices is identified. It looks like rrwoods and ForAllOfThis have gone into this in a bit more detail, and I'd tend to agree with them now, though the idea of sitting on a half-finished list seems less than ideal, as well. :/

Now, as for player impressions... seems a bit early for this, but I'd rather do things this way than have pages of quote sniping:

Lataro - Has claimed jovial, posting style seems to fit, what with the lack of typical Lataro meta-voting and his smiley-accompanied complaints about it. Has claimed a voting restriction that won't have to make any "risky" votes, i.e. hammers or starting wagons. Seems neutral on these points.

However, has also been pushing quickly and strongly for full emotion-claims, threatening anyone who doesn't comply with a lynch. Essentially ignores strategy arguments raised against it; at one point compares ability claiming to Dethy, which is a seriously flawed comparison (what with it not being open, the likelihood of unequal town powers, etc.). When Lataro's ignoring something, it's usually not for a good reason. Moderately scummy.
Elvish Pillager - Has claimed survivor. I'm moderately suspicious of this right now, but that has more to do with my own misgivings as to optimal survivor strategy after <outside-of-game>Nikc's early survivor claim seemed to hurt him in an IRC game last night. Voting restriction is not likely to help town if true, a good way to hide if false. Nothing stands out from posts beyond that. Probably safe indy, but also a reasonable lynch target.
Misnomer - Has claimed "avenging"... I'm having mild lyncher or bomb worries. Not much to go on beyond that.
Dark Loink - Is posting poems? Inactive otherwise, though maybe excusable due to recent massive Dune post. Need some explanation for the poetry from him.
Krong - Me. Leaning anti-mod, though my opinion is changing.
mpolo - Unhelpful vote restriction; his discussion has mostly been about that. Dwelling on that seems slightly scummy to me.
Martin - Err... I can't find any posts from him, but I could swear there was a short one somewhere. Well, he needs to post more, at any rate.

(Running into my deadline, less specifics from here on...)

existential_elevator - Only thing I remember is an uneasiness with the amount of info being thrown around, which seems townie.
RoadieRich - Probably the only person claiming post restrictions that's making them look fun :) Leaning townie for the content, as well.
djkjr - Don't remember any posts from djkjr.
_infina_ - Indecipherable as always, probably a bit less active than usual.
greenlover - Not much content yet, other than a sent/got emotion claim.
ForAllOfThis - Haven't been in a game with you yet, but you seem to be pretty active so far. Thinking townie.
ahippo - Is a submissive hippo? Seems like a lot of claiming without much posting yet. Unsure.
weiyaoli - Neutral to townie. Spent a bit of time enforcing claimed post restrictions already, which is a good idea.
Mavketl - Posts look good so far, but not quite to the point of "Mav the Super Townie" yet. Will see if she gets there; she doesn't really give herself away as scum otherwise. (Kinda harsh to demand that from her, I know, but I think it's generally worked so far ;) )
roband - Posting a whole lot. So far, posts look pretty townie as well.
Brooklynxman - A bit annoyed that he asked me to animal-claim when, as far as I'm aware, he hadn't done so first. Claimed a vig is present in the game due to the emotion he submitted, which is an interesting bit of information. Haven't yet decided how to interpret that, whether it's true or false.
Dr Ug - Leaning town on him this game for once; seems to be considering the situation rather than pushing it. Replaced in, I think.
rrwoods - Good
BigNose - Replaced in, hasn't had time yet to act weird and make me think he's scum. Has claimed knowledge of a weird post restriction for someone else that we should be on the lookout for.

I don't see any reason not to vote now, especially since I won't have many chances to do so before the deadline. So, given his pushing an argument to the point of oversimplifying it and ignoring the merits of others' arguments:

Vote: Lataro

Finally, in case it needs to be said: I have no voting restrictions.
The answer to the question "What’s wrong with the world?" is just two words: "I am." -- G. K. Chesterton (attributed)

User avatar
MartinW
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:00 pm UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby MartinW » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:34 am UTC

'k, sorry about the delay between this post and the last. Catching up now. (Pretty much all my posts in this game are going to be once a day, and very large.)

Here's my take on the massclaim:

ForAllOfThis wrote:Knowing which roles people sent isn't too much of a problem because people could be lieing (townies included) to throw off scum. Emotion-claiming however doesn't make any sense. People would have to tell the truth. People could quite easily guess others roles from what emotions people are claiming to have. It would be like painting a big red target on anyone who got a decent townie role. Already claiming posting restrictions, as someone pointed out, is going to cause those who haven't claimed to become the first targeted. People with posting restrictions are just going to be easier for scum to take out in the end.. =(.

Townies should not lie. It almost always hurts the town more than it helps. I agree scum will more likely target non-vote restricted, but I think it was still better than not claiming. Otherwise the people with vote restrictions would get lynched by town.

About getting emotions out in the open, I'm not totally sure it's a good idea. As FAOT said, it might lead the scum straight to the power roles. But, so far, it seems very few people have their power linked to their emotion. Mine for example is disorientated, which basically means I get lost after a night action and because of that I'm easier lynched and can't vote until the last 24 hours of the day. (I don't mind claiming it, as it says nothing I haven't said before) I think we should massclaim, with the option of holding back if your role is linked to your emotion. Just to get more information out in the open to help with avoiding false claims later. Those holding back might be targeted for night actions, but I don't think it'll matter too much. It doesn't seem the power of your role is linked to the emotion at all, so not claiming doesn't mean you have a powerful role, just by chance one linked to the emotion more than most.

rrwoods wrote:However, it's also very easy for scum to muddy the waters by false-claiming an emotion they don't have. This isn't made any harder by your suggestion, and in fact it's made easier.

On the contrary, it's made very much harder. If two or more scum false claim in a loop (the only way there will not be a clear falseclaim somewhere) then if one dies the other is clearly scum. If scum claim the same role as a townie, we know one of them is a scum. Thus, we trade, in the worse case, a townie for scum. Which is a good trade for the town. So scum'll have to be truthful.

Evilish_Pillager wrote:MartinW, do you mean that, if you use your ability, you can only vote if the mods set a deadline, and then only in the 24 hours directly before the deadline?

Actually I'm not sure. I assumed as in a normal turbo, that this game has a time limit on day from the start of the day, but I can't find one. Maybe we'll start getting them after D1.

Silknor, any news on the time limit front?

_infina_ wrote: My theory about the state of mind the animal is in having more to to with alignment than the animal chosen is because it would fit with the flavor. Why would the happy and content want to kill? It makes no sense. the bitter and other bad temperaments would most likely be scum. We could ask the mods about such a theory, but I bet it wouldn't get us anywhere.

I think trying to get into the head of the mod in a PYP game is doomed to failure. Especially one as experienced as Silknor. I think he'll definitely try and go against the obvious.

As to whether a massclaim will help the town or not, I think it will, at least a little. Oftentimes the game comes down to a claim at the end, and with exactly what emotions there are out in the open, it'll make fake claiming harder and prevent scum from forming a chain of fake claims that back each other up. And, as argued above, I can't really see it hurting the town. Silknor did say roleclaiming might be bad, but we're rolename claiming, which is a bit different.

As to whether Lataro is scummy for the way in which he suggested it, on the face of it I say not really. It seems suicidal for scum to try and argue town into a bad strategy (and I don't think massclaiming is necessarily a bad strategy), when there are more than enough experienced players to denounce it. I may be biased though, because on IRC it's standard practice to rolename claim in D1 of a PYP, and it might be different for a forum PYP. I haven't done a thorough analysis thouh, and I'm running out of time for one. I'll analyse some more later, and hopefully post again in 11-ish hours.

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Brooklynxman » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:21 am UTC

Krong- I asked you to animal claim?
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
mpolo
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:24 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby mpolo » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:25 am UTC

I agree that animal claims are probably a bad idea. It's too likely that we are going to accidentally "out" a town power role. Actually the animal claims could spread a lot of wine as well... Is a nurse shark a doctor, a nurse, or a mafia doctor? And I have some fear that the mafia aren't going to necessarily be the stereotypically "nasty" animals. The image that just came to me of a fluffy bunny Mafia don is tickling me immensely.

To Krong: The only reason I've posted so often about my restriction is because I kept getting asked to clarify it. I was originally going to try to not claim it at all, but I figured after the 3rd or 4th vote of the day, I'd be accused of vote-hopping and be lynched in a trice. In any case, my current plan is to get all the votes done early in the day so that I can participate normally.

Off to class…
Image <-- Evil experiment

User avatar
BigNose
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:45 pm UTC
Location: Swine's Down, UK

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby BigNose » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:13 am UTC

Krong wrote:BigNose - Replaced in, hasn't had time yet to act weird and make me think he's scum. Has claimed knowledge of a weird post restriction for someone else that we should be on the lookout for.
I have absolutely no idea where you got your information from.

I haven't replaced in as far as I know, although I did sign-up very late.
Acting weird? OK, give me a couple of posts to change that.
Claimed knowledge of weird posting restriction on someone else!! = NO. I have a posting restriction (which I have finalised with the MOD).
Although I definitely see weird posting restictions going on in different ways (Poems, etc) . Quite what they mean and what are the nuances behind them I don't know.

I have claimed that I sent in MOODY.
I have (as yet) not claimed my characteristic.
My preference is to wait until I see someone claiming they sent it in and then claim it.
If Scum also lay claim to it, then we have at least 1 Scum etc for the other claims.
ANother point to note is that what we have sent in, may have been interpreted in a different way by the MOD.
As an example, I sent in MOODY, but he may have translated that to Bi-Polar, therefore we also have to be wary of such potential ambiguities.

NEW posting restriction definition for me.
I have finally managed to argue the MOD around to play evens, or to put it another way, I compromised (caved-in) to come up with a playable solution.

I must be the first person to vote on someone, although not the first to vote on each day.
I cannot get away with voting on someone who has had a vote on them and then had it removed.
When I have voted, I can talk about them that day, but never mention their name again after that day.
I cannot vote for myself (the compromise).

Obviously, I can unvote and re-vote anytime, but in doing so, it means that as we get further into the days, my vote gets more and more restricted as to who I can actually vote for.

RE: Lataro's scare tactic - Looks like I just read it the wrong way.
Adacore wrote:In all honesty, BigNose has been pinging me slightly with almost every post since the start of the game. But he always does - I was utterly convinced he was anti-town for most of Wizardry2 and he was the High Wizard. I just can't read him.

User avatar
existential_elevator
The awesomest one!
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:31 am UTC
Location: The Ocean of Regret
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby existential_elevator » Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:01 am UTC

It was me who was worried also for modly wrath, but I think legitimately, since it is viable that people might have cop abilities based on mood which might be diminished by a mass-claim.

Personally, I am really not happy with the way in which Lataro is trying to get people to claim. I claimed my mood and Mav said she thought she saw that in me. The problem is that I worry other folk might have the same, uh, power-structure as me, and as such it would be unwise to claim. It was unwise for me to claim. At this stage I might as well go full-force. Normally if I'm a cop I wouldn't claim until second morning. You better protect my ass. I have no idea if I'm sane or not, which may be a problem.

I'm really going to

vote: Lataro

this time, because I don't want other pro-town power roles to wind up in my awkward mess. If I die tonight, well...

Any "Nurse Sharks" I would advise to stay quiet.

User avatar
Mavketl
ELEPHANT MYSTICISM!
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:34 pm UTC
Location: Groningen City

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Mavketl » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:01 pm UTC

existential_elevator wrote:The problem is that I worry other folk might have the same, uh, power-structure as me, and as such it would be unwise to claim. It was unwise for me to claim.
I don't understand. The emotions should be unique (I think), so how could anyone have figured you for a cop because you're "snarky"? The only thing it did for me was changing my opinion of you from "she's acting suspicious" to "oh, she has to act that way". I'm not necessarily encouraging claims, I just don't understand what you're saying.

(And Krong, thanks for the impossible standards ever so much. :P)
Not A Raptor: Mav can be a very wily and dangerous player.
roband: Mav has a way of making everything seem right.
ELEPHANT SCIENCE - MORE ELEPHANT SCIENCE
- NEW: Elephant Math!

User avatar
existential_elevator
The awesomest one!
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:31 am UTC
Location: The Ocean of Regret
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby existential_elevator » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:04 pm UTC

I don't want to be explicit, but it's a matter of who I'm snarky to :P And I imagine some people will have similar power constraints.

And now I'm at a full claim. Thank-you Ms. Mystical Elephant breath for outing me. I'm not sure there are subtle ways of explaining further, though if you read back you'll notice desperate hints :|

User avatar
BigNose
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:45 pm UTC
Location: Swine's Down, UK

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby BigNose » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:09 pm UTC

OK, this is just a helping aid for me:
D1 Votes:
mpolo wrote:Vote: Lataro
mpolo wrote:Vote: roband
roband wrote:Vote: mpolo
Elvish Pillager wrote:Vote: mpolo
mpolo wrote:Vote: ElvishPillager
Vote: BigNose
Vote: existential_elevator
Brooklynxman wrote:Vote: mpolo
Vote: E_P
ForAllOfThis wrote:Vote: Elvish Pillager
Elvish Pillager wrote:Vote: Elvish Pillager
Misnomer wrote:Vote: infina
roband wrote:Vote Martin
existential_elevator wrote:vote: Lataro
Dr Ug wrote:Vote: Lataro
Krong wrote:Vote: Lataro
existential_elevator wrote:vote: Lataro
Who CAN'T I vote for this day and still maintain my life:
Lataro
mpolo
roband
E_P
Infina
BigNose
E_E
Martin

I can't vote for Lataro atm, so I have to pick another and then vote on him, if I decide to.
Therefore expect an unsolicited vote.
Adacore wrote:In all honesty, BigNose has been pinging me slightly with almost every post since the start of the game. But he always does - I was utterly convinced he was anti-town for most of Wizardry2 and he was the High Wizard. I just can't read him.

User avatar
Mavketl
ELEPHANT MYSTICISM!
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:34 pm UTC
Location: Groningen City

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Mavketl » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:11 pm UTC

e_e: please don't explain further, then.

BigNose: Pick a lurker, maybe it'll scare them into posting. :P
Not A Raptor: Mav can be a very wily and dangerous player.
roband: Mav has a way of making everything seem right.
ELEPHANT SCIENCE - MORE ELEPHANT SCIENCE
- NEW: Elephant Math!

User avatar
_infina_
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:55 pm UTC
Location: R'lyeh

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby _infina_ » Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:10 pm UTC

Vote: Krong

Why would Lataro threaten a lynch on anyone if he cant follow through? He cannot be the first to cast a vote on someone or hammer. the votes on Lataro are looking more and more like scum joining a bandwagon because the reasons are starting to gain incredible errors. I am 99% sure Lataro is town. My top three picks for scum are Krong, e_e, and BN right now. for a fourth scum, I am leaning towards martin.
Spoiler:
keozen wrote:It took us exactly 3 pages to turn a discussion of a loved children's book series into smut...
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Only if your friends know what rhino dong smells like.

Malo mbwa mwitu

User avatar
ElectricHaze
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 2:54 am UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby ElectricHaze » Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:36 pm UTC

Votals:
MartinW (1): roband
Elivish Pillager (3): Brooklynxman, ForAllOfThis, elvish pillager
_infina_ (1): misnomer
Lataro (3): existential_elevator, Dr Ug, Krong
Krong(1): _infina_

21 Players, 11 to lynch

*EDIT* I can't count...
Deadline Sat. 12:00pm EST ~50 Hours
Last edited by ElectricHaze on Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Who has never killed an hour? Not casually or without thought, but carefully: a premeditated murder of minutes.

User avatar
rrwoods
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:57 pm UTC
Location: US

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby rrwoods » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:24 pm UTC

existential_elevator wrote:The other thing that strikes me is that maybe someone has an ability based on emotion-copping people. If there's a mass claim, I could see the wrath of mod being incurred.
does not constitute
Lataro wrote:people who've yet to claim and go on about "modly wrath" for a mass claim
.

I do apologize for missing that content in e_e's post, but one person saying "I could see the wrath of mod" is not "people going on about modly wrath".

Vote: Lataro

You are pinging me hard.
31/M/taken/US
age/gender/interest/country

Belial wrote:The sex card is tournament legal. And I am tapping it for, like, six mana.

User avatar
BigNose
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:45 pm UTC
Location: Swine's Down, UK

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby BigNose » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:56 pm UTC

Mavketl wrote:e_e: please don't explain further, then.

BigNose: Pick a lurker, maybe it'll scare them into posting. :P
Yeah, it'll do for now. Laterz with that.

_infina_ wrote:Vote: Krong

Why would Lataro threaten a lynch on anyone if he cant follow through? He cannot be the first to cast a vote on someone or hammer. the votes on Lataro are looking more and more like scum joining a bandwagon because the reasons are starting to gain incredible errors. I am 99% sure Lataro is town. My top three picks for scum are Krong, e_e, and BN right now. for a fourth scum, I am leaning towards martin.
I agree with you that there seems a BW forming on Lataro. I can understand why, but I have done a similar thing in the past and no doubt will do again, push on a point so that I can get as many views/responses/discourse as possible.
I can understand why you consider Krong scummy, if you consider Lataro Town.
But I don't understand why the others, including myself, you consider scummy apart from, we have all been voted on.
Reasons dear boy, reasons?
Adacore wrote:In all honesty, BigNose has been pinging me slightly with almost every post since the start of the game. But he always does - I was utterly convinced he was anti-town for most of Wizardry2 and he was the High Wizard. I just can't read him.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Silknor » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:08 pm UTC

Yay for a co-mod to help with votals! But, the deadline isn't 28 hours from now.

ElectricHaze wrote:Votals:
MartinW (1): roband
Elivish Pillager (3): Brooklynxman, ForAllOfThis, elvish pillager
_infina_ (1): misnomer
Lataro (4): existential_elevator, Dr Ug, Krong, rrwoods
Krong(1): _infina_

21 Players, 11 to lynch

Deadline Sat. 12:00pm EST ~50 Hours
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Elvish Pillager » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:32 pm UTC

Obligatory: Vote: Lataro

I don't want a Lataro lynch. I think Lataro is almost certainly town, and at worst is a lyncher for an emotion - and I don't think a lyncher would be so obvious, and I'd guess that if there are any lynchers, they'd be lynchers for animals, not emotions. I'm with _infina_ here: This bandwagon is absurd. I thought of waiting until the end of my 24 hours, so that I could avoid voting for Lataro as long as possible, but that probably wouldn't help anything - it just delays my ability to speak about it. If I get a choice of who to lynch, I'd probably pick any other player over Lataro.

I was highly suspicious of existential_elevator, for incorrectly calling people bandwagon-generators (we don't generate bandwagons when people know our votes are meaningless), posting absurd speculation, and the entirely-baseless "wrath of mod" comment (in a game where the mod explicitly claims no bastardry). But now that they've claimed cop, we probably shouldn't lynch them.

Ninja'd by rrwoods jumping on the bandwagon, with the logic "You exaggerated!". Has Lataro ever played a game without exaggerating? rrwoods hasn't done anything else to draw my suspicion, but they haven't done anything to convince me they're town either. I could get behind an rrwoods lynch (if I didn't have this restriction, durr)

I'm still waiting for MartinW to give me an answer about their vote restriction. Also, Lataro, MartinW claimed "disorientated"
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
greenlover
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:56 am UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby greenlover » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:02 pm UTC

Well, since no one else bothered to humor me and find all the arguments against the mass claim, so I guess I will have to get off my lazy butt and summarize them. Except I did all of this sitting down. . . >_> w/e

Anyhow, these are the arguments made against the mass claim of both emotions and voting restrictions:

1) Fear that giving out this info will make it easier on the scum late game: they will kill off those without voting restrictions, so that those with voting restrictions will be the only ones left.
2) Afraid that having this list will make people tell the truth about their emotions, which will make it easier for the scum to tell who has a good power role, and who doesn't.
3) Fear that the scum will muddy the waters by false claiming.
4) Fear that townys will lie about what emotions they have, and that towny's just will not claim.
5) Fear of evoking the mods wrath.
6) Doesn't understand how this will help us find scum.

And here are their responses:

1) The scum can already see voting restrictions. For goodness sakes, they are voting restrictions, they are meant to be seen. Thus, regardless of having a list or not, the scum can still kill off those without voting restrictions pretty easily. However, if we have a list, the town can tell if a certain scummy action is forced by a role (IE: its a voting restriction), or if it really is a scum tell. I don't see how this is anything but a benefit for town.
2) Any emotion can mean any number of powers. For example, take Lataro's power: it could mean mason recruiter, vigilante NK, double vote, or, well, considering what I know about our mod's, just about anything. However, given the flavor, it will be very hard to make an emotion like "malicious" or "angry" sound towny. Again, I don't understand how this is not a benefit for town.
3) All the more reason to do this today. Right now, the scum cannot set up a system on which to false claim: you cannot claim the emotion you sent in, and their is no way a scum would know if the emotion one of their scum buddies sent in was true or not. Right now, this argument is dead in the water; however, if we don't do this today, the scum will set up that system and falseclaim into the sunset.
4) Why would a towny act in a way that is clearly anti-towny? People have no reason to falseclaim - so why would they? :?
5) Didn't happen.
6) First, it will help to clear up a ton of mud. I mean, seriously, if mpolo hadn't come out about his vote hopping being a voting restriction, I bet he would have been lynch by now. Also, it gives us a lead: if someone claims an emotion like "raging" or doesn't claim at all, they would be great targets to analyse. Not lynch, per say, but simply analyse.

Sorry if I missed any arguments; if you see one that I did miss, point it out to me and I will be happy to consider it.

Now that there is a rebuttal to every argument that has been brought up against the list idea, could we have some valid argument and stop this bandwagon on the lists creator?

The reason why I sticking my neck out for lataro like this is because he has been the only player who has actually tried to do something. Several players seem to have this mindset of "Hey, lets lynch the guy trying to do something productive!", and are trying to bandwagon that to the lynching block. However, that seems like the worst thing that town could do.

User avatar
greenlover
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:56 am UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby greenlover » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:08 pm UTC

EBWOP: Heh, that came across a bit more forceful than I intended it to be. Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone.

Hey, could someone tell a few more (zoo/animal related, of course) jokes? That might help to lighten the mood a bit. ^^;

User avatar
existential_elevator
The awesomest one!
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:31 am UTC
Location: The Ocean of Regret
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby existential_elevator » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:32 pm UTC

Goddamnit, I hate writing a long response to something and then my computer crashes and loses it :(
Anyway
I think what I wanted to do was just spend a little time dispelling Elvish Pillager.
Elvish Pillager wrote:Obligatory: Vote: Lataro

I don't want a Lataro lynch. I think Lataro is almost certainly town, and at worst is a lyncher for an emotion - and I don't think a lyncher would be so obvious, and I'd guess that if there are any lynchers, they'd be lynchers for animals, not emotions. I'm with _infina_ here: This bandwagon is absurd. I thought of waiting until the end of my 24 hours, so that I could avoid voting for Lataro as long as possible, but that probably wouldn't help anything - it just delays my ability to speak about it. If I get a choice of who to lynch, I'd probably pick any other player over Lataro.

I was highly suspicious of existential_elevator, for incorrectly calling people bandwagon-generators (we don't generate bandwagons when people know our votes are meaningless), posting absurd speculation, and the entirely-baseless "wrath of mod" comment (in a game where the mod explicitly claims no bastardry). But now that they've claimed cop, we probably shouldn't lynch them.

Ninja'd by rrwoods jumping on the bandwagon, with the logic "You exaggerated!". Has Lataro ever played a game without exaggerating? rrwoods hasn't done anything else to draw my suspicion, but they haven't done anything to convince me they're town either. I could get behind an rrwoods lynch (if I didn't have this restriction, durr)

I'm still waiting for MartinW to give me an answer about their vote restriction. Also, Lataro, MartinW claimed "disorientated"
When the first couple of vote restriction claims came out it was worrying because of potential impact to town. After seeing more of them together it looks like the end-game could be one big logic puzzle, since we have a mix of people who can't respectively start a lynch, end a lynch, vote for someone new, not vote for someone new, etc etc. Elvish Pillager, yours is especially troubling since you have no choice but to vote on the bandwagon. That makes you nothing but a bandwagon generator, even if you prefer to think of it that you make everyone one vote easier to lynch. 1 vote can make that kind of difference, especially if it's LYLO. ESPECIALLY when you're an independent, and your power could be any damn thing and we don't know who you'll side with.

I have not really played much with Lataro before. Perhaps it is a style thing. Perhaps he is the new Az. Either way, he's pretty forceful that people who do not claim should be punished, and frankly, I just don't think everyone should be claiming. Voting restrictions, yes, claim them, fine. Role or emotion? No. Because if you have a power-structure like mine, then scum could easily say "oh, so and so was acting wisely toward player x, that means they can protect them tonight" and respond accordingly. At best, that information should not be given out. Leave scum doing some guesswork, for heaven's sake.

Absurd speculation. If you'd been paying attention on Page 3, you'd know I was responding to a chain of absurd speculation. That is, frankly, a pathetic piece of evidence against me. Quote in spoiler. This is what I was absurdly responding to.
Spoiler:
ForAllOfThis wrote:
roband wrote:
Mavketl wrote:
ForAllOfThis wrote:Does anyone else think these voting restrictions possibly tied into that bastard role?
How do you imagine this is the case? There are a lot of voting restrictions, how could they all be related to one (bastard) role?


Maybe one person's role is to do the mod's role and monitor the various vote restrictions and they win a special power if they spot someone failing to keep to their restriction :P

Sounds like my kinda role!


Bingo. This is exactly what I was getting at. If there is a player who can maybe punish people who don't keep to role restrictions. Maybe even the player decided/controls the restrictions solely?


I mentioned wrath of mod because, well, I'm a role-cop. I doubt I'm the only cop in this game. If there's someone out there who is an emotion-cop, they're going to get a raw deal. Of course, there might not be, but if there was I could see the mod being annoyed, or the player having to be jiggled round somehow. Just because a game has no bastardry doesn't mean that if the players break one of the roles somehow the mod wouldn't respond. I'd expect it to be mentioned "no can has mass roleclaims" but still, sometimes that's just an unwritten rule.

Elvish Pillager, I really am thinking you're a jester. If it wasn't for that, I'd be voting you and not Lataro.

I worry also that I'm being hard on Lataro, but really? It's not bad to keep track of people's claims, that's good. But let's not tell everyone they have to claim or they'll be suspicious.

User avatar
weiyaoli
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 2:21 pm UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby weiyaoli » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:39 pm UTC

Spoiler:
BigNose wrote:OK, this is just a helping aid for me:
D1 Votes:
mpolo wrote:Vote: Lataro
mpolo wrote:Vote: roband
roband wrote:Vote: mpolo
Elvish Pillager wrote:Vote: mpolo
mpolo wrote:Vote: ElvishPillager
Vote: BigNose
Vote: existential_elevator
Brooklynxman wrote:Vote: mpolo
Vote: E_P
ForAllOfThis wrote:Vote: Elvish Pillager
Elvish Pillager wrote:Vote: Elvish Pillager
Misnomer wrote:Vote: infina
roband wrote:Vote Martin
existential_elevator wrote:vote: Lataro
Dr Ug wrote:Vote: Lataro
Krong wrote:Vote: Lataro
existential_elevator wrote:vote: Lataro
Who CAN'T I vote for this day and still maintain my life:
Lataro
mpolo
roband
E_P
Infina
BigNose
E_E
Martin

I can't vote for Lataro atm, so I have to pick another and then vote on him, if I decide to.
Therefore expect an unsolicited vote.

That sure is a long list and you must have spent a while making it! I love you.


@EP, You still haven't answered my question earlier about why you voted for yourself instead of mpolo who the other person with 2 votes.

About e_e, I'm not sure why you are calling him out for "absurd speculation" when that patricular tangent orginated with ForAllOfThis as well as it was clearly a jokey speculation.

On Lataro, I hardly think it is fair to say that he exaggerates every single game, for example he did not do so as far as I am aware in Chaos for one (nor does this completely excuse him for exaggerating in this case).

greenlover wrote:
1) The scum can already see voting restrictions. For goodness sakes, they are voting restrictions, they are meant to be seen. Thus, regardless of having a list or not, the scum can still kill off those without voting restrictions pretty easily. However, if we have a list, the town can tell if a certain scummy action is forced by a role (IE: its a voting restriction), or if it really is a scum tell. I don't see how this is anything but a benefit for town.


Agreed on voting restrictions being easy to see, but this is hardly an argument for a mass claim. It supports the fact that if you do have such a restriction, you should claim but this does not carry over to other emotions as well.

2) Any emotion can mean any number of powers. For example, take Lataro's power: it could mean mason recruiter, vigilante NK, double vote, or, well, considering what I know about our mod's, just about anything. However, given the flavor, it will be very hard to make an emotion like "malicious" or "angry" sound towny. Again, I don't understand how this is not a benefit for town.


According to the flavour, it was a small team of warriors of great intiative who are the scum team. That could be anything and hardly equates all the animals with "malicious" or "angry" or similar. I mean "angry" could be anything, it could be a lyncher for an animal, someone who is angry with a particular person that they must vote for first each day, someone who wants revenge on the scum warriors for killing the giraffe etc... Any emotion could be any alignment and I think it's best not to just assume that such emotions are scum whilst "good" ones are town without having a good meta on the mod with pyp which admittedly I don't have either so he could well have just gone with this.

Also consider this from a balance point of view. If all the "nasty" emotions sent in was scum and "kind" ones were town, how would this be balanced if a massclaim such as this occurs? (I think as a mod Silknor is pretty good on such things as well as general balance and it is always something he talks about in every game)
3) All the more reason to do this today. Right now, the scum cannot set up a system on which to false claim: you cannot claim the emotion you sent in, and their is no way a scum would know if the emotion one of their scum buddies sent in was true or not. Right now, this argument is dead in the water; however, if we don't do this today, the scum will set up that system and falseclaim into the sunset.


Agreed. But I do think if we are going to do this mass-claim, everyone has to claim as scum who got one of the emotions people have yet to claim could lie and then follow it with a NK (depending on whether the emotion sent in is revealed at death) so they could easily slip past. Obvious thing to say perhaps but heh.

4) Why would a towny act in a way that is clearly anti-towny? People have no reason to falseclaim - so why would they? :?


Agreed.

6) First, it will help to clear up a ton of mud. I mean, seriously, if mpolo hadn't come out about his vote hopping being a voting restriction, I bet he would have been lynch by now. Also, it gives us a lead: if someone claims an emotion like "raging" or doesn't claim at all, they would be great targets to analyse. Not lynch, per say, but simply analyse.


First half, again an argument for individual claims and not mass claim. Second half, although it brings attention to people who claims "raging", it also allows people like infina who has excessively happy to slip under the radar a little. As we do not know for sure such emotions equates scum, we don't know if it actually brings benefit or just allows actual scum to slip under the radar.

Prepost: ninjaed by ee.
And you thought I was crazy...

User avatar
weiyaoli
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 2:21 pm UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby weiyaoli » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:45 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Elvish Pillager wrote:Obligatory: Vote: Lataro

I don't want a Lataro lynch. I think Lataro is almost certainly town, and at worst is a lyncher for an emotion - and I don't think a lyncher would be so obvious, and I'd guess that if there are any lynchers, they'd be lynchers for animals, not emotions. I'm with _infina_ here: This bandwagon is absurd. I thought of waiting until the end of my 24 hours, so that I could avoid voting for Lataro as long as possible, but that probably wouldn't help anything - it just delays my ability to speak about it. If I get a choice of who to lynch, I'd probably pick any other player over Lataro.

I was highly suspicious of existential_elevator, for incorrectly calling people bandwagon-generators (we don't generate bandwagons when people know our votes are meaningless), posting absurd speculation, and the entirely-baseless "wrath of mod" comment (in a game where the mod explicitly claims no bastardry). But now that they've claimed cop, we probably shouldn't lynch them.

Ninja'd by rrwoods jumping on the bandwagon, with the logic "You exaggerated!". Has Lataro ever played a game without exaggerating? rrwoods hasn't done anything else to draw my suspicion, but they haven't done anything to convince me they're town either. I could get behind an rrwoods lynch (if I didn't have this restriction, durr)

I'm still waiting for MartinW to give me an answer about their vote restriction. Also, Lataro, MartinW claimed "disorientated"

Everyone should embed (Is that the right word? I'm not really computer inclined) their links like you! You must be super knowledgble about computers. I love you.

EBWOP:

Regarding one point in ee's post I just also realized that the first half of greenlover's post is also actually an argument for claiming voting restrictions, not emotions.

(OT: It sure is annoying writing a restriction that is probably longer than your actual post.)
And you thought I was crazy...

User avatar
Mavketl
ELEPHANT MYSTICISM!
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:34 pm UTC
Location: Groningen City

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Mavketl » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:51 pm UTC

I'm jumping on the anti-bandwagon for Lataro.

I'm on the fence about this list thing. I think it would be nice if everyone does claim what they sent in, in case it comes down to a massclaim later. I personally refuse to say which state of mind I have received: together with my statements about my voting restriction, it could help people find out how to influence my ability to vote for them. I don't know if there is anyone else with a good reason to stay out of the claiming, but there very well might be.

greenlover wrote:First, it will help to clear up a ton of mud. I mean, seriously, if mpolo hadn't come out about his vote hopping being a voting restriction, I bet he would have been lynch by now.
That's an argument for claiming vote and post restrictions, not for claiming emotional states. And if you have such a restriction that is going to make you look suspicious, it's better to come clean about it now than to claim it after you get a lot of criticism for votehopping or whatever, because it's more believable and it avoids useless discussions.

greenlover wrote:However, given the flavor, it will be very hard to make an emotion like "malicious" or "angry" sound towny. Again, I don't understand how this is not a benefit for town.
I strongly suspect that there is no such link between emotion and alignment. If I were modding this, I would take great pleasure in creating jovial scum and angry townies. Why can't townies be angry? I would be pretty angry if someone just killed my friend the giraffe. There's a possible backstory for any combination. A reason against claiming is the mod's warning: "

I think everyone should claim what they sent in. I think people should use their own discretion in claiming what they received.


Now, I've already stated that for once, I'm not reading Lataro as super scummy. (In response to e_e's ninja: yes, that is his obnoxious ( :P ) playstyle everywhere.) However, we have about two days before the deadline, so we'd better come up with some new suspects if we want a lynch (I want a lynch). I don't have time for a huge analysis right now, but here are some candidates:
Dark Loink - rhyming (implies it's not a restriction), haiku, and active lurking: 6 posts, no real content, just some loose remarks
djkjr - he hasn't contributed much, we can't have that! And what he did contribute was... weird.
ahippo - active lurkish, though I think it might be his post restriction (submissive, only 1-line posts), not sure
E_P could end up being a nuisance with his vote restriction, but I'm inclined to let him live ;)
Brooklynxman is giving me scummy vibes for his only contribution being "there is probably a town vig" - why would you want to make that public anyway? (I kind of doubt that you could say with any certainty what your sent in emotional state ended up doing, by the way.) Well, that and the assumption that since we have so many restrictions, there must be a player who can give them to others. That doesn't even make sense - unless they could do it 10 times during one day, of course.
BigNose has a really annoying vote restriction which might be very unhelpful, but I'm not reading him as particularly scummy yet. He is focusing quite a bit on restrictions, but it's understandable.

I'm tempted to vote for djkjr, to be honest, but I can be swayed. I'm not voting yet because I want to give BigNose some more options for his upcoming vote, I'll vote tomorrow.


Ninja: goddamnit weiyaoli don't make all my points for me. :P
Not A Raptor: Mav can be a very wily and dangerous player.
roband: Mav has a way of making everything seem right.
ELEPHANT SCIENCE - MORE ELEPHANT SCIENCE
- NEW: Elephant Math!

User avatar
existential_elevator
The awesomest one!
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:31 am UTC
Location: The Ocean of Regret
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby existential_elevator » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:00 pm UTC

unvote: Lataro
Okay, so I'm going to now take people's word for it about that being his play-style at least for today, and keep a strong eye out. I don't really like working on meta, and there are so many people playing who are new to me. I hate Day 1 votals.

I'll admit Brooklyn had me a little on the weary side as well, so how about I agree now to try and cop him tonight? (If I'm claiming cop, I may as well put it out in the open, right?)

I'd like more from lurkers, but is it right to pursue a lurker lynch?

User avatar
greenlover
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:56 am UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby greenlover » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:35 pm UTC

@: weiyaoli

Argument 1:
Spoiler:
weiyaoli wrote:
greenlover wrote:
1) The scum can already see voting restrictions. For goodness sakes, they are voting restrictions, they are meant to be seen. Thus, regardless of having a list or not, the scum can still kill off those without voting restrictions pretty easily. However, if we have a list, the town can tell if a certain scummy action is forced by a role (IE: its a voting restriction), or if it really is a scum tell. I don't see how this is anything but a benefit for town.


Agreed on voting restrictions being easy to see, but this is hardly an argument for a mass claim. It supports the fact that if you do have such a restriction, you should claim but this does not carry over to other emotions as well.
True, the argument on this point dealt specifically with voting restrictions, and not with emotions.

Argument 2:
Spoiler:
weiyaoli wrote:
greenlover wrote:2) Any emotion can mean any number of powers. For example, take Lataro's power: it could mean mason recruiter, vigilante NK, double vote, or, well, considering what I know about our mod's, just about anything. However, given the flavor, it will be very hard to make an emotion like "malicious" or "angry" sound towny. Again, I don't understand how this is not a benefit for town.


According to the flavour, it was a small team of warriors of great intiative who are the scum team. That could be anything and hardly equates all the animals with "malicious" or "angry" or similar. I mean "angry" could be anything, it could be a lyncher for an animal, someone who is angry with a particular person that they must vote for first each day, someone who wants revenge on the scum warriors for killing the giraffe etc... Any emotion could be any alignment and I think it's best not to just assume that such emotions are scum whilst "good" ones are town without having a good meta on the mod with pyp which admittedly I don't have either so he could well have just gone with this.
Tell me, how does "content" or "excessively happy" tie into the flavor about warriors with great initiative? Admittedly, it is not so black and white with all the emotions, but at least it gives us a starting point. This rebuttal was specifically against the idea that claiming can be somehow bad for town.

Also consider this from a balance point of view. If all the "nasty" emotions sent in was scum and "kind" ones were town, how would this be balanced if a massclaim such as this occurs? (I think as a mod Silknor is pretty good on such things as well as general balance and it is always something he talks about in every game)
Yes, I am sure that Silknor found a way to make this balanced. However, I don't think he would have done something too illogical to do so

Argument 3:
Spoiler:
weiyaoli wrote:
greenlover wrote:3) All the more reason to do this today. Right now, the scum cannot set up a system on which to false claim: you cannot claim the emotion you sent in, and their is no way a scum would know if the emotion one of their scum buddies sent in was true or not. Right now, this argument is dead in the water; however, if we don't do this today, the scum will set up that system and falseclaim into the sunset.


Agreed. But I do think if we are going to do this mass-claim, everyone has to claim as scum who got one of the emotions people have yet to claim could lie and then follow it with a NK (depending on whether the emotion sent in is revealed at death) so they could easily slip past. Obvious thing to say perhaps but heh.
I believe that the emotions are revealed upon death, along with role (it is role information, after all). I could be wrong, though. Anyhow, that would still take a ton of luck for the scum to get away with that; and it would require the town acting in a anti-town fashion.

Argument 6:
Spoiler:
weiyaoli wrote:
greenlover wrote:6) First, it will help to clear up a ton of mud. I mean, seriously, if mpolo hadn't come out about his vote hopping being a voting restriction, I bet he would have been lynch by now. Also, it gives us a lead: if someone claims an emotion like "raging" or doesn't claim at all, they would be great targets to analyse. Not lynch, per say, but simply analyse.


First half, again an argument for individual claims and not mass claim. Second half, although it brings attention to people who claims "raging", it also allows people like infina who has excessively happy to slip under the radar a little. As we do not know for sure such emotions equates scum, we don't know if it actually brings benefit or just allows actual scum to slip under the radar.
Yes, the first half of that was more directed at people claiming voting restrictions. Also, I am not saying that bad emotions = scum; I am saying that bad emotions are most likely to have nasty powers/winning conditions, and, as such, should be examined first.


Pre-edit:
Mavketl wrote:That's an argument for claiming vote and post restrictions, not for claiming emotional states. And if you have such a restriction that is going to make you look suspicious, it's better to come clean about it now than to claim it after you get a lot of criticism for votehopping or whatever, because it's more believable and it avoids useless discussions.
I already addressed this earlier, but yes, that was what it was supposed to be. When I made the original post, my intention was to rebut all arguments made against the list, not just the emotion ones. Sorry for not being clearer.

Mavketl wrote:I strongly suspect that there is no such link between emotion and alignment. If I were modding this, I would take great pleasure in creating jovial scum and angry townies. Why can't townies be angry? I would be pretty angry if someone just killed my friend the giraffe. There's a possible backstory for any combination. A reason against claiming is the mod's warning: "
Why would scum be content or excessively happy? I am honestly curious about the possible back-story for that one. For the most part, though, I do agree. Just about every emotion is pretty gray. However, the emotions that people received can serve as a lead as to who to analysis first: they can offer valuable clues as to person's powers/win conditions, and as such, who to look out for. Obviously, we should not lynch on a emotion, but it does offer us a lead none the less.

Also:

FoS: existential_elevator

For spamming out arguments against Lataro and not bothering to back them up when challenged, instead favoring to spam out arguments against E_P. Now, I could just be a bit paranoid, but that is really is pinging me.

User avatar
existential_elevator
The awesomest one!
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:31 am UTC
Location: The Ocean of Regret
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby existential_elevator » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:34 pm UTC

@greenlover

I've not really argued against EP, I've only tried to defend myself against what he accused of. I have more jester fears about him, and obviously he'll be dangerous at end game. Just not sure if he's worth lynching yet.

As for Lataro, if you want a full on analysis...
Spoiler:
Lataro wrote:Third point of business now, EP. My bone here is that he's posting a lurker list when the game isn't even a day old. It didn't start til late last night, and it's a weekday, people have jobs and other stuff to do. A lurker list this early screams scummy in my books, despite his claim. Additionally, even if a survivor intends to play townie, if it gets to LYLO the scum can basically say, "help us lynch X or we'll kill you tonight." This quickly makes even the most townie of survivor turn to the dark side. I don't trust survivors who are tempted by the power of the dark side. :lol:

As such, with his lurker list, and his claim, if no better option comes up, I'm not against removing a potential survivor turned scum's buddy at LYLO.

I wish Aardvarki was in this game so I could whine about not being able to vote for him as well.

Someone vote Mavketl for me please? :P
Talking about meta-voting (way over my head, having been out of the game a while), talking about the dangers of keeping EP alive, which is all fair and well.

Lataro wrote:
Dr Ug wrote:
Lataro wrote:As such, with his lurker list, and his claim, if no better option comes up, I'm not against removing a potential survivor turned scum's buddy at LYLO.
Except, that if he's not lying, then by definition he's not scum, and you just lost town the game...

Woah, this game got very active all of a sudden. I also looked a bit askance at Mav's lurker list - seriously, I've been sleeping while all this activity's been happening...



EP posted the lurker list, not Mav. Mav is the one I want someone to vote for so I can do my metavote on her due to my restrictions! :evil:

As for the survivor point. My point was that it doesn't matter how townie he is, if we get to LYLO and he is alive, scum can force him to side with them under threat of them NKing him, thus causing him to lose. He would have no incentive to side with town at a LYLO UNLESS it was 1 town, 1 scum, and him. Even then though, he could vote scum just for shits and giggles.

I suppose I could vote for mpolo since he voted for me first. What say you mpolo, wanna dance with me this game? :P
Further explanation of reasoning against EP. Honestly, it's sound, I think we all agree these are good reasons to not what a survivor around.
Lataro wrote:I haven't been reading closely enough to notice anyone with the role I sent in yet, I sent in "Submissive".

Also Roband, I'm jovial, I don't like to see people die, but accept the need for a lynch, thus I can't vote first, or hammer.
Explains vote restriction, and gives emotions.
Lataro wrote:
roband wrote:Christ, more vote restrictions...

Lataro, was it you that said earlier about not being very useful during endgame or do we have another person with that issue?


I already claimed my restriction before that post, I put it there again in explaining how it was represented.

I have received modly word on on my endgame problem, and I'd rather not go into details on it's resolution.

Will someone vote mav already? This is driving me nuts! :P
More meta, more explanation of vote restrictions

Lataro wrote:After thinking more on it, I think it is imperative that everyone claim their emotion sent, and emotion received today. Scum don't have day chat, and thus can't coordinate a false claim. As it stands, if we force everyone to claim before they can talk, it'd be suicide for them to lie since they couldn't coordinate a way to do it collectively.

If anyone puts off claiming til D2, it will be forever tainted in my mind.

Now, I'm not saying people should claim the effect of their received role, unless it is a restriction of some sort, which along the same lines as above, should be done before scum get a chance to talk things over privately.

I think if everyone simply claims emotion sent, emotion received, and any posting or voting restrictions, that would be enough.
Explains why he wants emotion-claiming today, ie, that it should happen before any night chat. To be honest, given I don't think emotion is likely to have a bearing on alignment - being as how I'm snarky which I guess is kind of a negative emotion, and I'm also town. I don't really think we have to be worried about false-claiming emotion. The problem with revealing emotions as I've said time and time again is that it may make it more obvious in the day who is being targeted for x (assuming people have my power structure). This could make scum twitchy and able to guess night actions. This is the statement that made me go "WHAT NO WE SHOULDN'T DO THIS" and started making me feel a bit off.

This back-up reasoning was also off:
Lataro wrote:if town lies about anything, they are at fault for hurting the town in this situation.

It's the same idea as dethy, cops (town) should always claim the truth so that if (when) scum lies, it's easier to catch them. I'd be thrilled if two people claimed the same emotion, I'd love a 50/50 shot at lynching scum!
I... I can see how this applies to voting restrictions but not to emotions. If this was meant to apply to emotions it doesn't make sense. The way I see it, emotions are flavour to earn a power. So what difference would it make if I did or didn't tell you how I made my power flavour? It doesn't have any bearing on anything. It might be useful information to someone if their power is somehow powered by collecting emotions, but... is that likely? And if so, are we not just helping that one single person and endangering other townies?


So yeah, I think I'm justified in feeling uncomfortable.

User avatar
ForAllOfThis
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:06 pm UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby ForAllOfThis » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:55 pm UTC

As most people are emotion claiming there seems to be little point in hiding my emotion. My only reason is I can see the potential backlash that will follow now most people are starting to claim. Especially as I was only hiding it on the principle that I think Lataro's idea is a bad idea.

However, I'm with the anti-lataro bandwagon on this one. His idea is the only idea we have in giving us potential scum leads on day 1. I will argue it's a bad idea till I'm blue in the face but the only other idea I have is to lynch E_P, get rid of the neutral party, hope for the best during the night and see if anyone sticks out on day 2. Worst case scenario is we lose one townie instead of two. My method has seemingly no chance of lynching a mafia but minimises our losses.

Anyway I'm Level-Headed.

User avatar
existential_elevator
The awesomest one!
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:31 am UTC
Location: The Ocean of Regret
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby existential_elevator » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:07 pm UTC

I don't want to quibble with you ForAllOfThis since we basically agree but...

Silknor wrote:Sadly yes. I have to impose one not because of a lack of activity, but rather because of the constraints of turbo. There's 21 players and 21 days. That's a whole lot of people that need to die in 3 weeks. I have to plan on a slightly more than 1 death a day in order to be safe. As much as I'd like to have D1 last a week, or even 8-9 days, it's not possible without forcing future days to be too short.


...from this I am assuming we have more than 1 Night Kill. Maybe I'm reading too much into that, who knows. Our current problem is maybe that we don't actually know how many NKs to expect and we could well be chasing our tails arguing about EP and Lataro. That does mean that if we mis-lynch we could have three dead townies by tomorrow. I seem to remember also Silknor saying the setup was straightforward Mafia vs Town? So we could be looking at Mafia with 2 NKs, or a vigilante who can kill town as well as non-town. Though I'm not sure if a setup like that would exclude there also being an SK.

You are right however that lynching EP does make one less townie loss. I just... I don't know, feel uncomfortable, like have a jestervibe. I'll hold off deciding on another vote until closer to the deadline, methinks. I acted maybe too quickly with Lataro.

I always feel like I post too much. I just keep telling myself "it's a turbo, it's a turbo..."

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby roband » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:09 pm UTC

Hey kids. Hoping i hit send before my 30 hours are up.
Unvote
Vote roband


Just because I haven't read in-depth enough to properly vote. I wouldsay, however that I am in defense of Lataro and the list. Hoping for a better post in a few hours.

User avatar
RoadieRich
The Black Hand
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:40 am UTC
Location: Behind you

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby RoadieRich » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:25 pm UTC

If we surmise that there are tandem slaughters each and every night, the game will last for maximally seven game-days. This will result in three real-life days per game day, which, if I am forthright, is insufficient for sagacious gameplay. A triad of terminations will occasion a five-day game, for four external days for each within the game. Correspondingly, four assassinations will effectuate five day/game-day. This is, in my ratiocination, more commonsensical.

I can consequently conclude that there are three or four kills to be anticipated each daybreak.

I am likewise going to append my advocation of Lataro and his Catalogue of Conditions. My role, at least, is unassociated with my mental disposition. I discern no manner in which it cannot assist town to a greater degree than the opposition.

(I am compelled to articulate a certain sensation of fulfilment with this manner of expression - notwithstanding it is predisposed to lengthen my already sluggardly practice of cyber-penmanship.)
73, de KE8BSL loc EN26.

User avatar
Misnomer
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Misnomer » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:35 pm UTC

ElectricHaze wrote:Votals:
MartinW (1): roband
Elivish Pillager (3): Brooklynxman, ForAllOfThis, elvish pillager
_infina_ (1): misnomer
Lataro (3): existential_elevator, Dr Ug, Krong
Krong(1): _infina_

21 Players, 11 to lynch

*EDIT* I can't count...
Deadline Sat. 12:00pm EST ~50 Hours

Playing catchup for the moment, so actual content will still be a bit of a wait, but I do believe I took my vote off of Infina a while ago.
moody7277 wrote:The role of SDK in this game will be played by Misnomer. [/soapopera]

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Brooklynxman » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:37 pm UTC

Screw it. I sent in righteously vengeful. That is why I strongly believe there is a vigilante in the game. Feel free to cop me e_e, but I don't understand at all how you think claiming your emotion outted you as a cop. I don't think anyone without almost the same "power structure" as you would even think about that kind of structure.

If EP is playing a jester he is doing it so subtly and well as to make it undetectable to my eye. Yes I see how is power would be the perfect claim but, other then that, he seems to be quite reasonable.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
_infina_
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:55 pm UTC
Location: R'lyeh

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby _infina_ » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:38 pm UTC

Misnomer wrote:Right, posting from my phone so forgive me if I'm brief.

Infina's reasoning still strikes me as weird, but not scummy weird. Anyways, he answered my question so...

Unvote

If Krong is telling the truth about his post restriction, that is by far the most evil one I've ever seen... Another one to watch and see if he's punished for slipping up methinks.

right here is where you did it.
Spoiler:
keozen wrote:It took us exactly 3 pages to turn a discussion of a loved children's book series into smut...
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Only if your friends know what rhino dong smells like.

Malo mbwa mwitu

User avatar
ElectricHaze
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 2:54 am UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby ElectricHaze » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:45 pm UTC

Votals:
roband (1): roband
Elivish Pillager (2): Brooklynxman, ForAllOfThis
Lataro (4): Dr Ug, Krong, rrwoods, Elvish Pillager
Krong (1): _infina_

21 Players, 11 to lynch
Deadline in ~45 hours


Sorry guys, apparently I just can't count this week. I've never messed up so many votals before. :oops:
Who has never killed an hour? Not casually or without thought, but carefully: a premeditated murder of minutes.

User avatar
mpolo
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:24 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby mpolo » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:22 pm UTC

On Lataro: I think that the bandwagon is ill-advised. Yes, he's being aggressive about getting everyone to claim their emotions. I disagree that a mass claim is right at this point, but I can understand the attitude of "more info=more help for town". I have no problem with a mass-claim of what has been sent in, but there may well be reasons (like the person who got Brook's emotion) for someone to not want to reveal their emotion, and I'm not going to try to push someone into doing this, at least not this early in the game. Back to Lataro, there isn't really any other major evidence against him. He very easily gets aggressive with his theories and crusades, so I'm pretty nonplussed about that factor. All in all, I'm feeling pretty neutral about Lataro.

As time is starting to slip by, I need to start committing to something. At the moment, the only real lead I have is that Elvish Pillager's presence in Endgame would be a huge boon for scum. As a result, unless some other major lead comes up, I'm going to:

Vote: Elvish Pillager.

(Sorry. I just see your presence as being more and more pro-scum the longer you are alive. You were very open and forthcoming, and I appreciate that, but… yeah.)
Image <-- Evil experiment

User avatar
Misnomer
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Misnomer » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:06 pm UTC

Is it a bird? is it a plane? No, it's an exceptionally disorganised post about anything and everything!


Right, ok, to start with, consider my response to the idea of an animal claim to be "hell no!", for the following 2 reasons:
1) I have a metapolicy of opposing day 1 massclaims.
2) with characteristic claims, there is at least a disincentive for scum to lie, as actions sent must match actions recieved. However, there is no such disincentive with regards to animal claims, as scum could lie and never get caught.

Now, on to the Lataro wagon - it seems to have calmed down now, but add my voices to those concerned by it. Lataro normally plays agressively, and at any rate a characteristic claim is hardly a massive scumtell.

Given that scum don't have daychat, I think ForAllOfThis was overestimating the extent to which scum would be able to lie and make the characteristic claim useless. Certainly I'm alarmed at the way he seemed to support town lying.

E_P, if your voting restriction is true then you are most definitely a bandwagon generator.

e_e, why on earth did you cop claim???


Oh, and I've been getting a bad gut feeling about one particular player, so I thought I'd best take a look at his posts.

Analysis: infina

Infina's posts
#0 - Signup post.
#1 - Quotes the mod, appears to have some restriction forcing him to emphasise how happy he is with it, and then proceeds to offer a rather weak and bizarre rolespec. Distinctly odd.
#2 - Quotes both mods, again emphasising how happy he is. Now suggests that the scum grouping may be determined by characteristic, not animal. Claims he has no voting restriction, and yet again emphasies how happy he is. Also odd.
#3 - Quotes the mod, emphasising his joy. Answers my vote-reinforced question with what still strikes me as an odd line of reasoning, but announces that at any rate he doesn't think it's the case now anyway. Asks a question about RR's avatar, and make a none game-related point. So three posts in, that's next to no content. Suspicious.
#4 - Contentless post, but more significantly... DOES NOT quote the mods, and DOES NOT mention happiness, joy etc. once. A break in what had up until now appear to have been a posting restriction. Very suspicious.
#5 - Quotes the mod again, and back to his old happy self. Claims that he sent in disoriented, and offers to help Lataro start a lynch on Mav. Neutral but unnerving.
#6 - More mod quotes and happiness. Finally ventures into producing an accusation, calling out BN on FOS'ing Lataro. Still low on content overall though, which this far into the game makes me suspicious.
#7 - Does not quote the mod, but states he's happy. Now, here's the interesting bit. He goes on to argue that happy animals would not have a kill power, implying that they are not scum. This to me looks like a thinly-veiled self-defence, as while he has not formally made a charateristic claim, he has been very keen throughout to impress on us about how happy he is. Scummy.
#8 - No mod quoting and no happiness. Votes for Krong, and becomes very defensive of Lataro. While I don't think that Lataro is all that scummy myself, I am VERY suspicious of players strongly jumping to the defense of each other. Also pulls out a list of scum suspects, some of the names on which he has voiced absolutely no opinions of, either in this post or previously. Scummylicious.
#9 - No mod quoting, no happiness, no content.

Conclusions:
1. If he has a posting restriction, he has broken it multiple times. Otherwise, he has been faking it.
2. Despite apparently being very eager to let us know that he's happy, he has refused to make an explicit characteristic claim.
3. He is setting off scum pings left, right and centre with his posts.
4. He is actively lurking, having posted little meaningful content at all.

Therefore, for the second time today...

Vote: _infina_
moody7277 wrote:The role of SDK in this game will be played by Misnomer. [/soapopera]

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby Brooklynxman » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:12 pm UTC

I've been wondering why I haven't seen any infinia posts. Yet another avatar change in this thread.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
existential_elevator
The awesomest one!
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:31 am UTC
Location: The Ocean of Regret
Contact:

Re: Zoo Mafia-Day 1-ZooKCD's Lynch Circle

Postby existential_elevator » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:15 pm UTC

Misnomer wrote:e_e, why on earth did you cop claim???

Yeah, I'm starting to think it's prolonged sleep deprivation. I'd normally claim Day 2 because I generally think it's smart to claim sooner rather than later as a cop, generally soon so you can be protected and openly dispense helpful info. I think when I was actually posting I was feeling more pressure to claim based on what I was trying to get across about the badness of emotion-claiming. I was worried what I was saying didn't make sense and needed to be substantiated with a deeper claim? Now I've re-read it I guess it is not so evident, and was probably largely in my head. But that's the thing when you've got a secret, huh? The walls are full of spies, or something. I think I'm going to try and slow down a bit so I can be a better player.


Return to “Mafia”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests