KoC (92) wrote:I endorse any plan that ends in me being given a plan. ortolan's massive wall of math could either be intended to drown players who don't have time for that shit (me) or give the semblance of effort to make less active players look bad.
Nice false dichotomy where either conclusion makes me look bad. Or, it could have been to attempt to resolve the argument I was having with Fishy at the time.
KoC (92) wrote:Incident'ly, I cannot remember a single Veerus post all day of any substance. THerefore, I would suggest a me/Veerus/ortolan Proposal, although obviously I would be willing to compromise on one of the three in order to get at least two of them up in the spotlight.
What is the rationale behind your selection of players?
KoC (94) wrote:THat would be acceptable, certainly. As I say, I would like to get at least two of the three players I mentioned above into the spotlight.
Why would you like to "get these players into the spotlight"?
Crazy (95) wrote:It's hard for scum to post content in the ways of scum-hunting
No it isn't
Crazy (95) wrote:but talking theory is not hard... and thus doesn't need to be rewarded by having plans given.
Yah except we're not even necessarily using "talking theory" as a device to try and pick out the scummy players, we started using it in the first place to discuss and conclude what the optimal play actually is; not to try and get scum-reads from it.
Crazy (95) wrote:1. He believes that we should try to get plans of all town.
Having all town on the plans (or at least having no-one sabotage, for that's all we'd know at that stage), is amongst my optimal results. It is not
the
optimal result obviously, that would probably be having three people on the plans all of whom sabotage. However if it is possible it is certainly a desirable outcome, and I was considering those players I nominated as having a good chance of all being town (obviously in my case I am certain).
Crazy (95) wrote:Scum at least want
one
of their people on the plans, most likely, so they'd try to look pro-town.
Their win con is to sabotage three times. They are going to try to look pro-town regardless of any other considerations, in line with every other game.
Crazy (95) wrote:2. Yeah, well that's me... and I'm not really going with the grain here.
Do you mean you are "pro-town"? If so, why? If not what did you mean?
Crazy (95) wrote:3. It's because ort picked you two on the plan, and Nab. Nab didn't matter to me because he was on the plan to begin with.
4. But you changed your mind.
I'm not saying ort is obvscum, but I don't agree with his philosophy. I'd much prefer ABR's proposal.
I don't understand any of this. I am not judging players on the basis of "posting more content", I am saying scum have little motivation for suggesting non-obvious pro-town things to do or consider, which both Naba and Fish have done.
Quality of content is the most important, and if they have posted more quality content than anyone else then yes, I am going to conclude they are more likely to be pro-town.
And I don't even know why you'd need to suggest "I'm not saying ort is obvscum", you have given no reasons to suggest I am scummy at all.
Naba (96) wrote:Why have a fast D1 when you can have a leisurely day with a copious supply of feedback at absolutely no charge? The way the rules are structured, we could adhere directly to deadlines and still have an infintely long day. Of course, we're going to want to agree on a proposal sometime, but why not make use of the fact that we now have solid information (the voting record for last cycle's proposal) on which to build a better plan. I rejected the random assignment because there was a better path with no extra charge.
QFT. This is what the people saying "we should just go randomly" are persistently failing to pay attention to (even though it was already brought up previously, at least by me I recall).
Naba (96) wrote:It seems to me that ABR is trying to put together an assignment with the three players who have contributed least so far. I'm not sure exactly what the point of this is (maybe he would like to explain), but I think it goes against both the objective of information gathering (the more a player has said, the more we have to draw conclusions and directions) and the objective of ideal scum distribution (why put our money on unknowns?).
Again, QFT.
FL (97) wrote:I was leaning putting ort in. I wish people would stop self nomming. It makes me nervous and more likely to reject you.
Emotion has no place in this game. Attempting some horrid reverse psychological WIFOM when you are in fact town does not seem optimal to me.
ABR (99) wrote:Nabakov probably her russian liaison. Definitely no plans for both of them.
?
ABR (103) wrote:A disturbance in the force, you have felt. If thrown in a cage with veerus I was, safe would I feel.
ABR's "gut reads" based on one line posts are of "questionable usefulness".
FL (105) wrote:ABR is not doing anything to make me more comfortable about giving him plans. At all.
Well he has, you know he has kind of been calling you obv-scum the whole game, so this isn't much of a surprise. (For reference I'm inclined to view the ABR-FL thing as distancing because I don't think either are pro-town at all).
FL (106) wrote:ABR is fitting his meta - oh so very angry and jackassish.
Unfortunately, this is his meta for EVERY role. So I have no idea.
What was the purpose of making this post?
FL (112) wrote:ort- appears to be putting too much effort into checking Fishy's math and such. It's WIFOM, and he's probably who I'm least solid on, but I still feel he's town.
Why do you think I am putting too much effort into doing something "useless" but still feel I am town? Also what is WIFOM?
FL (112) wrote:veerus- I have gotten no scum vibe from him, and overall felt he's town.
Re-read veerus' posts and tell me if you think this assessment is genuine (I don't think it is).
in me Nab and veerus I would expect veerus to sabotage, especially with FL's support for this combination.
FL (115) wrote:That's...actually acceptable, with my bet on Psycho being the scum if we get a sabotage act.
So you think someone is likely to sabotage but still support the idea? Interesting.
ABR (117) wrote:Honestly, the BEST way to proceed is to have NO DISCUSSION, and group THREE SPIES TOGETHER.
Best case scenario they all sabotage and we have three CONFIRMED SPIES.
HOWEVER, if they can COORDINATE who is sabotaging and who isn't, then we are SCREWED.
DISCUSSION HURTS THE TOWN. FL AND NABAKOV --> EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS.
As I said earlier, that is indeed the best outcome but realistically it is almost entirely impossible. You need to get 3 scum on the plans to begin with, WHICH IS EVEN LESS LIKELY THAN GETTING THREE TOWN, then they need to all be stupid and sabotage. Optimal play if they are all on the plans is for all not to sabotage then they end up with no saboteurs they all get confirmed town which leads to subsequent chaos.
ABR (117) wrote:DISCUSSION HURTS THE TOWN. FL AND NABAKOV --> EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS.
ABR seems to have actively ignored me already arguing this is definitely not the case. Scum want to incite paranoia about coded daytalking. For your information, even after we decide on the first set of three, on all subsequent days we're going to have extensive discussion over the results anyway, which still leaves us open to the perils of "scum daytalking" on all days but this anyway.
ABR (118) wrote:Remember, we will know how many acts of sabotage have occurred after each plan is carried out. Scumhunting is MEANINGLESS at this stage in the game.
No.
119 is just "silly".
123 I agree with.
ABR (132) wrote:"It is much more of a logic puzzle than Mafia, though traditional scumhunting skills should still help."
Logic > Scumhunting.
Yes but even treating the game as a logic puzzle the approach you propose is not optimal.
Crazy (136) wrote:And I'm really liking ABR now... I didn't consider that multiple sabotages was the best option for town, but he's absolutely right.
Incorrect. Also, if we get two scum on the plans how do ya know both will sabotage anyway?????? Same with three. Seriously this logic is horrible.
ABR: 137, it says in your pm you are not allowed to communicate outside of the game thread at any time with the other spies, just a heads up.
Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.