Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Community Mafia: Game Thread
Yeah, that all makes sense and is very sound. I especially like the part about pressure voting; it's a tactic I am very very fond of and I could go into a whole rant about why FoS is the worst thing ever and you should really just vote instead, but I'll save that in case it becomes relevant.


Also, just to state for the record, I do agree that mislynches tend to be better than no lynches. What I think I've failed to convey properly is that I'd like us to have a big paper trail for all lynches, even, no, especially the bad ones. Scum can win by stalling out and picking town off, but they can also win if lynches go down without leaving a trail. In that case, future lynches are uninformed and we see a reduction in the number of night phases any investigative roles have to parse stuff out and potentially sow information of their own. I hate relying on night roles, but I'd rather that than lynches which just aren't gonna give us anything at all if they go awry.

So, this is a long way of saying I think we're driving at the same goals, but from different angles.

As to quote walls: Yeah, I'll try to do that a bit less. One part of the theory thing is that I've noted a lot of participants disengage hard if stuff gets too long, and unfortunately our active players (and I include myself here as I'm probably among the most guilty of this) tend to run really long and complex. I just want to coax overall participation, so we can make educated calls wherever possible.

Community Mafia: Game Thread
Just to note: Survivor mafia was a different voting system. There was a lynch every day, no matter what, and the GM threatened dire consequences should the voting be a tie.

Community Mafia: Game Thread
Sep 30 2013, 02:08 PM
Sep 30 2013, 02:03 PM
Obligatory reminder that that's only true if it's a bad lynch for actual reasons and that everyone should be onboard and sharing their reasoning the whole way so that scum can't hide in a cloud of "Well, gee, the first three people had some good ideas and a bad lynch is better than no lynch, so like fifteen townies all voted without reasoning and now there's nothing on any of them."

Deadline lynches given a lack of town consensus are fine. Sacrificing that because a lot of people are "meh" about a wagon is not a conducive way to play; you don't get information without flips, and lynches are the only NK's that town controls (unless there's a Vig, which is always hard to gauge). Towns often have to sheep to some degree to get lynches through. People's fear of aggressive wagoning on this site is a huge problem.
1. Lynches aren't NKs. [/pedantic ><]

2. Having been scum before, there are two ways we've wrecked town. The first is indecision. The second is manipulating deadline lynches. If you go with them with no evidence collected, you are gambling. People can even just explain why evidence convinces them. Saying that throwing down a vote is good enough is saying that we might as well not try to do well.

You don't get information with no flips, but you also don't get information beyond what is doled out to you if a few strong voices control all the discourse, and that happens all the time here. At that point, if the voices are predominantly scum, the game is effectively over if everyone just follows them.

People lynch just to lynch, and sometimes that's needed but sometimes it hamstrings town by doubling the speed at which they lose. A smaller pool of candidates for lynching means more likelihood to hit scum, but also a shorter time until they win, and a lynch which is effectively random from 80% of the game is useless as heck except for a. the off-chance it catches scum and b. getting reads on the 20% who bothered to say anything. That we will likely never hit 100% detailed reasoning is no reason to discourage folks from trying.

That said, I'm gonna throw out something else to discuss:

VOTE: BROseidon

I would like to make a few suggestions here. The first is, adjust your discourse and theory to account for the audience. As it is, this is a highly aggressive style, which is fine, but you're having a conversation with me and penguin and nobody else. As it is, it reads as an early game attempt to set yourself up as a strong town voice, and I'm always a little bit leery of that when there's little else to go on.

More than that, earlier on you said you'd redefine if people need it. People need it. A glance through past threads, heck, even having played in them, will reveal that nobody has a clue what you're talking about. For being so concerned with smart play, the decision to continue in that vein has me really baffled, in that it run contrary to efficient usage of time and mobilization of resources. We can stop and redefine stuff every five posts, or we can give the basic theory behind it and skip that process. With those two options on the table, why on earth choose the former?

So my vote here, bearing in mind the early stage, is for an overly aggressive attempt at controlling the discourse coupled with an obvious obfuscation of that discourse at the same time. I would really like to hear the rationale behind both these choices.

Community Mafia: Game Thread
Sep 30 2013, 02:01 PM
By the way, MW - that question link is linking to Mara's post, in which no question at BRO was asked. Another link bork up?
Agh, rats, no. I misread Mara's post as quoting Bro rather than Aura, and didn't want to read through the entirety of that mafia again since it linked to the opening post. Consider my question to Bro withdrawn with apologies for the mess up.

With that cleared out, though, I'm actually moving a bit towards his and Mara's position. Aura, why does it bug you?

Community Mafia: Game Thread
Obligatory reminder that that's only true if it's a bad lynch for actual reasons and that everyone should be onboard and sharing their reasoning the whole way so that scum can't hide in a cloud of "Well, gee, the first three people had some good ideas and a bad lynch is better than no lynch, so like fifteen townies all voted without reasoning and now there's nothing on any of them."

Community Mafia: Game Thread
EBWOP: Oh lovely, along with the site being borked, my linking method has gotten messed up. It's on this page, post 6133. For those who don't want to click through:

May 21 2013: 06:11 PM
Holy fucking shit playing mafia on mafiascum is different. Some of the players there are scary, scary good...

Community Mafia: Game Thread
Sep 30 2013, 12:50 AM
Also, why are you interrupting my line of questioning on AMF?
Because the answer is really obviously "no" and at the same time he's probably gonna have no clue what you mean due to the abbreviation, so we'll have to spend a day or two parsing it out (dependent on posting speed; even a few hours wasted can be bad news, and I do not trust time zones to sync up. Remember, SOTF mafia moves much more slowly than Mafiascum, so it's not unheard of for a poster to take 12-36 hours to reply). At the same time, if he really is scum or if he's town, he's gonna say no either way, thus earning us exactly jack squat for the investment of time. Meanwhile, we'll focus a lot of attention onto a question that can only possibly have one answer. While pursuing other leads is possible simultaneously, I don't like a focus on one that is only gonna catch someone out through phenomenally poor play given much footing.

BRO: Why the ignoring of this question? We know you read it, since you further questioned Mara, and unlike with Aura, I can see a few possible answers. Now, I'm not gonna harp on it too much because the answer is right there and I've got a pretty good memory; you clearly started playing on Mafiascum since that game ran its course, but throwing questions left and right without answering them is a really dialogue-controlling move. I'm not comfortable with any single player dictating the flow of information, and seeing questions get shoved aside sits poorly with me, even if I laud the spraying of them towards everyone else.[/url]

I just wanted to confirm that staff has not heard anything further in the last three days, but that Zetaboards assured us they are looking into things and that they hope to recover our lost data.

Community Mafia: Game Thread
I'd hazard a warning that in the past,applying too much mafia theory to those utterly ignorant of it has resulted in me face-planting into a big old pile of obtuseness. That said, yes, there's a boatload of purpose to the first phase (you may note I came out with my serious face on). If anything can be gleaned, or more likely, if anything can be set up for later, that's really huge.

I do agree that Grim's vote is a little sketchy, though I've been on the receiving end of those sentiments a boatload in the past. The phrasing is indicative of a bit more seriousness, but I'd give good odds it's just extremely dry humor. At present, it doesn't move beyond a cocked eyebrow for me, especially when there's so much drowning out of productive discourse (my very least favorite mafia thing ever). Still, I'd love to hear further elaboration from him, and from others.

Community Mafia: Game Thread
There is a way to have joke votes be useful. It is putting them on actual people, so we can at least fish through the record later.

Community Mafia: Game Thread
It won't be. Hence, of course, my traditional dive straight into serious mode at the first sign of anything of note. Now, I don't think Un's scum. We're like ten posts into the game, so I don't think anyone is scum, but I see a signal-to-noise ratio that is remarkably low given the content of posts, plus a joke vote that denies even the loose sort of WIFOM guessing we can normally pull from joke votes. So it's not my favorite thing to see at the start. I'd encourage everyone to commit to an actual vote if they're gonna joke.

Also, sadly, I will probably be unable to do charts this game. I'm spread between two computers at the moment, and setting up a GDoc would add several steps to an already time-consuming process.

Community Mafia: Game Thread
Role confirmed!

VOTE: Un-Persona for not only joke voting, but joke voting uselessly.

Community Mafia Sign-Ups
I'd love to participate.

New League of Legends Thread
MK Kilmarnock
Sep 24 2013, 11:55 AM
So you won a 3v5? Damn bro.
Nah, the trolls actually started pulling their weight and trash-talking everyone about that, I think in an effort to get a rise out of people. Unfortunately for them, the other two on our team had ignored them and I just wasn't responding (I left them off ignore just so I could tell what all to report them for). I think their game was to appear competent and get the enemy team to report everyone else, who were getting stomped due to hilariously awful positioning caused by the trolls' refusal to cooperate.

I wish you could save gamelogs some way, because there were some great lines. As far as I recall, it was something like:

"So, what, you kill neutral monsters? How does that help the team at all? Play a real champ next time!"

New League of Legends Thread
Had my first encounter with trolls today. Everyone except Annie called in the pregame screen. Everyone assumed she was mid. LOLNO! Duo top Rammus and Annie! Screw mid. Jungling's for sissies, so pick a real champion next time! Rammus was obviously in on it too, trash-talking nonstop. His name was ThisGameIsn'tFun.

Anyways, the whole team ignored and then reported them. We actually won, despite Annie turret diving and Rammus rolling back to base rather than using recall, because the trolls decided on a different con when we didn't react and started asking for everyone else to report all the non-trolls on the team. Hilariously, this did not really have the intended effect.

Anyways, it was weird to deal with, but kinda funny on the whole, and probably way frustrating for the trolls because the three regular players just ignored them entirely until post-game.

On Courtesy, Plotlines, and Proper Communication
I got a PM today, involving a recent incident of off-site vandalism. I don't know who was involved, and really, I don't want to. That it happened was enough, and thus I find myself having to make this announcement.

SOTF is a game with room for a lot of things. We've had killers, victims, escapees, and all manner who fall somewhere in between. We've had good writers and ones still working hard to improve, often overcoming significant challenges to do so. Our members have ranged in age from thirteen to mid-forties.

What we do not have room for is nastiness.

I was told that a document containing escape planning was edited without authorization, filled with insults and the like. That's a really big problem. As this was off-site, there's not a lot I can do or say except letting everyone know that I'm really disappointed this took place, and I sincerely hope to never have this sort of thing occur again.

Folks may remember how I felt about similar incidents during V4's various plot twists, especially regarding Liz Polanski. I feel, as a site, we have a tendency to dogpile plots, characters, and ideas that fall outside the norm, and that's a darn shame. Without innovation, we'd still be ripping off Kamon's dialogue from the BR Manga and counting kills as measure of a character's quality.

If you don't like a plot? That's fine. You can say it. Talk about it RP Discussion. Comment on the wiki. Just be sure to do so in a reasoned fashion, to avoid insults, and to have the courage to attach your name to your comments. I have characters and plots I can't stand. I think my feelings on, say, the planning stages of V3's metaplot are very widely known. It is totally fine to vehemently express your distaste for something, but you must do so respectfully and through the proper channels.

As to escape stuff? If you don't like it, avoid it. Don't read it. Don't join threads about it. Staff will always do our best to ensure that nothing is forced on any handler who is not interested in participating (this, for the record, has a lot to do with how V4's rescue was handled). In the meantime, though? Whether an escape succeeds or fails is down to whether it logically would, based on factors established by the staff before the game. Handlers making an attempt are going in taking a huge risk, and knowing what they face if they fail. On a personal level, I think that's incredibly cool, and I'd hate to see people discouraged from thinking SOTF is a place where you can try cool new things.

So... play nice, everyone. We all have a lot more fun when you do.

Activity Situation
Yes, since they can't really join threads when all the open threads are screwed up.

Activity Situation
Hey, everyone! After some consultation, the staff has decided the following:

Once we get our data back (or, worst case, become certain it's gone for good), we are doing a hard reset on activity. What that means is, we'll post here, and everyone has two weeks from that time to get a post up, with enforcement returning to usual afterwards.

We're doing this for a few reasons, but basically because it seems fairest to restore everyone to even footing following this massive disruption.

I'll post letting you all know when the two-week timer starts. Until then, hang tight. Thank you all for your patience with this mess.

Temporary Rolls Thread
Hey, guys! So that you can plan, here are the rolls:

1. Rose Matheson (Solitair)
2. Steven Salazar (MurderWeasel)
3. Corey Esposito (CondorTalon)
4. Alex King (Slamexo)
5. Gavin Hunter (Ghost of Ravenstar) - Megan Emerson (JillSandwich, Hero card used)
6. Alice Gilman (dmboogie)

Deadline is extended until three days after everything is fixed for cards, seven for deaths. I'm just posting this so folks can plan.


We will have an announcement when the clock is ticking again. This is just me pulling stuff so people are not left in the dark. We realize planning/doing anything is impossible with two weeks of posts missing, though.

I'm gonna go ahead and say we're on activity-freebie mode until three days after everything's sorted out.

The oneshot rule also still applies, even though missing at present.