MAFIA: TURF WARS (GAME THREAD)

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


*bzzzt* wrong answer!

The correct answer is:

The first round, because we have little information as it is. We want more active players in the later rounds because we'll have more information to work with.

Come again soon!

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry Kyro, it's not that simple.

Random lynchings in first rounds lead to random lynchings in future rounds. It's very easy to hide behind the "close your eyes and point" method in day 1, and when a bunch of people do this, we're back to where we started on day 2 with little information. It becomes a slippery slope. Blind guessing the first day hurts the village just as much as letting AFK players live.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you and kyro agree, at least based on these two posts. the argument was that lynching AFKers turns it into a crap shoot (on the AFK player's role. Kyro said that's better early than late. I don't think either was advocating a rand() method.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you always so wrong? No, trust me. We definitely disagree.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]


Not sure why you would POSSIBLY think we would have random lynchings in future rounds.


[/ QUOTE ]
Hello? Do you not see that if day 1 consists of everyone agreeing to lynch a random AFK newbie, we have nothing on day 2? It's common sense that a blind lynching gives the village much less info than a non-random one.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Not sure why you would POSSIBLY think we would have random lynchings in future rounds.


[/ QUOTE ]
Hello? Do you not see that if day 1 consists of everyone agreeing to lynch a random AFK newbie, we have nothing on day 2? It's common sense that a blind lynching gives the village much less info than a non-random one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi!

I didn't realize everyone had voted for AFK player this round. My bad.

Oh wait, WE HAVEN'T.

No, we've got a million different votes on a million different people. I've already got my suspect list, and it contains few AFK players. Personally, I think there's a lot to be gleaned from this round, but that doesn't change the fact WE DON'T WANT AFK PLAYERS IN THIS GAME.

[wdcbooks]

THEN WHY AREN"T YOU VOTING FOR A HABITUALLY AFK PLAYER!!!

More civilly to Alex. I sympathize with what you are saying, but how do you propose to reach an endgame that isn't filled with people who barely post. I guarantee they won't give you enought to know whether or not they are Mafia. I am choosing the lesser of two evils.

[Tokyo!!]

I've been a long-time supporter of lynching afk'ers, but recently with the implementation of subs into games (which didn't happen often a long time ago), afk'ers are less of a problem. I'm not sure of Zurvan's policy on replacements, but if he is going to replace people who don't show up for a day or two, then why bother killing them. In the past these very afk people have been villagers like 95% of the time. It is the people who come here, post once or twice a day, and leave nothing that are worse than actual AFK'ers (unless this is the group kyro means, in which case I totally agree).

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
THEN WHY AREN"T YOU VOTING FOR A HABITUALLY AFK PLAYER!!!

More civilly to Alex. I sympathize with what you are saying, but how do you propose to reach an endgame that isn't filled with people who barely post. I guarantee they won't give you enought to know whether or not they are Mafia. I am choosing the lesser of two evils.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFK, quiet, same thing. Hence my areinitz vote which you condemned. Wolf.

Don't worry, my final vote will be on someone of that nature.

[Elevens]

[ QUOTE ]
It is the people who come here, post once or twice a day, and leave nothing that are worse than actual AFK'ers (unless this is the group kyro means, in which case I totally agree).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the group we're all talking about.

[wdcbooks]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been a long-time supporter of lynching afk'ers, but recently with the implementation of subs into games (which didn't happen often a long time ago), afk'ers are less of a problem. I'm not sure of Zurvan's policy on replacements, but if he is going to replace people who don't show up for a day or two, then why bother killing them. In the past these very afk people have been villagers like 95% of the time. It is the people who come here, post once or twice a day, and leave nothing that are worse than actual AFK'ers (unless this is the group kyro means, in which case I totally agree).

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly the group I mean. I want the under the radar types gone. I am not voting based on who has posted in this thread. I want to get rid of the types who post so little, or with so little substance, that it is impossible to tell what they are.

Replacements are fine, but if someone makes at least one post per day they are sticking around. The more posts we get those people to make in their own self-interest, the better off the village is.

[.Alex.]

wdc,

Well, I have argued for Scott's proposal for a minimum posts per day. Since we don't have this, I understand the problem. This is why I am starting to come around to your side. My point was that it's not as clear cut as kyro is making it out to be.

[DMBFan23]

Kyro,

Here's how I'm always so wrong. I saw

[ QUOTE ]
It's very easy to hide behind the "close your eyes and point"

[/ QUOTE ]

and assumed that meant something OTHER than "lynch an AFK player."

OOPS.