Mafiascum.net

Are you judging me you prick?

In post 25, Nero Cain wrote:Are you judging me you prick?

I don't judge; I critique.

But in all seriousness--I'd love to see you improve, and you pretty much admitted that you have the problem, so my guide is meant to offer a potential solution.

This thread is masturbatory!

Well its not like the player mislynches himself so those other guys are just as much as fault. What Fonz says is true as well. Take MOI for example. He was pretty good at getting players lynched regardless of alignment. I'd say he was pretty charismatic.

Though I think I have gotten better and defending myself. I'd still consider myself lynch bait and far from perfect but still...

CAPS posting is its own little interesting thing. Biggest problem is that you actually need some form of track record of even being half decent before it can start to work, even then not everyone can make it work. Its no real secret that there are a few CAPS players who I think are not that great and are horrible people, but using it poorly makes the game quite a bit less enjoyable for everyone who is not you or your buddy. Like in a big group of people a couple are making and laughing at crude jokes while everyone else is uncomfortable. Its just one of those tools that gets misused so much the couple people who can use it effectively are a rarity, I may be missing some but apart from Fate/kuribo I cant think of any that are really stronger than average players.

CAPS is basically the anti-charisma, and most "angry" type players who aren't recognized as good just get reemed in games.

For the most part I think there is some correlation between likeability and being lynched. Not as much charisma. If you are liked in the playerlist, its going to be harder to lynch you than if you are getting on everyones nerves for any reason. Some games it means you have to be more kind, others you don't even need to worry about being a dick because its going to be the norm.

I have no charismatix.

Lulz

In post 28, Nero Cain wrote:Well its not like the player mislynches himself so those other guys are just as much as fault.

"Just as much" being the key phrase, because it means that there's just as much blame on you as well.

Sure, yeah. Sometimes, there's nothing you can do to prevent derptown from mislynching ya. *coughcoughmini1377or1379doesn'tmatteryouknowthegamecoughcough* But most of the time, there's blame on both sides. How much blame varies from game to game, but a safe assumption to make (for the sake of argument) is 50/50. The town might have derped by lynching you, but you also have a lot to improve on yourself to stop those lynches on you. This is something I know all too well. Arrogantly assuming you're not at fault is a sure-fire way to never improve. The first step to correcting the problem is to admit that you the problem, and it's not everyone else; it's .

While it generally isn't necessarily true, for the sake of maximum improvement, I'd actually recommend taking 80% of the blame, because it gets you more into the mindset of "I need to improve". (It's about how much blame I give myself; I recognize the flaws in my play and that it was mostly me...most of the time, anyway. *coughcoughcooldogandbbmollaiwillneverletthisdowncoughcough* )




And I guess another way of saying what I said (that you need to present yourself) is what LlamaFluff said; "being likable" is basically the goal of good presentation; good presentation is presenting yourself favorably, and the end result of this favorable presentation is people liking you.

In post 22, mastin2 wrote:

In post 21, The Fonz wrote:It's less 'the least charismatic player gets lynched' and more 'whoever the charismatic players want lynched are the lynch candidates.'

Again, these are pretty much the same. If a charismatic player wants to lynch another charismatic player, that's not happening. (Well, it could, but often won't. ) If their next choice is also a charismatic player, same story; they're not going to get that lynch. And so on, until they get to a name on their scum list...who

isn't

a charismatic player.

So your version is also true, but has the same net effect: charismatic players live, uncharismatic players get lynched.

Or, in my words, players presenting themselves positively live, and players presenting themselves poorly get lynched.

Nope, because 'charismatic' isn't a binary. A player of middling charisma who is being attacked by charismatic players is under more threat than a player of minimal charisma who the charismatic players think is town.

Ehhh, I consider charisma overrated. Just play well, don't worry about sucking up to the other players.

In post 9, LlamaFluff wrote:

In post 8, Majiffy wrote:Apathetic sheeptown will lynch the wallposters first so they have less shit to sort through when they feel they can finally get a grasp on the game.

Its the opposite more often than not from experience, like amazingly opposite. If you can make wallposts that are sound most players immediately equate it to town. So much easier to get a player who doesnt make big posts lynched. Maybe spammy wall posters are easy lynches, but go through all of the "really hard lynches" on the site and you get far more wall post type players. Lynch bait are mostly spammers and lurkers.

Also im not THAT antagonistic (and will usually just stop at calling them derps unless they are ruffling me or im trying to push theory that is getting met with dismissal/resistance), and actually find it more the opposite of what you are saying. When you don't really behave aggressively when needed, that gets you into trouble suspicion wise. Stepping in and stopping something bad from happening or keeping someone from being overly anti-town works well in limited amounts. Going way overboard on being aggressive is bad, being afraid to make another player mad is bad too. Happy medium is hard to find because where that medium is will vary vastly from player to player.

I agree with this overall, but it does vary by context.


Anyone got any tips for how to make it sound like you're confident, but don't think your way is the only right way?

I struggle with this, because I find saying, "Well, I really think I am right, but there's always the possibility that I'm wrong" completely counterintuitive, but end up rubbing certain sensitive people the wrong way sometimes.

Not really sure what subtle phrasing needs to change.

In post 35, Amrun wrote:"Well, I really think I am right, but there's always the possibility that I'm wrong" completely counterintuitive,

It's not counterintuitive. That thought process / frame-of-mind is the one you must be in to have a productive discussion about anything. *shrug*

In post 36, quadz08 wrote:

In post 35, Amrun wrote:"Well, I really think I am right, but there's always the possibility that I'm wrong" completely counterintuitive,

It's not counterintuitive. That thought process / frame-of-mind is the one you must be in to have a productive discussion about anything. *shrug*

Yeah, but I have the frame of mind already. I constantly second guess myself.

SAYING it constantly is what's counterintuitive.

Upon reflection, this might be some of my writing training, because you must never say such things when writing anything in my field. It's poor technique.

In my field, it's understood that you're saying what you think with the possibility of being wrong. If you didn't think it, you wouldn't be saying it. It's immediately understood that should new information present itself to you, you will re-evaluate.

Why ISN'T mafia like that? It's the most logical way to be, IMHO. We all understand the premise of the game, and that you must work off of your own assumptions that are sometimes incorrect.

I am positive it's a wording issue, but not sure how to resolve it.

Because not everyone does think that way, especially while arguing, so it's important to let others know that you thinking that way.

don't phrase it like that though

people should be able to infer when you're saying things they're not 100% fact by virtue of the fact it's really obvious, you don't need to qualify everything although strategically qualifying certain things is probs okay although i'm not really sure (haha)

In post 40, Faraday wrote:people should be able to infer when you're saying things they're not 100% fact by virtue of the fact it's really obvious, you don't need to qualify everything although strategically qualifying certain things is probs okay although i'm not really sure (haha)

Yeah, this is exactly how I feel about it!

I feel like if you qualify things when you're presenting an argument, it will come out as a huge, waffling, wordy thing that doesn't even make much sense in the end. And also I'd almost definitely find it scummy if someone really did that.

I DON'T see people doing that, so I don't understand what thing it is that I am doing that gives people the incorrect impression that this imaginary qualifier doesn't exist for me but does exist for other people. I'm sure there is SOMETHING, but what, I just don't know.


Edit: and it's not like I don't modify my speech here; I'd get marked off major points for using "feel" that way if a professor marked this comment. Maybe I don't modify it enough? Idk.

well it's like "stop speaking in facts it's just your opinion", is something i've seen said. and well, fuck. really? the words coming FROM MY FINGERTIPS are my opinion. who knew?

In post 42, Eddard Stark wrote:well it's like "stop speaking in facts it's just your opinion", is something i've seen said. and well, fuck. really? the words coming FROM MY FINGERTIPS are my opinion. who knew?

Yeah, exactly. At least someone feels my pain. Ha.

In post 38, quadz08 wrote:Because not everyone does think that way, especially while arguing, so it's important to let others know that you

are

thinking that way.

Exactly. I disagree with faraday and whoever else, you should say how certain you are when you say statements like that.

Why? If you're not reasonably certain, maybe, but most things are said with a pretty "normal" level of certainty.

In post 36, quadz08 wrote:

In post 35, Amrun wrote:"Well, I really think I am right, but there's always the possibility that I'm wrong" completely counterintuitive,

It's not counterintuitive. That thought process / frame-of-mind is the one you must be in to have a productive discussion about anything. *shrug*

Yeah. The ballistics expert who was a defense witness in the Zimmerman trial was a very good example of this.

Prosecutor: So you're saying A is possible?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor: Is B also possible?
Witness: A is possible, B is also possible, and here's why A is much much more likely than B.

"Look, it's not impossible you're right [unless it actually is], but I really don't think so," is a good way to argue imho. There's a difference between being sure X is the best lynch, which I often am, and being sure X is scum, which hardly ever happens. Day one, I'm probably never more than 60% sure of the player I'm on flipping scum, and very rarely that confident.

In post 9, LlamaFluff wrote:

In post 8, Majiffy wrote:Apathetic sheeptown will lynch the wallposters first so they have less shit to sort through when they feel they can finally get a grasp on the game.

Its the opposite more often than not from experience, like amazingly opposite.

If you can make wallposts that are sound most players immediately equate it to town

. So much easier to get a player who doesnt make big posts lynched. Maybe spammy wall posters are easy lynches, but go through all of the "really hard lynches" on the site and you get far more wall post type players. Lynch bait are mostly spammers and lurkers.

Also im not THAT antagonistic (and will usually just stop at calling them derps unless they are ruffling me or im trying to push theory that is getting met with dismissal/resistance), and actually find it more the opposite of what you are saying. When you don't really behave aggressively when needed, that gets you into trouble suspicion wise. Stepping in and stopping something bad from happening or keeping someone from being overly anti-town works well in limited amounts. Going way overboard on being aggressive is bad, being afraid to make another player mad is bad too. Happy medium is hard to find because where that medium is will vary vastly from player to player.

I would agree with that statement.

Back on my home site, I played a 12 player game with 2 survivors, 2 mafia, and 8 town. We lynched MAF Day 1, The remaining MAF nl for 5 days and posted walls, and we never lynched him. I eve gave him a 1-shot vig and he still didn't shoot.

What the fuck kind of asshole puts not one but TWO survivors in a setup

A mafia-bot designed game. Random role game I played in had two.