|
On February 15 2010 09:32 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I sorta agree... I got caught in this type of trap myself, where I so firmly beleived in tredmasta's guilt based on what I thought was a strong clue and it turned out he was a vigilante. I see the clue connection, but I'm wary of the level of conviction you have in it.
As mafia in the previous game, I was aware who that clue referred to, but I was surprised you thought tredmasta was a stronger connection than flamewheel91.
But L has said many times he is perfectly willing to consider alternatives. Ace's aggressive defense, redtooth's inconsistent and in one case completely incorrect arguments, and Ace's refusal to refute the central point of L's accusation doesn't exactly help out.
|
On February 15 2010 09:35 Nikoner wrote:
Also, before I go to sleep, Phrujbaz is mafia.
ughhhh
justify plzzzzz
|
On February 15 2010 09:37 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:35 Nikoner wrote:
Also, before I go to sleep, Phrujbaz is mafia. ughhhh justify plzzzzz He's not serious. Nikoner said the same thing last game, if I remember correctly they have an SC rivalry...
oh i see lol
|
On February 15 2010 09:41 L wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:34 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I think that while the connections could be red herrings, we should lynch whichever connection has generated the most discussion, not whichever connection links to the most irritating or inactive poster. What good does it serve us to lynch someone who is connected to the clues but hasn't created any controversy, or any meaningful argument? We don't gain any information about other players, because no other players have made arguments about them. Lynching an inactive who hasn't posted a defense, or who no one has posted in defense of, is akin to picking a lynch name out of a hat, regardless of which way it flips its not leading us anywhere. We shouldn't lynch the most talked about connection; we should lynch the most certain connection. These are two different things. I don't give a shit if someone doesn't reply if the weight of the evidence against them is overwhelming. The only thing your suggestion does is allow people the option of ignoring a topic instead of dealing with it, which is VERY, VERY bad.
Do you feel the connection is stronger to Ace or Empyrean?
I feel it's stronger to Empyrean because no one else could possibly fit the clue profile it seems. Multiple players could fit the killer you have said is Ace, even if they don't fit it as well.
|
On February 15 2010 09:43 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:32 meeple wrote:On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I sorta agree... I got caught in this type of trap myself, where I so firmly beleived in tredmasta's guilt based on what I thought was a strong clue and it turned out he was a vigilante. I see the clue connection, but I'm wary of the level of conviction you have in it. As mafia in the previous game, I was aware who that clue referred to, but I was surprised you thought tredmasta was a stronger connection than flamewheel91. But L has said many times he is perfectly willing to consider alternatives. Ace's aggressive defense, redtooth's inconsistent and in one case completely incorrect arguments, and Ace's refusal to refute the central point of L's accusation doesn't exactly help out. That screams out behaviourally that he is red  . He stand a very high chance of being mafia, and your point there is more reason to lynch him to me than the clues. Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:34 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I think that while the connections could be red herrings, we should lynch whichever connection has generated the most discussion, not whichever connection links to the most irritating or inactive poster. What good does it serve us to lynch someone who is connected to the clues but hasn't created any controversy, or any meaningful argument? We don't gain any information about other players, because no other players have made arguments about them. Lynching an inactive who hasn't posted a defense, or who no one has posted in defense of, is akin to picking a lynch name out of a hat, regardless of which way it flips its not leading us anywhere. My reasoning for wanting to avoid day 1 clues for now is basically this. Say we red herring someone, they die and flip townie, the persons defense will be "whoops my bad day 1 clues" If he does get a red (note this could be a lucky guess or an actual link, we wont know for certain unless those "links" disappear from future posts) the town will have a sense of trust in the person that isn't neccesarily earned. Its luck. Lynching someone off a list of inactives, or inactives that fit the themes of mafia's we have established does two things. It removes someone from a list who was considered red, It removes someone who isn't contributing and helps prevent mafia from hiding among inactives. I am all for lynching someone day 1 based off behaviour, and would say that you can make strong cases based off clue accusations on why you should lynch someone (reactions tell alot). Just lynching off of day 1 clues for the seemingly strongest connection seems strained.
I don't understand your reply, does "he" refer to L or Ace and everything from "your point" onward seems like it's missing a few words
|
kk, that's what I thought you meant.
Ace's arguments are circular and a bit irrational. L is keeping it objective and focusing the attention on what matters, the clue analysis.
Ace is trying to divert attention away from that and making unnecessary personal attacks on L. Suspicious behavior. I'm more certain that Ace is mafia at this point than Bill Murray and if I am elected, I will lynch Ace.
Bill Murray is the "safe" choice, but if he flips green we learn nothing. If he flips red, Ace/redtooth are suspicious imo, but we learn absolutely nothing if he was green other than he played badly yet again. Considering his play in the last game, it now seems more likely that he is just a bad townie. That "other mafia godfather" was initially very incriminating, but after discussing with him in PM and arguing with him a bit I don't think he's mafia at all. If he was, he'd have no reason to get angry and flame me in PM unless he is literally the worst mafia player ever.
If Ace is green we get a lot more information. Personally I don't feel it would make L suspect because his accusations against him were all based on the clues, but we may be able to cross a lot of potential mafia off of our list.
If he is red, Bill Murray, redtooth, and people who just immediately voted for him/defended him without thinking about the arguments would fall under some degree of suspicion.
|
On February 15 2010 09:52 Foolishness wrote:
Okay people lets consider a few important ideas that are often overlooked that need to be taken into account soon.
There is absolutely zero reason to vote for Ver. We all know what happened last time he ran for office, I will summarize for those who are unfamiliar:
Ver: "waaa waaa I hate my life soooo many people PMing me waaa waaaa Ace Ace L Ace waa waaa please modkill me waaaa"
Point being, if you are town there is no reason to want Ver in office. If Ver is on the town side, he's only going to rage quit in two days. If Ver is mafia, you don't want a mafia in office. Don't elect someone who is going to cop out a third of the way through the game. At any rate, he has only half-heartedly made a campaign for office, I don't think he even wants to be elected anyways. Lots of people in the thread have been reinforcing their arguments with players' behavior in past games. Well, Ver's behavior in past games when he is elected is to rage quit. If you are one of these people that uses arguments like these, don't vote for Ver.
As I am sure someone else will do it, there seems to me to be a boatload of people who have yet to post or who have only made one or two posts (worthless posts might I add, for example OH HI IM HERE IMMA GO READ THE THREAD AND CATCH UP). As it has been correctly pointed out before, the mafia is going to be hiding among these inactive people. We have seen clearly in past games how the town goes ballistic killing itself while the mafia sits back and laughs. Lets make sure we keep track of all these people not contributing.
Okay, anyone who thinks we should kill Bill Murray is a complete idiot. Yes, that means you redtooth and DoctorHelvetica. And also laaan although you haven't explicitly said anything. Even BM pointed out that if he was mafia, he'd have other mafia members telling him what to post and how to do it. He is obviously way too incompetent where that would be the case this game. Furthermore, there are a bunch of inactive people, if he was mafia, I'm sure he'd be sitting right in that pool.
Remember guys, this is online mafia on teamliquid. This means that the teams are stacked for balancing issues (in other words, mafia members are not chosen at random). In a previous game where all of the veteran players where on the townside, the mafia got raped hard. With the addition of two mafia families, we can be reasonably sure that at least one, probably a few, of the veterans is mafia. While L's posts are almost all worth ignoring, he wants to kill Ace, who is a veteran, and thus we have to slog through his nonsensical posting. But killing off Ace is definitely something the town should highly consider. Perhaps you think Ace is too godly to kill off yet. If so, Ver has good analysis of BC, of which should be considered.
Remember guys, a veteran on the mafia side is a huge threat. They have the power to organize the mafia to victory. A mafia without a veteran is relatively helpless. On the contrast, the town can make do without a veteran. In fact, lots of times veterans hurt the town more than they help (I could site numerous examples, but I'm sure you all know). It's really easy for a novice player to step up as a green/blue and lead the town to victory. Heck I have nearly pulled this feat off in my first two games when I correctly found over 50% of the mafia. And I definitely pulled it off without any so called "veterans". It's clear that killing veterans is the right course of action as we could potentially deal a substantial blow to the mafia.
Considering Bill Murrays hotheaded attitude and erratic behavior in the previous game, I wouldn't be surprised if he posted without mafia direction. Besides, "oh i wouldnt do this if i was mafia dohohoho so i must be a townie" arguments are pretty weak.
Bill Murray isn't my #1 suspect anyway.
|
Where else is there to go?
|
On February 15 2010 10:02 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
Where else is there to go?
@789
|
if u dont listen to kpop while playing mafia
then ur not playin 4 real
|
On February 15 2010 10:11 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 10:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
if u dont listen to kpop while playing mafia
then ur not playin 4 real I listen to Tom Waits... if that dude doesn't put you in a sombre mood that's good for thinking, then nothing will.
was just listening to this lol
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 15 2010 10:14 789 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 10:04 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 10:02 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
Where else is there to go? @789 Well, as I said the 2 school of thought look like go for inactives or go for veteran players. If we go for inactives, we could combine that with clues and go for EMP... that seems to be the best way to go if we go after an inactive to me. As for veterans .. I don't personally have a leading candidate in mind there myself. Some of the stuff going on with accusations and stuff seems to be pre-existing grudges from other games.
Lynching Empyrean gives us no information. Although the clue connection is solid, Ace has a strong clue AND behavioral connection imo and we learn a lot depending on how he flips. It has nothing to do with if he's a veteran or not.
|
|
|
On February 15 2010 10:15 SugiuraMidori wrote:VerBloodyC0bblerDoctorHelvetica -M? --Just a lot of useless posts that worship the word of VerMasterDana johnnyspazz -M? --What Malongo said, and I tend to agree.Aceciti.zenVivi57 EmpyreanLucasWoJ XeliNAmber[Light] FishballQuickStriker789dozkoNikonertree.hugger ShoCkeyy Zato-1 - M1 FulgrimmeepleChezinuScampd3_crescentiaLZona Iaaan~OpZ~sidesprangShikyo CallerohN AbensonnemYMystlordredtoothCynanMachaePhrujbaz tredmasta SugiuraMidoriBill MurrayiNfuNdiBuLuM[NyC]HoBbesVersatile FaronelMalongodecafchicken l10fFoolishnessmadnessman______________________________________________ Keep in mind, I refuse to label anyone as blue, so green can be green or blue! If they have no color.. I have yet to figure them out! If they are underlined.. they made at least 3 posts.. or a combined posting of about 100 words. Bold indicates any comments I made. Also refer to quotes below. Italic can be saved for something else... not sure yet, will prolly be those that abstain from a vote. Relevant Quotes: Show nested quote +<Zato-1>
This game is different. If 'they' lose, by which I mean mafia members start dying, this will not necessarily be to our advantage. To illustrate my point, imagine there's 7 members of the Gambino family left alive, and 3 members of the Sumiyoshi family. Killing off additional members of the Sumiyoshi family in fact works against us- we're letting the Gambino family win. In fact, we actively do NOT want to publicly reveal the identities of the remaining Sumiyoshi family members in this example- we'd just be handing those names to the Gambino family on a platter so they can kill them at night.
Indicates he's with S and doesn't want to lose. Wants G gone. Show nested quote +<johnnyspazz>
Can't get to get started in this game, unfortunately I have family business to attend to and can't do any analysis until I get back later tonight.
Followed by: I got really sick and tired reading a dozen pages ago... this is really too damn much for me to deal with while trying to pass my last semester of college... I'll contribute what I can, but I'm not going to waste my time reading all the useless repetitive and often just word-worshiping that is going on here.... once some people die off and stop being pointless and repetitive I'll keep up. I also refuse to read blatant flaming or other posts with curse words or just stupid biased finger pointing without logical reasoning behind it. [flame flame flame] DrH.. you got the writer symbol.. be original, stop worshiping Ver... jeez. Ver/L/Ace... stop being redundant and pointless by posting and reposting rules and crap.. if they can't read, let the newbies suffer.. or they can ask mods.. not a hard concept. [/flame flame flame]
I got the writer symbol, be original, stop worshipping ver.
Have you read the last few pages. I explained at length why i initially agreed with ver and why I changed my mind. I guess you haven't read past page 30, so maybe you aren't in the best place to be pointing fingers. A lot of useless posts? Maybe you don't think so, but I think I've been pretty useful insofar as documenting peoples arguments and points.
johnnyspazz's quote isn't really even remotely incriminating. IRL things do come up, that isn't enough to immediatly paint someone red imo
|
On February 15 2010 10:20 meeple wrote:Just to be clear, what does this refer to?
SM's post
|
On February 15 2010 10:27 SugiuraMidori wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 10:21 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
I got the writer symbol, be original, stop worshipping ver.
Have you read the last few pages. I explained at length why i initially agreed with ver and why I changed my mind. I guess you haven't read past page 30, so maybe you aren't in the best place to be pointing fingers. A lot of useless posts? Maybe you don't think so, but I think I've been pretty useful insofar as documenting peoples arguments and points.
johnnyspazz's quote isn't really even remotely incriminating. IRL things do come up, that isn't enough to immediatly paint someone red imo Correct, I got sick and tired of reading trash after half the pages of the content after the start of the game with the day post. So anything you might have said that was useful was covered up in the drivel you spouted before that halfway point.. All I did when I got annoyed with reading was mark for activity.
Worshipping Ver is a pretty ridiculous way to describe my posting. I agreed with Ver and offered my opinion onto the matter of clue analysis. No it wasn't groundbreaking but to describe it as drivel seems extreme to me.
But I'm biased.
As I said before, I lacked focus yesterday due to being busy with some other things (packing up my room) and am now in full alert mode. So I will apologize for not having much to offer previously, but I still wanted to get my 2 cents in.
|
On February 15 2010 10:33 789 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 10:25 Mystlord wrote:
You know, labeling people as blue, red, or green is nice and all...
but we should be concentrating on the mayoral elections.
I for one don't want to end up putting a crap or mafia mayor/pardoner into office because people are just riding the bandwagon.
I agree. It would be nice for all the candidates to say who they plan to lynch if elected and why.
Did we all not?
I will lynch Ace if elected mayor.
|
I voted for citi.zen because of how well he did last game and is uninvolved in the ace/l/redtooth drama. However, I am strongly considering changing my vote to L.
I'm thinking about it. Citi.zen has been a bit inactive.
|
Ace wasn't arguing? Are you kidding?
Honestly it seems to me like you're trying to do damagecontrol.
If the clue connection to ace is bad and ace wasn't making any arguments to begin with, what other reason could you possibly have to suspect him? You claim you aren't confident in his innocence, well why is that?
Ace has been anything but silent. Allow me to repost this list of his arguments up to the 23rd page.
Ace:
Talking about clues early is useless, they are useful later.
I'm being targeted by L and Zato because I'm a good pro-town player. (Implies L and Zat are mafia)
Be wary of light/ungrounded accusations.
Don't lynch strong players unless it is obvious they are mafia.
Blindly pointing fingers is bad no matter what.
Clues are subjective, not objective.
Never rely on clues.
I refuse to provide an alternative because I don't want to point fingers at anyone.
Clues are useful only when processed through DT's.
I can't be mafia because if I acted differently than in previous games everyone would notice and lynch me instantly.
I won't argue about clue analysis because it is subjective. I can debate whether they are valid because that is objective. Clue discussion leads to innocent death.
Don't think of this as 1v1v1, this game is about temporary allegiances as the mafia try to kill eachother.
L is trying to turn the town against me.
Very few people actually doubt me as pro-town.
L is trying to force my death and if I'm green/blue, he's definitely red.
Yeah, that sure sounds silent to me.
|
not a logical fallacy at all
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
