EPTWorld at War Mafia - Page 14
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
| ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
On March 24 2010 04:23 XeliN wrote: And OpZ don't read too much into my choosing to vote you atm, we are not going to have much information on anyone this early on and I just intuitively sensed something off in what you posted, could be wrong certainly. Also as to this "Also, your lynch idea as being the perfect retaliation to nuking? Wrong." Firstly I don't think it is perfect, just better than the other option which seems to be Nuke a Nuker, but anyway, why is it wrong? Xelin...Majority =Lynch. Not time frame. You might not be hear if another 9 vote to kill me. So I will read very much into it. You could be mafia or town, not be here, ect. when/if a 9th person votes for me. Sorry, I don't feel it's perfect. It's better than the nuke the whole world policy, tho. One nuke doesn't turn into 3. I like that. | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
Aye, give me a moment. I hadn't begun typing it yet. I was trying to catch up with the whole thread. | ||
|
Nikon
Bulgaria5710 Posts
On March 24 2010 03:37 JeeJee wrote: but what's worse than shooting down the nuke? hacking into it and turning it around? lol Radioactive fallout on the neighbouring countries. Radiation poisoning, more children with birth defects, etc. Look up Chernobil. Overall, I'd say that I agree with the "Lynch the nuker" plan. What's really interesting is: what if the mafia doesn't have nukes? Then what? Also, do Caller's fake nukes count as being launched anyway? | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
On March 24 2010 02:45 meeple wrote: I have to disagree.... if someone nukes without any good reason, the town can just anti-nuke it, no harm done, other than wasting the protection. The person who did it will get bitched out for a while and perhaps lynched/nuked. I do feel we need to progress the game though, so I'm calling out Opz from my guts about his post earlier. Convince me otherwise, but for now ##vote Opz You clearly have anti-nukes. =D Anyway, Long story short, read my post directed at Xelin. | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
[spoiler]Original post by elemenope + Show Spoiler + On March 23 2010 17:28 Elemenope wrote: Nukes should be treated as day vigilantes with a game cap. We shouldn't be afraid to use them, but we need to use them smartly or else game over if we abuse it which means there needs to be communication and discussion among everybody about potential targets as a very solid lynch target is also a very solid nuke target (aside from day 1 lynch and assuming we haven't burned through nukes to be near the threshold). With no PMs, it becomes even more imperative that everybody puts some input about topic points. This comes to the main point - usage of nukes/retaliation. I agree with L partially that maybe 2 nukes is a bit too little, but I don't agree with him that everybody should just counter-nuke due to a possible third party win condition. Unless of course by L saying "everybody chain nukes" he means a lot of people nuke rather than "everybody chain nukes." I believe one counter-nuke definitely is not enough. If this was the case, we'd just leave it up to the person who has the nuke called on him to retaliate or have some person claim that he’d counter-nuke and not have any nukes at all. I don’t think this is such a sound plan. Nobody is deciding on a lynch candidate just yet. L is simply throwing an option out there. His reasoning may be off in some people’s viewpoints, but the option is out there which is what’s important. Surely we’re not going to sit here for 48 hours discussing what everybody’s opinions on how our nukes should be used. L isn’t proposing we all agree with him and lynch Abenson which is why he hasn’t actually given a vote. Whether L proposed Abenson, Zona, or anybody else doesn’t matter: the important thing is that extra discussion happens which will give us more tells about the players. This shows why we shouldn’t sit on a day 1 lynch. Yeah, bandwagons shouldn’t happen and with the majority rule, it is imperative that people do in fact think for themselves. However, because we act on a majority rule, nobody is obligated to vote past the majority. Because of that, vote lists are a bit restricted if we don’t make full use of them now when everybody is equally suspect. Although it’s a bit counter-intuitive because we don’t want people to die, we need people to die to get information early on. That being said, I’m putting you out there for a day 1 lynch. This is because you've been in contradiction of what you said earlier about Zona thinking two nukes is too much. L’s deterrence offers that *everybody* nukes the initiator while Zona’s is on almost the opposite end: two is just fine. His plan also has nothing to do with the fact that people are “bullied” or “bandwagoning” either – you said yourself that one nuke should be enough, so why do you care if you are “bullied” by someone? The only thing that person can do during the day is nuke you which you can just retaliate back with “one retaliatory nuke” that “should be enough” according to what you have said. On top of that, you even say that you'll fire as many nukes in retaliation as possible if things do not go as planned. To whose plan? Surely not the town's as "we have no idea how many nukes can actually be fired before we wind up fucked from radiation" according to you. You may be a bit annoyed about how L acted last game, but that should have no bearing on this game. I just don’t see the logic in supporting L’s deterrence plan when proposing the opposite earlier, and when the logic has no link to L’s deterrence plan at all. His deterrence strategy doesn’t have anything to do with people getting pushed around, acting like sheep, or bandwagoning at all – it’s just a countermeasure to people having random nukes launched on them. Consider your stance a bit more. Anyway, going to write a paper. [/spoiler On March 23 2010 17:28 Elemenope wrote: Nukes should be treated as day vigilantes with a game cap. We shouldn't be afraid to use them, but we need to use them smartly or else game over if we abuse it which means there needs to be communication and discussion among everybody about potential targets as a very solid lynch target is also a very solid nuke target (aside from day 1 lynch and assuming we haven't burned through nukes to be near the threshold). With no PMs, it becomes even more imperative that everybody puts some input about topic points. This comes to the main point - usage of nukes/retaliation. I agree with L partially that maybe 2 nukes is a bit too little, but I don't agree with him that everybody should just counter-nuke due to a possible third party win condition. Unless of course by L saying "everybody chain nukes" he means a lot of people nuke rather than "everybody chain nukes." Yea, I don't want the ToD to increase, which is why I can't support it. I stated exactly what you said, we need to hear from everybody. We can't just jump on a vote and bandwagon. I believe one counter-nuke definitely is not enough. If this was the case, we'd just leave it up to the person who has the nuke called on him to retaliate or have some person claim that he’d counter-nuke and not have any nukes at all. I don’t think this is such a sound plan. Why do you think that isn't a good plan? What's wrong with it? Why would the counter nuker counter if he doesn't have any nukes? We can just kill him if he does that, but it really wouldn't matter. Why not just let the person BEING nuked counter, and if HE doesn't have nukes, let another...You didn't really explain here why that's the case? The idea you just said doesn't make sense, or I just can't understand it. I disagree with the firing or nukes for no reason already, but I think we should definitely consider the situation But you really didn't explain anything here. [QUOTE] Nobody is deciding on a lynch candidate just yet. L is simply throwing an option out there. His reasoning may be off in some people’s viewpoints, but the option is out there which is what’s important. Surely we’re not going to sit here for 48 hours discussing what everybody’s opinions on how our nukes should be used. L isn’t proposing we all agree with him and lynch Abenson which is why he hasn’t actually given a vote. Whether L proposed Abenson, Zona, or anybody else doesn’t matter: the important thing is that extra discussion happens which will give us more tells about the players.[/quote Oh, yes. L was assuredly saying we should lynch Abenson. Or atleast that is who he would lynch. Also: [quote]With no PMs, it becomes even more imperative that everybody puts some input about topic points.[/quote] But you are saying we shouldn't just sit here for 48 hours discussing nukes? Okay, I didn't say that. I said don't jump on lynching without giving everyone a chance for input. You even said everyone should speak, and its imperative that they do. Then why complain about me saying it, right afterwards? [quote] This shows why we shouldn’t sit on a day 1 lynch. Yeah, bandwagons shouldn’t happen and with the majority rule, it is imperative that people do in fact think for themselves. However, because we act on a majority rule, nobody is obligated to vote past the majority. Because of that, vote lists are a bit restricted if we don’t make full use of them now when everybody is equally suspect. Although it’s a bit counter-intuitive because we don’t want people to die, we need people to die to get information early on. [/quote] We need death for information, I was only speaking against bandwagoning. There was no real argument between us here... [QUOTE] That being said, I’m putting you out there for a day 1 lynch. This is because you've been in contradiction of what you said earlier about Zona thinking two nukes is too much. L’s deterrence offers that *everybody* nukes the initiator while Zona’s is on almost the opposite end: two is just fine. His plan also has nothing to do with the fact that people are “bullied” or “bandwagoning” either – you said yourself that one nuke should be enough, so why do you care if you are “bullied” by someone? The only thing that person can do during the day is nuke you which you can just retaliate back with “one retaliatory nuke” that “should be enough” according to what you have said. On top of that, you even say that you'll fire as many nukes in retaliation as possible if things do not go as planned. To whose plan? Surely not the town's as "we have no idea how many nukes can actually be fired before we wind up fucked from radiation" according to you. You may be a bit annoyed about how L acted last game, but that should have no bearing on this game. I just don’t see the logic in supporting L’s deterrence plan when proposing the opposite earlier, and when the logic has no link to L’s deterrence plan at all. His deterrence strategy doesn’t have anything to do with people getting pushed around, acting like sheep, or bandwagoning at all – it’s just a countermeasure to people having random nukes launched on them. Consider your stance a bit more. Anyway, going to write a paper. [/QUOTE] Yes, I was annoyed by L. You took my firing of nukes out of context. As in, my death is imminent, I will retaliate. I disagree with most of the nuking plan. I'm sorry I didn't post everything I had considered, but the game had just started as far as I was concerned. His deterrence plan isn't what I'm concerned with. Bully? Try and force a bandwagon. (I will not nuke on this) Try and lynch me. Try and lynch before everyone speaks. (or this) I refuse to accept this. This makes sense to me. I know my role. | ||
|
Versatile
United States396 Posts
| ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On March 23 2010 17:28 Elemenope wrote: Nukes should be treated as day vigilantes with a game cap. We shouldn't be afraid to use them, but we need to use them smartly or else game over if we abuse it which means there needs to be communication and discussion among everybody about potential targets as a very solid lynch target is also a very solid nuke target (aside from day 1 lynch and assuming we haven't burned through nukes to be near the threshold). With no PMs, it becomes even more imperative that everybody puts some input about topic points. This comes to the main point - usage of nukes/retaliation. I agree with L partially that maybe 2 nukes is a bit too little, but I don't agree with him that everybody should just counter-nuke due to a possible third party win condition. Unless of course by L saying "everybody chain nukes" he means a lot of people nuke rather than "everybody chain nukes." I believe one counter-nuke definitely is not enough. If this was the case, we'd just leave it up to the person who has the nuke called on him to retaliate or have some person claim that he’d counter-nuke and not have any nukes at all. I don’t think this is such a sound plan. Nobody is deciding on a lynch candidate just yet. L is simply throwing an option out there. His reasoning may be off in some people’s viewpoints, but the option is out there which is what’s important. Surely we’re not going to sit here for 48 hours discussing what everybody’s opinions on how our nukes should be used. L isn’t proposing we all agree with him and lynch Abenson which is why he hasn’t actually given a vote. Whether L proposed Abenson, Zona, or anybody else doesn’t matter: the important thing is that extra discussion happens which will give us more tells about the players. This shows why we shouldn’t sit on a day 1 lynch. Yeah, bandwagons shouldn’t happen and with the majority rule, it is imperative that people do in fact think for themselves. However, because we act on a majority rule, nobody is obligated to vote past the majority. Because of that, vote lists are a bit restricted if we don’t make full use of them now when everybody is equally suspect. Although it’s a bit counter-intuitive because we don’t want people to die, we need people to die to get information early on. That being said, I’m putting you out there for a day 1 lynch. This is because you've been in contradiction of what you said earlier about Zona thinking two nukes is too much. L’s deterrence offers that *everybody* nukes the initiator while Zona’s is on almost the opposite end: two is just fine. His plan also has nothing to do with the fact that people are “bullied” or “bandwagoning” either – you said yourself that one nuke should be enough, so why do you care if you are “bullied” by someone? The only thing that person can do during the day is nuke you which you can just retaliate back with “one retaliatory nuke” that “should be enough” according to what you have said. On top of that, you even say that you'll fire as many nukes in retaliation as possible if things do not go as planned. To whose plan? Surely not the town's as "we have no idea how many nukes can actually be fired before we wind up fucked from radiation" according to you. You may be a bit annoyed about how L acted last game, but that should have no bearing on this game. I just don’t see the logic in supporting L’s deterrence plan when proposing the opposite earlier, and when the logic has no link to L’s deterrence plan at all. His deterrence strategy doesn’t have anything to do with people getting pushed around, acting like sheep, or bandwagoning at all – it’s just a countermeasure to people having random nukes launched on them. Consider your stance a bit more. Anyway, going to write a paper. On March 23 2010 17:28 Elemenope wrote: Nukes should be treated as day vigilantes with a game cap. We shouldn't be afraid to use them, but we need to use them smartly or else game over if we abuse it which means there needs to be communication and discussion among everybody about potential targets as a very solid lynch target is also a very solid nuke target (aside from day 1 lynch and assuming we haven't burned through nukes to be near the threshold). With no PMs, it becomes even more imperative that everybody puts some input about topic points. This comes to the main point - usage of nukes/retaliation. I agree with L partially that maybe 2 nukes is a bit too little, but I don't agree with him that everybody should just counter-nuke due to a possible third party win condition. Unless of course by L saying "everybody chain nukes" he means a lot of people nuke rather than "everybody chain nukes." Yea, I don't want the ToD to increase, which is why I can't support it. I stated exactly what you said, we need to hear from everybody. We can't just jump on a vote and bandwagon. I believe one counter-nuke definitely is not enough. If this was the case, we'd just leave it up to the person who has the nuke called on him to retaliate or have some person claim that he’d counter-nuke and not have any nukes at all. I don’t think this is such a sound plan. Why do you think that isn't a good plan? What's wrong with it? Why would the counter nuker counter if he doesn't have any nukes? We can just kill him if he does that, but it really wouldn't matter. Why not just let the person BEING nuked counter, and if HE doesn't have nukes, let another...You didn't really explain here why that's the case? The idea you just said doesn't make sense, or I just can't understand it. I disagree with the firing or nukes for no reason already, but I think we should definitely consider the situation But you really didn't explain anything here. Nobody is deciding on a lynch candidate just yet. L is simply throwing an option out there. His reasoning may be off in some people’s viewpoints, but the option is out there which is what’s important. Surely we’re not going to sit here for 48 hours discussing what everybody’s opinions on how our nukes should be used. L isn’t proposing we all agree with him and lynch Abenson which is why he hasn’t actually given a vote. Whether L proposed Abenson, Zona, or anybody else doesn’t matter: the important thing is that extra discussion happens which will give us more tells about the players. Oh, yes. L was assuredly saying we should lynch Abenson. Or atleast that is who he would lynch. Also: With no PMs, it becomes even more imperative that everybody puts some input about topic points. But you are saying we shouldn't just sit here for 48 hours discussing nukes? Okay, I didn't say that. I said don't jump on lynching without giving everyone a chance for input. You even said everyone should speak, and its imperative that they do. Then why complain about me saying it, right afterwards? This shows why we shouldn’t sit on a day 1 lynch. Yeah, bandwagons shouldn’t happen and with the majority rule, it is imperative that people do in fact think for themselves. However, because we act on a majority rule, nobody is obligated to vote past the majority. Because of that, vote lists are a bit restricted if we don’t make full use of them now when everybody is equally suspect. Although it’s a bit counter-intuitive because we don’t want people to die, we need people to die to get information early on. We need death for information, I was only speaking against bandwagoning. There was no real argument between us here... That being said, I’m putting you out there for a day 1 lynch. This is because you've been in contradiction of what you said earlier about Zona thinking two nukes is too much. L’s deterrence offers that *everybody* nukes the initiator while Zona’s is on almost the opposite end: two is just fine. His plan also has nothing to do with the fact that people are “bullied” or “bandwagoning” either – you said yourself that one nuke should be enough, so why do you care if you are “bullied” by someone? The only thing that person can do during the day is nuke you which you can just retaliate back with “one retaliatory nuke” that “should be enough” according to what you have said. On top of that, you even say that you'll fire as many nukes in retaliation as possible if things do not go as planned. To whose plan? Surely not the town's as "we have no idea how many nukes can actually be fired before we wind up fucked from radiation" according to you. You may be a bit annoyed about how L acted last game, but that should have no bearing on this game. I just don’t see the logic in supporting L’s deterrence plan when proposing the opposite earlier, and when the logic has no link to L’s deterrence plan at all. His deterrence strategy doesn’t have anything to do with people getting pushed around, acting like sheep, or bandwagoning at all – it’s just a countermeasure to people having random nukes launched on them. Consider your stance a bit more. Anyway, going to write a paper. Yes, I was annoyed by L. You took my firing of nukes out of context. As in, my death is imminent, I will retaliate. I disagree with most of the nuking plan. I'm sorry I didn't post everything I had considered, but the game had just started as far as I was concerned. His deterrence plan isn't what I'm concerned with. Bully? Try and force a bandwagon. (I will not nuke on this) Try and lynch me. Try and lynch before everyone speaks. (or this) I refuse to accept this. This makes sense to me. I know my role. | ||
|
Versatile
United States396 Posts
further, i bet if anyone else was in L's position, he'd probably be advocating for their death. it's a course of action that makes sense. ##i vote L unless another someone else does something incredibly stupid. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
L(3) Amber tree.hugger Versatile Caller(1) Zona ~Opz~(2) meeple Xelin Amount of Nukes Fired: 0 Radiation levels - very low | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
| ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
| ||
|
Abenson
Canada4122 Posts
##vote L | ||
|
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 24 2010 05:06 ~OpZ~ wrote: Why do you think that isn't a good plan? What's wrong with it? Why would the counter nuker counter if he doesn't have any nukes? We can just kill him if he does that, but it really wouldn't matter. Why not just let the person BEING nuked counter, and if HE doesn't have nukes, let another...You didn't really explain here why that's the case? The idea you just said doesn't make sense, or I just can't understand it. I disagree with the firing or nukes for no reason already, but I think we should definitely consider the situation But you really didn't explain anything here. If we use the logic that only one counter-nuke should be launched in response to an unsupported launch, we spread the idea that a) since only one counter-nuke is promoted and b) only one person is getting attacked by an unsupported launch then c) the person getting attacked should be the one to take care of the counter-nuke. The problem with this is that it doesn’t take into account the fact that some people may not have nukes at all. You might say that the person can just claim to have no nukes, but we have no way of verifying that claim unless we ask the person to launch a nuke themselves, which kind of defeats the purpose. Oh, yes. L was assuredly saying we should lynch Abenson. Or atleast that is who he would lynch. Saying “we should lynch X” is different from “**vote: X” [I’m using * because I’m sure Ace will be gay and complain if I use #]. Proposing lynch candidates is merely asking people their input and response. It’s to draw out emotions of people in a game where we can only judge people by their emotions, behaviors, and mistakes. It looks like a shitty way of phrasing things, similar to how he was doing with BM, but the point is that L can only act as a catalyst to events – just like anybody else. What is necessary is our judgment in deciding if we should follow through in his beliefs or not. Yeah, L may have a history of bussing people, but if you know that and believe he is wrong in this case, then make a very good argument discrediting him. Convince people by pointing out flaws in his case. Not everybody is a sheep. But you are saying we shouldn't just sit here for 48 hours discussing nukes? Okay, I didn't say that. I said don't jump on lynching without giving everyone a chance for input. You even said everyone should speak, and its imperative that they do. Then why complain about me saying it, right afterwards? The only discussion about nukes is how many we use as retaliation in an unsupported attack. Everybody is going to agree that we shouldn’t nuke each other. But we cannot really discern intentions from how many nukes we can use. Possibly the only thing I can glean from it is that L may possibly be a third party candidate pushing for a ToD game over and that perhaps the ToD threshold will be in fact quite real, though it’s merely speculation. It might end at one nuke, it might end after 100 nukes. It’s just something we have to take into account as the game progresses. Perhaps lynching is the best choice for ToD concerns, but we also gain slight information about everybody’s alliance and capabilities if we use counter-nukes. We need death for information, I was only speaking against bandwagoning. There was no real argument between us here... The main point I had was you said we have no need to day lynch, but I’m saying it’s better to get a day lynch out of the way first, then sit on future lynches if needed. We don’t know all the roles possible. What if there’s a vote list checker? What if there’s other vote manipulation roles or a role that happens when a lynch happens? It’s necessary to try to find these out as they give us more information about what we can use. We lack complete information. It’s necessary to uncover information as soon as possible. Yes, I was annoyed by L. You took my firing of nukes out of context. As in, my death is imminent, I will retaliate. I disagree with most of the nuking plan. I'm sorry I didn't post everything I had considered, but the game had just started as far as I was concerned. His deterrence plan isn't what I'm concerned with. Bully? Try and force a bandwagon. (I will not nuke on this) Try and lynch me. Try and lynch before everyone speaks. (or this) I refuse to accept this. This makes sense to me. I know my role. When I said consider your stance, I meant more of your supporting of one while supporting the opposite of another, not necessarily all your opinions. I mainly wanted to get this out of the way first since it was addressed to me, I’ll respond to the other items in the thread, hopefully within the next hour, otherwise that’ll have to wait for a few more hours due to class. | ||
|
nemY
United States3119 Posts
| ||
|
Infundibulum
United States2552 Posts
if anyone has a better solution than that, speak up (there must be a better one, i just can't think of it right now). but we need to avoid entangling nukes. Regarding lynching L: it is stupid. We wouldn't be voting for him if he wasn't temp banned. We should be voting for people that we think are mafia. People that stick out to me are anyone voting for L. And Nemy for feigning ignorance. On the same token, not lynching anyone the first night is just as stupid. Anyone who suggests this is either dumb, mafia, or both. | ||
|
Infundibulum
United States2552 Posts
| ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
| ||
|
Infundibulum
United States2552 Posts
| ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On March 24 2010 06:30 nemY wrote: Can someone summarize what's gone on so far? What I can make of it so far is: L's been banned. we're adopting a "no nuke" policy, if someone breaks the policy we nuke them 2x, don't use fake nukes (if you have them), and ~OpZ~ is being an idiot? Well... kinda L's been banned, and we are adopting a no-nuke policy, I think that at least has been agreed upon But there are some factions that are somewhat against retaliatory nuking, and although I would think that it has majority vote of the people active, its not necessarily unanimous. Don't use fake nukes if you're town aligned... thats pretty solid OpZ isn't really being an idiot... he made some odd posts in the beginning but he's defending himself decently, and although I don't agree with some of his points I am considering turning my vote. | ||
| ||
