|
##Vote: Nemy
He is useless at all times and if he is mafia it will be hard to discern because his posts are always useless and he never posts any content. Please post something useful, and I will retract my vote.
And Elemenope, I don't see what we are arguing over? My post was stating I would use what I have as needed. And I didn't support lynching until everyone posted. We have over 24 hours, and as I've said, we should use them. Only using one nuke in retaliation preserves the ToD. We can always launch another if it's necessary. You act like we can't fire it the next day if necessary? Why must we retaliate within the same day?
Please explain what is wrong with that.
|
On March 24 2010 06:48 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Regarding lynching nukers, we should always lynch the aggressor. If the person being nuked retaliates with nukes, then not lynching is dangerous because there may be anti-nukes in the air directed at either party. A way to sidestep this is to evenly vote for each player (11 on each) such that if one player gets protected, he is lynched anyway because the other target is invalid. However, this does have the potential to result in a wasted lynch if no anti-nukes are fired. In addition, it requires full town participation which seems unlikely to me. However, it does sound better than the alternative of waiting for the nukes to fall and then voting, because the time frame will be very small and thus more subject to vote swings from the mafia, since they are organized.
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.
I agree that we shouldn't use retaliatory nukes so freely, but given a proper situation I wouldn't be against it.
It's true that mafia like to ride wrong bandwagons, so it might be useful to look out for people that jump on a shaky idea.
It's possible Nemy is feigning ignorance, but its also possible that he doesn't have the time to read the whole thread. On the other hand, he is suspect to me because of how he made a questionable statement that was ill-informed, that promotes the wrong type of ideas. (Saying that OpZ is being an idiot)
|
On March 24 2010 07:19 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 06:48 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Regarding lynching nukers, we should always lynch the aggressor. If the person being nuked retaliates with nukes, then not lynching is dangerous because there may be anti-nukes in the air directed at either party. A way to sidestep this is to evenly vote for each player (11 on each) such that if one player gets protected, he is lynched anyway because the other target is invalid. However, this does have the potential to result in a wasted lynch if no anti-nukes are fired. In addition, it requires full town participation which seems unlikely to me. However, it does sound better than the alternative of waiting for the nukes to fall and then voting, because the time frame will be very small and thus more subject to vote swings from the mafia, since they are organized.
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. I agree that we shouldn't use retaliatory nukes so freely, but given a proper situation I wouldn't be against it. It's true that mafia like to ride wrong bandwagons, so it might be useful to look out for people that jump on a shaky idea. It's possible Nemy is feigning ignorance, but its also possible that he doesn't have the time to read the whole thread. On the other hand, he is suspect to me because of how he made a questionable statement that was ill-informed, that promotes the wrong type of ideas. (Saying that OpZ is being an idiot)
Glad we're on the same page about retaliatory Nukes Meeple. They should be used situationally.
|
##Vote: L
because he is banned and there isn't really a much better first day target
|
On March 24 2010 03:14 Zona wrote:
Current version of proposed plan
1. No one is to initiate a nuke.
2. Anyone who initiates a nuke should be revenge-nuked by TWO players with real nukes. To ensure only TWO revenge-nuke, those with real nukes need to refresh the thread, and see if two have already been launched. If not, shoot one.
3. If any of the revenge-nukes turn out to be fake, the faker needs to be lynched or nuked as well.
4. Do not launch fake nukes. This only serves to muddy the picture for the town and gives an opportunity for the target to get another nuke in the air.
5. Anti-nukes should be used at their owner's discretion. However, save some for the late game, so that at that stage, the mafia can't simply nuke a large proportion of the remaining town members and win.
6. If the town COLLECTIVELY (not by some individual thought) feels that they're probably close to losing, start using nukes as daytime vigilante hits.
No one should use nukes without town consensus. Anyone who nukes out of turn needs to be killed. If we opt to lynch nuke users, we will simply forget about them, and not hold them accountable, and then everyone will just go crazy with nukes without fear. We always talk about using lynches to hold people accountable, but we never actually do. Immediate action needs to be taken, and that action is nukes.
But, we shouldn't need to use nukes to kill nukers ever, since people just shouldn't nuke. But if they do, they need to be immediately be counter nuked before everyone forgets and lets them go.
On March 24 2010 05:55 Abenson wrote:
I will vote for L simply because he is temp-banned and not much help as of now.
##vote L
Bullshit, your just hopping on the bandwagon because L called to get you lynched. Revenge voting is stupid.
Everyone bandwagoning on L needs to stop, he will be back before day 2, and by killing someone without any posts, what information do we get as town? none. We can lynch L after he comes back if he is action scummy/stupid, it is a waste to do it before. He has contributed with a plan and will be active when he is back. If you think that the day 1 lynch is a crapshoot, your right, but voting for someone just because they are banned for a little bit, especially when they have been actively posting content is retarded, there are plenty of other people who haven't contributed, and who obviously wont bring in any content to the game.
Therefor, I am voting for Abenson. Its between him and johnnyspazz who are hopping on the bandwagon. Bandwagonning is scummy, Mafia would love to get someone else killed asap to protect themselves an be able to pass the blame for it, that is the only reason I can think of for voting L without posting any real reasons of, other than just being bad. Think for yourselves, and if your going to follow someone elses ideas, at least choose good ones.
##vote: Abenson
|
True...Abenson, Johnny, Don't just bandwagon. Give us a legitimate reason.
And someone, Xelin or Elemenope(?) said not to take L's past game's actions into account? But we are still supposed to use past games to assess their character? Hmm...is this logical to not use past game actions then? Shit, L could possibly have Nukes...it would be better to lynch him while he's gone then wait for him to be here then Nuke right before he dies in order to take peoples with him.
Just pointing that out...
|
so what makes abenson a better target, iaaan? for the most part, everyone is just as dumb as everyone else. the only thing that makes L different is he got himself banned.
what's the issue? what big grand plan did he come up with to implement before he got himself banned?
listen. i don't care who it is, the dude got himself banned. period. he won't be active for two days. i'm usually for not lynching anyone on the first day because there is so little to go on, but since we've got someone sitting right there who will not benefit the town for two days, why not lynch them?
honestly, if it was some other player, there would probably not be so much protesting to keep L alive. hop off his dick for a second and look for reason, loser.
|
On March 24 2010 08:37 ~OpZ~ wrote:
True...Abenson, Johnny, Don't just bandwagon. Give us a legitimate reason.
oh.muh.gawd. give a legitimate reason for voting for someone? you say, DON'T bandwagon? what novel ideas.
(that's how you do sarcasm, buddy.)
|
ps: lmao @ nemy getting voted for in both games, haha.
|
On March 24 2010 08:51 Versatile wrote:
ps: lmao @ nemy getting voted for in both games, haha.
Well one has to be red, right? RIGHT?
|
On March 24 2010 06:48 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Regarding lynching nukers, we should always lynch the aggressor. If the person being nuked retaliates with nukes, then not lynching is dangerous because there may be anti-nukes in the air directed at either party. A way to sidestep this is to evenly vote for each player (11 on each) such that if one player gets protected, he is lynched anyway because the other target is invalid. However, this does have the potential to result in a wasted lynch if no anti-nukes are fired. In addition, it requires full town participation which seems unlikely to me. However, it does sound better than the alternative of waiting for the nukes to fall and then voting, because the time frame will be very small and thus more subject to vote swings from the mafia, since they are organized.
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.
-Not trying to start shit with you infundi, but every game i've ever played with you, you've feigned ignorance.
-I don't think we should vote for L, because he is L. Say I'm riding his dick all you want Versatile, but L contributes a shit ton more to these games than both you and me combined, and given how the day/night cycle is, he'll be back somewhere inbetween Night 1 and Day 2, PLENTY OF TIME FOR HIM TO JUMP ON BOARD AND START RAPING MOTHERFUCKERS.
-~OpZ~ calling you and idiot was being somewhat blunt/rude and i apologize for that. Your posting has been very spammish of late though and it's hard to read through everything you post given that not all of us have an unlimited amount of time to devote to this game. Yes you got accused as mafia, even a few votes were thrown your way, but that doesn't mean you have to go Bill Murray on us, there's plenty of time to deter the voters away from you.
|
On March 24 2010 08:51 Versatile wrote:
ps: lmao @ nemy getting voted for in both games, haha.
What can I say? Pimpin' aint easy.
|
##Vote: L
Ironically, I don't like retaliation.
Or do I?
|
Okay, you've convinced me nemY
you're right, L contributes to the game way too much and i'm going to guess he is pro-town for now until he starts posting again
##Vote: nemY
|
On March 24 2010 08:48 Versatile wrote:
so what makes abenson a better target, iaaan? for the most part, everyone is just as dumb as everyone else. the only thing that makes L different is he got himself banned.
what's the issue? what big grand plan did he come up with to implement before he got himself banned?
listen. i don't care who it is, the dude got himself banned. period. he won't be active for two days. i'm usually for not lynching anyone on the first day because there is so little to go on, but since we've got someone sitting right there who will not benefit the town for two days, why not lynch them?
honestly, if it was some other player, there would probably not be so much protesting to keep L alive. hop off his dick for a second and look for reason, loser.
I have the same opinion of L as I do of you, you both just love pissing people off. But at least the two of you actually do shit.
I am not set on Abenson, lynching L would be silly for the reasons that have been posted, and Abenson is a reasonable alternative. I will listen to arguments against other people.
What makes Abenson a better target than L is that, L posts; if he is mafia we can catch him, while players like Abenson do not post, and since he has hopped on a ridiculous bandwagon, that is scummy. His actions point to him, L's do not. We will have lots of chances to analyze L's posting, we will not have many to analyze against players like Abenson.
Lynching someone for a completely useless reason, that they wont be around for a day and a night of the game is just scum trying to get the town to waste a lynch.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
Don't let L's reputation for being frightening and wrong discourage you. His guesses haven't gotten better over time, and I doubt a two day break will help his logic sober up.
That man should never be let near a blinking red button, take him out.
Also the 'or worse' clearly means a kind of 'Dr. Strangelove' doomsday device. Purity of Essence, remember, PoE, PoE, Purity of Essence....
|
On March 24 2010 03:14 Zona wrote:
Current version of proposed plan
1. No one is to initiate a nuke.
2. Anyone who initiates a nuke should be revenge-nuked by TWO players with real nukes. To ensure only TWO revenge-nuke, those with real nukes need to refresh the thread, and see if two have already been launched. If not, shoot one.
3. If any of the revenge-nukes turn out to be fake, the faker needs to be lynched or nuked as well.
4. Do not launch fake nukes. This only serves to muddy the picture for the town and gives an opportunity for the target to get another nuke in the air.
5. Anti-nukes should be used at their owner's discretion. However, save some for the late game, so that at that stage, the mafia can't simply nuke a large proportion of the remaining town members and win.
6. If the town COLLECTIVELY (not by some individual thought) feels that they're probably close to losing, start using nukes as daytime vigilante hits.
I don't like rules 2 and 3. I dislike rule 2 because it increases the number of available targets to retaliate against. It's entirely possible that the aggressor in this case is sitting on a stockpile of nukes, and having two additional people nuke him could potentially mean two more retaliatory strikes. I think it should be limited to just the victim and maybe just one more person that's allowed to fire in return; only in the case where the victim can't shoot back should two revenge-nukers get involved.
I dislike the implications of rule 3, because it's possible we won't know which nukes are/aren't fake if they get shot down by anti-nukes, and so it could cloud the issue. Though I guess it stands to say if we all follow rules 1 and 4 then it it'd be a non-issue.
|
Oh, I forgot, Versatile helped get the bandwagon on L started, of course it hurts his e-peen to back down from his brilliant lynching plan >.>
|
On March 24 2010 09:43 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 03:14 Zona wrote:
Current version of proposed plan
1. No one is to initiate a nuke.
2. Anyone who initiates a nuke should be revenge-nuked by TWO players with real nukes. To ensure only TWO revenge-nuke, those with real nukes need to refresh the thread, and see if two have already been launched. If not, shoot one.
3. If any of the revenge-nukes turn out to be fake, the faker needs to be lynched or nuked as well.
4. Do not launch fake nukes. This only serves to muddy the picture for the town and gives an opportunity for the target to get another nuke in the air.
5. Anti-nukes should be used at their owner's discretion. However, save some for the late game, so that at that stage, the mafia can't simply nuke a large proportion of the remaining town members and win.
6. If the town COLLECTIVELY (not by some individual thought) feels that they're probably close to losing, start using nukes as daytime vigilante hits. I don't like rules 2 and 3. I dislike rule 2 because it increases the number of available targets to retaliate against. It's entirely possible that the aggressor in this case is sitting on a stockpile of nukes, and having two additional people nuke him could potentially mean two more retaliatory strikes. I think it should be limited to just the victim and maybe just one more person that's allowed to fire in return; only in the case where the victim can't shoot back should two revenge-nukers get involved. I dislike the implications of rule 3, because it's possible we won't know which nukes are/aren't fake if they get shot down by anti-nukes, and so it could cloud the issue. Though I guess it stands to say if we all follow rules 1 and 4 then it it'd be a non-issue.
Exactly, it should be a non issue. If people act against the town by using nukes when it has decided that there must be an agreement before using them, that person must die instantly. Everyone who is town should follow these rules in order to help their team, or they deserve to die; they are anti-town regardless of their role.
|
On March 24 2010 09:45 Iaaan wrote:
Oh, I forgot, Versatile helped get the bandwagon on L started, of course it hurts his e-peen to back down from his brilliant lynching plan >.>
Yes, women have e-peens too. On the internet, everyone has a peen.
Most of the lynch candidates we have here I think aren't even worth considering. Once L gets back I'm sure he'll be the same old voice of wisdom and prudence. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
