|
On March 24 2010 02:04 XeliN wrote:
L being banned for 2 days in my eyes means he is not a viable candidate to be lynched, although the posts he has made already I disagree with but that might simply be because he's L and thats my general reaction to whatever he posts.
As to the idea of retaliation against a player who has an itchy trigger finger, we have the perfect form of retaliation. We lynch them. Or to put it more bluntly
Any player launching a nuke against another without at the very least providing coherent argument for doing so will be lynched. Furthermore the only instance whereby we would launch against a player who acts in this way would be if we already have a good candidate for lynching, then we will nuke or multiple nuke them (I am of the opinion that 2 ought to be enough)
To get things started off in the voting section I am going to be Voting ~OpZ~
His post earlier on both seemed different in style to the way he posted in the last game and also was riddled with subtle "I am town" choice of wording, something I consciously made an effort to do in the last game I was mafia so guess I'll go along with my instinct here.
I will respond to Elemenope's post in a moment, for whoever asked me to...Xelin voting for me made me want to respond.
You didn't respond to anything about my post. You just read my post and says he's trying to claim town. Now Xelin, I hate to tell you this, but your instinct is wrong. Also, your lynch idea as being the perfect retaliation to nuking? Wrong.
Let's look at this set up. 22 players. We don't know how many night kills, the number of mafia, if mafia have special roles/nukes. Now, if mafia had an ass load of nukes, it's already certain that we would have a very big problem. I don't think they will have all too many nukes, and firing a nuke is a huge problem.
I made an effort to outline a basic idea, and state we shouldn't just jump the gun on lynching. I also said I will not be forced around or follow a bandwagon. Only time I ever really bandwagoned was as mafia. I usually vote against the consensus, as last game when I voted you over BM.
Bandwagoning in this game is especially frightening because the days end after a majority, not on a set schedule. I intend to use what power I have to stop this from occurring. Bandwagons are costly in this game. Everyone needs to post how they feel, not just vote. We need to agree on a larger scale I feel before beginning.
Also, as for my change of play, the rules are TOTALLY different then most other games. We have nukes, we have a majority lynch that can occur the INSTANT a majority is reached. This means we have to think.
Also, check it, Fishball done laid into me last game.
|
On March 24 2010 03:38 XeliN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 03:30 Fishball wrote:On March 24 2010 02:04 XeliN wrote:
L being banned for 2 days in my eyes means he is not a viable candidate to be lynched, although the posts he has made already I disagree with but that might simply be because he's L and thats my general reaction to whatever he posts.
As to the idea of retaliation against a player who has an itchy trigger finger, we have the perfect form of retaliation. We lynch them. Or to put it more bluntly
Any player launching a nuke against another without at the very least providing coherent argument for doing so will be lynched. Furthermore the only instance whereby we would launch against a player who acts in this way would be if we already have a good candidate for lynching, then we will nuke or multiple nuke them (I am of the opinion that 2 ought to be enough)
To get things started off in the voting section I am going to be Voting ~OpZ~
His post earlier on both seemed different in style to the way he posted in the last game and also was riddled with subtle "I am town" choice of wording, something I consciously made an effort to do in the last game I was mafia so guess I'll go along with my instinct here. To me, the tone OpZ used gives me the impression that he has the power to nuke. Doesn't feel scummy to me at this point of the game though. If you're Mafia, that would be a dumb way to get unwanted attention. You disagree with my observation on ~OpZ~ fine, i made it clear it was mostly intuitive based on how I tried to act when I was mafia, you then coming out and making what is essentially a slight accusation without actually doing so concerns me more. If I was mafia then yes it might be unintelligent to bring attention to myself early in this way, that is obvious. What concerns me more is did you type that just to state something obvious or did you just want to write the word "mafia" about another player?
Slight accusation? He was saying if I was mafia it would be dumb to do as I did? I've done gotten what, 3 votes for that post? Lol. Why? Because I said I wouldn't be pushed around, or watch L create a bandwagon without hearing from a player?
|
On March 24 2010 04:19 JeeJee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 04:07 ~OpZ~ wrote:On March 24 2010 02:04 XeliN wrote:
L being banned for 2 days in my eyes means he is not a viable candidate to be lynched, although the posts he has made already I disagree with but that might simply be because he's L and thats my general reaction to whatever he posts.
As to the idea of retaliation against a player who has an itchy trigger finger, we have the perfect form of retaliation. We lynch them. Or to put it more bluntly
Any player launching a nuke against another without at the very least providing coherent argument for doing so will be lynched. Furthermore the only instance whereby we would launch against a player who acts in this way would be if we already have a good candidate for lynching, then we will nuke or multiple nuke them (I am of the opinion that 2 ought to be enough)
To get things started off in the voting section I am going to be Voting ~OpZ~
His post earlier on both seemed different in style to the way he posted in the last game and also was riddled with subtle "I am town" choice of wording, something I consciously made an effort to do in the last game I was mafia so guess I'll go along with my instinct here. I will respond to Elemenope's post in a moment, for whoever asked me to...Xelin voting for me made me want to respond. You didn't respond to anything about my post. You just read my post and says he's trying to claim town. Now Xelin, I hate to tell you this, but your instinct is wrong. Also, your lynch idea as being the perfect retaliation to nuking? Wrong. Let's look at this set up. 22 players. We don't know how many night kills, the number of mafia, if mafia have special roles/nukes. Now, if mafia had an ass load of nukes, it's already certain that we would have a very big problem. I don't think they will have all too many nukes, and firing a nuke is a huge problem. I made an effort to outline a basic idea, and state we shouldn't just jump the gun on lynching. I also said I will not be forced around or follow a bandwagon. Only time I ever really bandwagoned was as mafia. I usually vote against the consensus, as last game when I voted you over BM. Bandwagoning in this game is especially frightening because the days end after a majority, not on a set schedule. I intend to use what power I have to stop this from occurring. Bandwagons are costly in this game. Everyone needs to post how they feel, not just vote. We need to agree on a larger scale I feel before beginning. Also, as for my change of play, the rules are TOTALLY different then most other games. We have nukes, we have a majority lynch that can occur the INSTANT a majority is reached. This means we have to think. Also, check it, Fishball done laid into me last game. interesting both you and caller have a knack for not reading the rules. mafia have 1kp per night, it is pretty clear in the op Show nested quote +Mafia have night kills just like in normal games. Mafia can kill 1 player per night no matter how many of them are alive. so you say that lynching all nukers is wrong. then you say "look at the setup" but provide no concrete evidence as to what is wrong with it. so, i'm asking you, What is wrong with the lynch all nukers plan?
It's a WASTE of time. Do you think mafia will have all kinds of nukes to just launch? To throw themselves out there and pray we don't retaliate? I agree retaliation is necessary, but ending the day right there to give them another kill, when it was most likely an idiot townie? Go look at Caller's game, the CIA agent was the last person to execute someone, and ended the game with it. It's already been stated how big of a gambit it is to just throw yourself out into the open. I agree with retaliating, but directly saying launch 3 nukes is bad, and simply ending the day is bad. The situation should determine the means of countering.
That is what my problem with the plans. So far, I like the lynch plan best, because it doesn't increase the ToD.
|
And I'm sorry I missed the KP. I guess I need to go reread it again @_@
|
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.
|
On March 24 2010 04:34 Elemenope wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 04:07 ~OpZ~ wrote:
I will respond to Elemenope's post in a moment, for whoever asked me to So how's that post coming along.
Aye, give me a moment. I hadn't begun typing it yet. I was trying to catch up with the whole thread.
|
On March 24 2010 02:45 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 02:39 Versatile wrote:
well then, it's time to decide how many nukes are going to be lobbed then, aye?
there needs to be an established game plan, asap. if there isn't, as soon as the first nuke is launched, there's going to be mass-hysteria and confusion. mafia will take advtange of this. there must be a plan of action that can be carried out right away if/when this happens, and people need to know the consequences for their actions.
otherwise, this is what's going to happen:
person A: ##nuke your mafia ass, person B.
person B: oh hell nah, ##nuke your ass back, person A.
mafia 1: wth, person A and person B, what y'all doing? ##nuke both your hoe asses.
this needs to be decided and set in stone RIGHT AWAY. if a nuke is launched before it is, give up all hope of town order as far as nuking goes.
@ this point, i haven't see a single reason why someone wouldn't nuke. someone could do it, and say oopsie daisy, kill me if you want. and then you have to convince 12 people to lynch this lone wolf. and who knows how many mafia are even in this game who can screw with that count?
i applaud the efforts of zona and whoever else so far, but we need faster action. 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.
|
Post I just made uneditted. Going to edit the spoiler to work. Dunno how that messed up.
[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." Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 16:13 ~OpZ~ wrote:
While Zona has a decent plan to deter nuking, it involves a lot of secondary nuking. (One nuke = Two more nukes being fired as retaliation). Then his suggestion of a third party scares me into believing he himself is a third party. Seriously, one retaliatory nuke should be enough. We have no idea how many nukes can actually be fired before we wind up fucked from radiation. 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. Show nested quote + Until we hear from every person I don't think we should decide on a lynch candidate. We have 2 days to find a target, let's use them. Everyone post an overall strategy, don't just cosign someone elses. I support L's M.A.D. only because I will not let someone bully me, or force a band wagon when half a day hasn't even went by yet. 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. Show nested quote + We also have no need to day lynch, remember this. We can start shit and throw suspicion as much as possible. Ace said we need a majority of players, and once he notices, the days over. Show nested quote + No one is going to vote for anyone until everyone is given the appropriate time to speak in their own defense.
And L said 100%
Considering all we need is 54%, 12 players, to vote for a lynch to pass that isn't something we have to worry about. 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. Show nested quote + Until we hear from every person I don't think we should decide on a lynch candidate. We have 2 days to find a target, let's use them. Everyone post an overall strategy, don't just cosign someone elses. I support L's M.A.D. only because I will not let someone bully me, or force a band wagon when half a day hasn't even went by yet. 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.
|
Elem's original post. (sorry for edit. Only added spoiler tag. Fixed formatting in this post, and I thought I was in quote, not edit.)
+ 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." Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 16:13 ~OpZ~ wrote:
While Zona has a decent plan to deter nuking, it involves a lot of secondary nuking. (One nuke = Two more nukes being fired as retaliation). Then his suggestion of a third party scares me into believing he himself is a third party. Seriously, one retaliatory nuke should be enough. We have no idea how many nukes can actually be fired before we wind up fucked from radiation. 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. Show nested quote + Until we hear from every person I don't think we should decide on a lynch candidate. We have 2 days to find a target, let's use them. Everyone post an overall strategy, don't just cosign someone elses. I support L's M.A.D. only because I will not let someone bully me, or force a band wagon when half a day hasn't even went by yet. 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. Show nested quote + We also have no need to day lynch, remember this. We can start shit and throw suspicion as much as possible. Ace said we need a majority of players, and once he notices, the days over. Show nested quote + No one is going to vote for anyone until everyone is given the appropriate time to speak in their own defense.
And L said 100%
Considering all we need is 54%, 12 players, to vote for a lynch to pass that isn't something we have to worry about. 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. Show nested quote + Until we hear from every person I don't think we should decide on a lynch candidate. We have 2 days to find a target, let's use them. Everyone post an overall strategy, don't just cosign someone elses. I support L's M.A.D. only because I will not let someone bully me, or force a band wagon when half a day hasn't even went by yet. 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.
|
##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 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.
|
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...
|
On March 24 2010 09:12 nemY 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. -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.
If the votes didn't operate different this round I wouldn't care. I wouldn't support lynching one of the only people I know that is confirmed town, and since the votes are an instant majority thing it gets a little more scary than usual. Especially if you feel you were bandwagoned after a reasonable statement of things to be aware of this game.
|
Good point Zona...
##Vote: Phrujbaz
L has a reason....The rest of you all need to up your posting game. With some content.
Okay...I'm going to say this again. We don't need an exact definite decision against nukes. I think our biggest worry will be people about to be lynched firing off their nukes anyway. That's the kind of stunt I would pull. I think that retaliation for nukes should be done on a situational basis. Two nukes is kind of much given that we don't know how much it will increase the ToD. That's my only problem with it. A combination of lynch/nuke is my thought, with some respect for the individual situation. I'm sure random nuking will be enough to piss off a majority of the town.
Also, we need to focus on a good lynch target. Be aware that we aren't near a lynch. Even though a few of us have been posting we need the whole towns participation. Not talking is bad for the town. Stuff like that will get you lynched and it's bad for use to not post. One liners don't help. Now please, start posting some content people.
Lots of people seem to be wanting to vote L. If he was some random person he would be a good candidate. But he is easily one of our best planners. Even if no lynch occurs today we will have some information gained from it because he will likely be a mafia target tonight, or even if someone else is, we should pay attention for those who push for L's lynch. Johnnyspazz hasn't posted much and voted for L originally. Abenson hasn't either and he voted for L. Nikon hasn't really posted either.
I propose Phrujbaz along with Zona. (Should he actually be modkilled right now? Has he confirmed to ace, or in the thread? Game's been up for 24 hours right?)
|
On March 24 2010 13:56 johnnyspazz wrote:
why should we lynch him right away when he comes back? it's not like being inactive is a confirmation of being mafia. if he does come back, we give him a bit to post so we can analyze him. there are better targets for lynches already.
Like?
|
|
|
## I Change my vote to JohnnySpazz
Abenson should be confirmed soon enough. I'll RC, or he will in a minute. I figured I would die earlier, so I simple breadcrumbed his name into a post for him to reveal on my death.
I will not vote for a confirmed townie over someone unconfirmed. Consider I'll likely be another lynch candidate tomorrow, I might as well save you all some trouble. The post his name is in is on page sixteen.
On March 24 2010 11:57 ~OpZ~ wrote:
Good point Zona...
....
Also, we need to focus on a good lynch target. Be aware that we aren't near a lynch. Even though a few of us have been posting we need the whole towns participation. Not talking is bad for the town. Stuff like that will get you lynched and it's bad for use to not post. One liners don't help. Now please, start posting some content people.
.....
I propose Phrujbaz along with Zona. (Should he actually be modkilled right now? Has he confirmed to ace, or in the thread? Game's been up for 24 hours right?)
Whether you all want to take this as confirming him, whatever. I gave him strict instructions to only post this on my death to save himself from a town lynch. He seems to be afk a lot, and I will not support his lynch.
|
On March 25 2010 06:26 Zona wrote:
Alright, here's the deal. I'm not close to being impressed by what Abenson is contributing. But if he and you, OpZ, are claiming masons, I'm willing to try to lynch someone else for now.
As of last post:
Zona: 32
~OpZ~: 19
XeliN: 16
Versatile: 16
Amber[LighT]: 14
haster27: 14
Elemenope: 13
JeeJee: 12
Fishball: 9
iNfuNdiBuLuM: 9
meeple: 9
Caller: 9
johnnyspazz: 7
Iaaan: 7
d3_crescentia: 7
nemY: 6
Nikon: 4
Abenson: 4
tree.hugger: 4
RebirthOfLeGenD: 3
Phrujbaz: 2
L: 2
As of now, Rebirth of Legend has the lowest amount of posts (ignoring L), and not one of his three posts is useful. Even L's 2 posts has contributed to the shaping of the town's no-nuke-initiation plan. The other end is the odd argument that he was an extra player added, that probably is town or third party, but that was shot down as we shouldn't make any assumptions on how Ace is laying things out. So I will switch my vote to him.
##Vote: RebirthOfLegend
Yes. Me and Abenson are masons. I know his role/country, he knows mine. It's the same role, just different country. Masonic order. I can talk privately with him.
Of course I wouldn't state this publically if he wouldn't die. If I was mafia I wouldn't of breadcrumbed his name. This was for later, because I feared my own death, and wanted to protect the only other person I knew was pro town.
|
On March 25 2010 06:49 XeliN wrote:
I don't really know what to say right now other than wtf are you guys thinking? If both of you do have roles that confirm townies and enable you to talk outside of the game you think rolecalling them on the first day is beneficial to the town in any way? You have some of the most powerful roles in the game, Abenson, all you would need to do is actually post something vaguely useful to have people not vote for you, it was the only reason I changed as someone highlighted you had made one post and that included a Lynch vote.
##Remove Vote (Abstain) for now.
He was going to be lynched. He was confirmed to me when I got my role. I had no choice. It was too close to allow it chance, because I have to go to class. I actually left class for a sec to the comp lab to post this and read.
|
On March 25 2010 06:51 Elemenope wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2010 06:48 Zona wrote:
I didn't assume that his role was entirely just a Mason. I clarified with my subsequent post that his claim involved a role with mason abilities.
Of course anyone can lie. But I'm willing to put of lynching those who role claim right away as:
- the claims can be tested easily later
- there's still a fuckton of other inactive players that are as much deadweight as Abenson was.
I do agree Abenson needs to confirm that the spoke with each other. But it would be pretty silly for OpZ to throw himself out there for Abenson if they weren't on the same team.
I totally agree how his earlier post to use nukes if he was lynched was an anti-town declaration. Still, I think the claim, once confirmed by Abenson, is enough to put me off voting for them day 1. Of course we should keep a very close eye on them for the coming days. And the way we resolve this is generally, we lynch one. First day roleclaims are the shittiest thing ever as they detract discussion. If Abenson and OpZ are on the same side as you imply, why not lynch one and we get the validity of the other? The claims can be tested later yeah, but what if we simply don't have time later due to future complications? It'd be better to get rid of one now and then now where the other stands.
Because the mafia will just kill the other confirmed townie at night time? It really doesn't matter, I suppose. But you are highly suspect to me right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
