EPTI think right now most people are just asleep though and its not just the mafia letting two "townies" fight to the death.
World at War Mafia - Page 31
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
I think right now most people are just asleep though and its not just the mafia letting two "townies" fight to the death. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On March 25 2010 14:22 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Since I already went over 12 votes, if they were to switch would I still live even though the minimum vote count has been reached anyway? If the nuke drops and you aren't at 12 you live. @zona: Yes I just dont want people quoting PMs because thats an instant modkill. Just trying to make sure no one accidentally breaks the rule so I'm trying to make it really in everyone's face. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
So... I guess for now we assume Abenson and OpZ are town-aligned masons. It would take massive mafia cajones to pull it off otherwise. I've said before that I don't agree usually with lynching most inactive, I mean it tells us nothing about the person or possible ties. I don't know why Zona was so pushy for it, since there are obviously some better targets when we consider that we have two basically confirmed townies and a better choice would be to sift through the votes for Abenson(yes I know I'm on that list...) and see who tried to push the bandwagon. Having said that I'm rather glad that RoL launched the nuke... since it gives us a little more time to consider what the hell just went on here. There's no reason to lynch him for "being dumb" or not reading the rules to their fullest extent. It's kinda a weird game, and not really that similar to traditional mafia so of course there will be miscommunications. Zona, I dunno why you're pushing so hard still for RoL when he seems in the grave for sure, but neither of the reasons that were given to lynch him are really all that valid. Hell, if anything his slip-up gave us a rare look into real motivations... where he's seeking to prove his innocence by his own demise and perhaps take out a red with his last breath. I fully expect RoL to turn up green... However, I'm not totally against him being lynched, seeing as he did violate the "Nuking without town consent" policy. I'll follow this up with some more analysis soon. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On March 25 2010 13:37 Bill Murray wrote: I haven't heard much from Meeple. Mod, could you prod meeple? Damn... I'm kinda impressed someone noticed I was gone. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On March 25 2010 14:48 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: I don't believe that in this game a "pure vanilla" townie exists. Each one is most likely going to have some odd variation in powers. And congrats, you can read what I said. I could be lying I could be telling the truth. Out of respect for the host I am not going to say my role, my power, or whether or not my nuke is real. Just to clarify I never said you can't roleclaim. You can tell anyone whatever you want, just dont copy/quote or show the PM I sent you to start the game. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On March 25 2010 14:59 meeple wrote: Jeesus... yeah sorry for the long away time guys, but I was learning mandarin and sleeping for the past long while. So... I guess for now we assume Abenson and OpZ are town-aligned masons. It would take massive mafia cajones to pull it off otherwise. I've said before that I don't agree usually with lynching most inactive, I mean it tells us nothing about the person or possible ties. I don't know why Zona was so pushy for it, since there are obviously some better targets when we consider that we have two basically confirmed townies and a better choice would be to sift through the votes for Abenson(yes I know I'm on that list...) and see who tried to push the bandwagon. Having said that I'm rather glad that RoL launched the nuke... since it gives us a little more time to consider what the hell just went on here. There's no reason to lynch him for "being dumb" or not reading the rules to their fullest extent. It's kinda a weird game, and not really that similar to traditional mafia so of course there will be miscommunications. Zona, I dunno why you're pushing so hard still for RoL when he seems in the grave for sure, but neither of the reasons that were given to lynch him are really all that valid. Hell, if anything his slip-up gave us a rare look into real motivations... where he's seeking to prove his innocence by his own demise and perhaps take out a red with his last breath. I fully expect RoL to turn up green... However, I'm not totally against him being lynched, seeing as he did violate the "Nuking without town consent" policy. I'll follow this up with some more analysis soon. Just to respond to you, I never agreed to that policy. It seemed really retarded. The town will never be on a 100% consensus for a lynch, let alone a nuke that [could] lose us the game. It seemed like a real bullshit cop out to me. and no lynching period was even dumber. Its a power we should utilize. Seriously? Who the fuck ever expects even 55% of the town to agree on nuking a single person? | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
Lol...So far I'm having a decent amount of fun in your game. Too bad I'll probably die during the night phase. Anyway, I'm down for jspazz. Or really anyone who voted to lynch L. Although that's assuming L is townie...So maybe the Abenson lynch wagon would be best to jump on. Again, I support Johnnyspazz on this note. He wanted to kill Abenson to confirm me? After I blatantly explained my elaborate post to save Abenson in, what I perceived to be, the distant future? My post where I breadcrumbed, was WAY before the lynch Abenson bandwagon came up and I thought my own death was imminent. I think I got up to 8 or 9? And yet, despite that being so far ahead of Abenson's near lynch, he still pushed for me to PROVE innocence? What better way to prove it? IF I would have died Abenson would of been confirmed. I expected to die and for him to confirm himself using it. That is why I support lynching Jspazz. Whether it be today or tomorrow, if RoL must die for sake of punishment.... Sorry RoL...I really never supported the lynch on you, it was just a point was made. You posted exactly as nemy posted (minus being rude to me), but for some reason yours seemed enough to get you lynched while Nemy's post didn't seem enough to get him lynched? Odd... And RoL...I can't blame you for launching the nuke...Caller was one of the people I would of considered too.... | ||
|
johnnyspazz
Taiwan1470 Posts
you really need to check your facts before you spew your nonsense i pushed for abenson cause he was ALWAYS ahead of you in the vote count you can't really blame me for doubting abenson, he was failing pretty hard | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
Don't worry, it's only Day 1. Plenty more fun to come soon. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
| ||
|
johnnyspazz
Taiwan1470 Posts
| ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
On March 25 2010 15:22 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Opz when was I rude to you? Sorry if I was :D I don't even remember. The lynch on me was messed up, within 2-3 pages I had around 8 votes and there was no actual evidence besides Zona saying "yo hes inactive, get'em dawgz" which was a big wtf? Yeah, maybe I could of played it better. However I like the way this is turning out so far. It makes me feel as though Zona is full of shit and I hope at the end of this some perspective is gained. Nemy, not you. Yea...Jumping on you was kinda a weird path to go down. Sorry though, you understand why I had to defend Abenson though, yes? | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
| ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On March 25 2010 15:20 johnnyspazz wrote: opz, you had 4 votes on you MAX lol jesus you are bad you really need to check your facts before you spew your nonsense i pushed for abenson cause he was ALWAYS ahead of you in the vote count you can't really blame me for doubting abenson, he was failing pretty hard While I can't blame you for suspecting Abenson (He even failed his mason buddy...) you voted for L with little reason, other than "No better suspects and he's banned" and the idea that we should lynch a role-claimer to prove the innocence of his buddy is pretty rough. They're in the spotlight and if they are mafia and slip up then we bag two of them. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 25 2010 15:12 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Seriously? Who the fuck ever expects even 55% of the town to agree on nuking a single person? You do realize if we never reach >50% consensus on lynching, we'll never get to lynch? So the policy on nuking is identical to the mechanics of lynching. The policy is there to use nukes as extra lynches when the town is desperate and feels it might be on the verge of defeat. Using nukes otherwise brings us towards the situation where no one wins (except for my guess on a third party which wins when radiation is too high). On March 25 2010 14:59 meeple wrote: I've said before that I don't agree usually with lynching most inactive, I mean it tells us nothing about the person or possible ties. I don't know why Zona was so pushy for it, since there are obviously some better targets when we consider that we have two basically confirmed townies and a better choice would be to sift through the votes for Abenson(yes I know I'm on that list...) and see who tried to push the bandwagon. For a day 1 lynch I thought he was the best target, as once we had the mason claim from Opz on behalf of himself and Abenson, he was the least active poster other than those two and the banned L, and his few posts were garbage. Only after he had many votes on him he began to contribute...and launch that nuke. If YOU think there are obviously some better targets for the day 1 lynch target you should have been here to promote it. You're actually here AFTER the original day 1 lynch deadline, which was extended because of the nuke. Actually, I see no good reason for you to delay naming your "better targets" so perhaps you could kindly name them now? It will give the town the benefit of your analysis and show how I was mistaken to focus on inactives. Please give the town the benefit of your insight. It definitely would not do for my voice to be the only one out there, as I have my blind spots. I would like for you to contribute what criteria you think was better than just inactives for the day 1 lynch and which players are lynch candidates based or these criteria. My words may seem forceful but I am not against changing my mind when other players give me reasoning superior to what I have proposed. One example of that is amending my original "revenge-nuke" proposal to a "lynch the first nuker, and revenge-nuke only later nukers" which incorporated other players' superior ideas. Also let's look at this: On March 25 2010 14:59 meeple wrote: Having said that I'm rather glad that RoL launched the nuke ... However, I'm not totally against him being lynched, seeing as he did violate the "Nuking without town consent" policy. You seem to agree with the "nuking without town consent" policy, so I will assume you have considered the REASONS why this policy was put in place, since I expect that you make decisions based on reasoning. (A very-cutdown-summary: launching new nukes doesn't help the town, and could lead towards defeat. I don't want to repost our entire discussion on this.) Then why are you glad that RoL launched the nuke? The extra time is not worth it when weighed against all the arguments against launching nukes in the first place. | ||
|
johnnyspazz
Taiwan1470 Posts
On March 25 2010 15:28 meeple wrote: While I can't blame you for suspecting Abenson (He even failed his mason buddy...) you voted for L with little reason, other than "No better suspects and he's banned" and the idea that we should lynch a role-claimer to prove the innocence of his buddy is pretty rough. They're in the spotlight and if they are mafia and slip up then we bag two of them. yes i agree my vote on L was premature, that's why i changed it. also opz, can you tell me which post you breadcrumbed his name? | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
If you can honestly tell me your nuke was fake, I would consider taking my vote off of you. | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
On March 25 2010 15:23 johnnyspazz wrote: oops sorry i need to also check my facts, opz was ahead of abenson in votes at in the beginning at like 2:0 then it became 3:4 and abenson stayed in the lead Sorry...I thought it was actually 5 (Xelin changed his vote right before I got another vote on me so it was 4), but I was insanely paranoid. And then it switched from me to my partner catching my partner catching the flack. Stressful day. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On March 25 2010 15:27 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Just to remention this again in a separate post. I think most of the thoughts towards nuking were ill conceived. A town consensus on nuking would never be reached, and not using our nukes for more than one day would be dumb. Although I like how this is turning out so far even if i die. Well... as this game goes on, that much is becoming more clear. It took some desperation to get a majority vote, so getting everyone to agree on a nuke is tough in any case. I'd like to urge people to rethink their votes. For me... I'm going to change my vote to ##vote tree.hugger He has very few posts in the thread, and they center around lynching L because he'll be inactive. More than anything, I want him to step up and post more and defend himself. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On March 25 2010 15:31 Zona wrote: I can't sleep, so I'm still here. You do realize if we never reach >50% consensus on lynching, we'll never get to lynch? So the policy on nuking is identical to the mechanics of lynching. The policy is there to use nukes as extra lynches when the town is desperate and feels it might be on the verge of defeat. Using nukes otherwise brings us towards the situation where no one wins (except for my guess on a third party which wins when radiation is too high). For a day 1 lynch I thought he was the best target, as once we had the mason claim from Opz on behalf of himself and Abenson, he was the least active poster other than those two and the banned L, and his few posts were garbage. Only after he had many votes on him he began to contribute...and launch that nuke. If YOU think there are obviously some better targets for the day 1 lynch target you should have been here to promote it. You're actually here AFTER the original day 1 lynch deadline, which was extended because of the nuke. Actually, I see no good reason for you to delay naming your "better targets" so perhaps you could kindly name them now? It will give the town the benefit of your analysis and show how I was mistaken to focus on inactives. Please give the town the benefit of your insight. It definitely would not do for my voice to be the only one out there, as I have my blind spots. I would like for you to contribute what criteria you think was better than just inactives for the day 1 lynch and which players are lynch candidates based or these criteria. My words may seem forceful but I am not against changing my mind when other players give me reasoning superior to what I have proposed. One example of that is amending my original "revenge-nuke" proposal to a "lynch the first nuker, and revenge-nuke only later nukers" which incorporated other players' superior ideas. Also let's look at this: You seem to agree with the "nuking without town consent" policy, so I will assume you have considered the REASONS why this policy was put in place, since I expect that you make decisions based on reasoning. (A very-cutdown-summary: launching new nukes doesn't help the town, and could lead towards defeat. I don't want to repost our entire discussion on this.) Then why are you glad that RoL launched the nuke? The extra time is not worth it when weighed against all the arguments against launching nukes in the first place. I say I'm glad that the nuke is launched because it gives me more time to read and catch up and post before my ill-advised vote for Abenson goes through, but that was just kind of a selfish statement. I didn't mean that its better for the town if people nuke, and I've always been against early nukes so I don't support RoL's decision. | ||
| ||
