EPTOn March 27 2010 04:36 Bill Murray wrote:
The longer this goes on, the more I begin to trust L's read. Versatile, why so scummy?
The longer this goes on, the more I begin to trust L's read. Versatile, why so scummy?
Bill Murray, why so ugly?
World at War Mafia - Page 47
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Versatile
United States396 Posts
Bill Murray, why so ugly? | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
on a serious note, you really have been epically-lurking and badgering people, while supporting very anti-town and splitting ideas and concepts. you're saying that if someone anti-nukes someone else, that you're just going to nuke again to raise the ToD? Even if that's not your goal, that is what will happen. The town would do well to keep everyone alive, as I guarantee that we have a lot more members than the mafia does within our ranks. If everyone survives, we can begin to see vote-trains, ties, who defends who, etc. that will point to mafia. It is not advantageous to play the way you are playing right now, and I would advise you to either change it, or shut up. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
In all 3 of those games you have been townie which is making me seriously consider that you are mafia, even the way you were very preoccupied with having someone shoot down the nuke on caller, in almost all other games you would only care and give that much focus to it if the nuke had been launched at YOU. But yeh think thats what ugly meant. | ||
|
Versatile
United States396 Posts
so if it means i have to nuke someone to get that point across, fine. i want you to be clear that i don't make idle threats. your anti-nuke will essentially be wasted. if you care about the town, save your anti-nukes. if you're wondering why i wouldn't just nuke the anti-nuker, well, anti-nukes are PMed and not in the thread. i would rather undo the person's intent then maybe wrongfully nuke the wrong person. either way, don't make it seem like i'm the one escalating this. it's your choice. as long as you don't anti-nuke L, or anyone else doesn't, i have no reason to fire a nuke. ps: lmao @ you telling someone to change their style up. didn't you barely get into this game? put on your own oxygen mask before attempting to helping others, pal. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On March 27 2010 04:53 Versatile wrote: bill murray. i am not for people using anti-nukes. we need them later in the game. there is no way to confirm someone's innocence right now, so using anti-nukes on anyone is not pro-town. so if it means i have to nuke someone to get that point across, fine. i want you to be clear that i don't make idle threats. your anti-nuke will essentially be wasted. if you care about the town, save your anti-nukes. if you're wondering why i wouldn't just nuke the anti-nuker, well, anti-nukes are PMed and not in the thread. i would rather undo the person's intent then maybe wrongfully nuke the wrong person. either way, don't make it seem like i'm the one escalating this. it's your choice. as long as you don't anti-nuke L, or anyone else doesn't, i have no reason to fire a nuke. ps: lmao @ you telling someone to change their style up. didn't you barely get into this game? put on your own oxygen mask before attempting to helping others, pal. "If you care about the town, let me violate the town's will so that i can let an innocent guy die." "i'm not escalating this by suggesting that I nuke people to get my way" Ok. | ||
|
Infundibulum
United States2552 Posts
I can't believe you guys fucked this shit up so bad. The main reason for the town agreeing on "NO NUKES" is that if the entire town agrees not to nuke, it means the mafia can't nuke either without exposing themselves! It would have been GREAT for the early game while we can analyze behavior and posts enough to eventually come to a nuking "consensus." However now that the warheads are in the air there is no diagnostic method to determine which party fired the nuke (i.e. town or mafia) short of killing the player. Which, if you think about it, means that the mafia probably are not going to nuke anyway if town protocol is to lynch whoever nukes regardless. This makes me think tree.hugger might be innocent; it would be a terrible play for him if he is red since he knows the consequences. I mean it was a pretty terrible play regardless - if L is town the mafia will be singing him their praises. If he's mafia it would be pretty much luck. However the question becomes, regardless of what happens to L (green? red? saved?) do we lynch tree.hugger anyway? I'm leaning on yes personally, since we must keep our policy unwavering in order to deter any mafia nukes, which when added to the night kill would be disastrous for town. | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On March 27 2010 04:20 L wrote: If you were so worried about the number of town controlled anti-nukes, why would you attempt to nuke me prior to asking people? I was going to extend the day if requested anyways; there was plenty of time to talk about it. "its okay for me but not for anyone else to do what I did" Cool beans. Well, yes that's exactly what I'm arguing. I mean, the nuke's in the air, no point in second guessing the past, eh? At least you actually understood something I said for once. (But I thought you were going to ignore me?) On March 27 2010 04:24 Bill Murray wrote: Unless someone gives me a reason not to other than "it will make you look like mafia", I'm going to be anti-nuking the nuke that is going at L soon. I would rather use what I have than get capped in the night by mafia and have it be unused. I've tried to provide a reason. If L is mafia, then we should let the mafia save him. We should not waste town anti-nukes on people who are not confirmed townies. But even more so, Bill, what the hell were you thinking with that? You've made a huge mistake to claim your possession of anti-nukes, BM. There was nothing suggesting you would be killed in the night, until now. Which means that if you aren't killed tonight, I'll be damn suspicious of you. And at that, to be honest, I really don't see an out for you. You've essentially requested to be killed in the night, and the choice is whether or not you feel like using your powers. I believe that we let the nuke fall on L, and see what color he is, and whether or not anyone stages an intervention on his behalf. But in claiming to posses anti-nukes, you've essentially destroyed the possibility of the town using them later in the game for our own benefits. That's like roleclaiming to be the last medic in the game. That's the most unproductive thing ANYONE has done this game. Goddammit. | ||
|
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On March 27 2010 04:24 Bill Murray wrote: Unless someone gives me a reason not to other than "it will make you look like mafia", I'm going to be anti-nuking the nuke that is going at L soon. I would rather use what I have than get capped in the night by mafia and have it be unused. Also, why would you attempt to save L over JSpazz? You yourself should know clearly what happens when we let L run his own witch hunts against random townies whom he doesn't like. I guess it's just a matter of preference, but from my perspective, JSpazz deserved it a lot less. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
But this is a minor benefit when weighed against the rest of the factors - saving antinukes, nullifying out-of-nowhere-nukes, etc, which have been discussed over and over again (and without agreement). | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On March 27 2010 05:40 tree.hugger wrote: Also, why would you attempt to save L over JSpazz? You yourself should know clearly what happens when we let L run his own witch hunts against random townies whom he doesn't like. I guess it's just a matter of preference, but from my perspective, JSpazz deserved it a lot less. We win the game rather resoundingly? | ||
|
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
As for the L vs whoever crap: stop being so clouded by emotions. Holy shit. People can be dick to others, but that doesn't make them any less town than others. Yeah, L may have a history of running buses, but like I said earlier - if you think he's running an unjustified bus, attack his argument, not the person. A lot of people are confrontational, but we can't just attack L because he seems to act like a douche while responding to everybody else with logic. If you feel that wrongly about L, look past the name, and look at the posts for flaws. He's already posted way more than some of our lurkers. If you think somebody's wrong, attack his arguments. You don't even have completely destroy the argument, just put doubt in people's minds so that player doesn't get bused. If we go back to the first lynch, may I remind people that Abenson was about to get lynched, then OpZ comes out with a mason claim. And what happened? Abenson didn't get lynched. Enough people were willing to take their votes from Abenson due to OpZ claiming mason, and then put their votes on RoL, an inactive [though I realize he may have had work/school/whatever; though I don't necessarily see how that could've taken up a majority of the time]. Anyway, point is - despite how L may seem like a douche, other people may seem equally confrontational, just show how L's argument is flawed and people will notice. As for the nuke resolutions - I'm a bit worried about the one directed at L. I just feel people are wanting to let him die because they hate him. Regardless, tree.hugger is lynch priority tomorrow. As for johnnyspazz's claims about his nukes/antinukes usage, if someone saves him, it's something to keep in mind. On March 27 2010 04:37 JeeJee wrote: one consistent stance of his is that of anti-nukes. now, since we know rol is townie, the nuke launched at him was in good faith, and not to shut him up about his suspicious of, say, xelin. What? Did I miss something? On March 27 2010 05:57 Zona wrote: There is a minor benefit to letting L die - we can get some insight into the earlier votes on him when he was banned. But this is a minor benefit when weighed against the rest of the factors - saving antinukes, nullifying out-of-nowhere-nukes, etc, which have been discussed over and over again (and without agreement). I think this is a very very minor benefit [though I suppose others who believe L should just not talk see it as a major benefit]. We already have one anti-nuke used, and we're not sure how many we have left and this is only day one. Unsupported nukes, I'm all in favor of nuking the aggressor, as Iaaan and L are, but he has threatened to counternuke which is clearly antitown and it also wastes more anti-nukes =\ Regardless of the outcome - my first lynch target is going to be tree.hugger due to him claiming responsibility and because he launched an unsupported nuke. | ||
|
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On March 27 2010 06:29 Elemenope wrote: First off - what the fuck at these nukes. I really hope that after the game, RoL gives some insight about why he decided to use his revenge nuke on jspazz rather than caller. As for the L vs whoever crap: stop being so clouded by emotions. Holy shit. People can be dick to others, but that doesn't make them any less town than others. Yeah, L may have a history of running buses, but like I said earlier - if you think he's running an unjustified bus, attack his argument, not the person. A lot of people are confrontational, but we can't just attack L because he seems to act like a douche while responding to everybody else with logic. If you feel that wrongly about L, look past the name, and look at the posts for flaws. He's already posted way more than some of our lurkers. If you think somebody's wrong, attack his arguments. You don't even have completely destroy the argument, just put doubt in people's minds so that player doesn't get bused. To be fair, this all started with a debate over whether or not the person who launched the first anti-nuke should come forward. That was an argument about facts and strategy, and would've remained so had it not escalated. I think we're both mutually responsible for that one. Eventually it got to a point where it was derailing the thread, and I was seriously starting to doubt L's intentions in pursuing a strategy that would almost certainly get an innocent townie killed, at least in my view. Somewhere along the line here, L apparently 'eviscerated' my arguments. I'm repeating myself, but there were other reasons for my nuke beyond thinking L was an arrogant asshole. Regardless of the outcome - my first lynch target is going to be tree.hugger due to him claiming responsibility and because he launched an unsupported nuke. If you believe this to be in the best interests of the town, so be it. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On March 27 2010 06:50 tree.hugger wrote: To be fair, this all started with a debate over whether or not the person who launched the first anti-nuke should come forward. That was an argument about facts and strategy, and would've remained so had it not escalated. I think we're both mutually responsible for that one. Eventually it got to a point where it was derailing the thread, and I was seriously starting to doubt L's intentions in pursuing a strategy that would almost certainly get an innocent townie killed, at least in my view. Somewhere along the line here, L apparently 'eviscerated' my arguments. I'm repeating myself, but there were other reasons for my nuke beyond thinking L was an arrogant asshole. If you believe this to be in the best interests of the town, so be it. The escalation was you firing a nuke. You seem to forget that. | ||
|
Iaaan
Canada578 Posts
On March 27 2010 00:38 meeple wrote: I still suspect Iaaan of devious actions, since he hasn't really responded to any criticisms... although if I recall someone did offer some reasons why he would make those decisions, I would prefer something from him. I understand that being accused, it is generally asked that you point to a different suspect, so feel free to point out exactly what makes you think I'm suspicious, and I will explain. I've said this before but I enjoy repeating myself. We need to save some anti nukes for a time later than day1. RoL was green, and there is nothing that makes me think it is worth it to save johnny, so let him die. Same thing with L, I can see why some people support him/think he has somehow been useful enough to spend an anti nuke on, but he isn't, his role as just as uncertain as johnny's. It is reasonable to say that if L flips red then tree.hugger isn't mafia. If L flips green he has to die. The nuke should not be intercepted because then we will never know who saved him, and either of their alignments. Letting L die potentially shows us two peoples allignments, which is obviously good for us, less people to suspect. I stand by the not nuking thing, but now that it has happened, we should use it to our advantage. tl;dr, save anti nukes, nuke johnny, nuke L, lynch tree.hugger based off L's alignment. | ||
|
Iaaan
Canada578 Posts
| ||
|
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 27 2010 06:50 tree.hugger wrote: To be fair, this all started with a debate over whether or not the person who launched the first anti-nuke should come forward. That was an argument about facts and strategy, and would've remained so had it not escalated. I think we're both mutually responsible for that one. Eventually it got to a point where it was derailing the thread, and I was seriously starting to doubt L's intentions in pursuing a strategy that would almost certainly get an innocent townie killed, at least in my view. Somewhere along the line here, L apparently 'eviscerated' my arguments. I'm repeating myself, but there were other reasons for my nuke beyond thinking L was an arrogant asshole. If you believe this to be in the best interests of the town, so be it. Other reasons beyond thinking L is arrogant? I only see I launched the nuke for two reasons: - The first was that L had it coming. If he's town, and the nuke kills him, then at least we'll be spared his incessant whining and opining until the next mafia game. (and he invariably will try to kill me off immediately, but that's a fight for another day...). I know he probably won't change, but I was getting tired of him anyway. - The second reason was that I'm curious to see if L is mafia or not. About the only way I can force a rolecheck is by nuking the dude. If he's saved, hopefully enough people will see the light, and we'll also get the name of one of the mafia-aligned countries. Third reason: As I've said multiple times throughout the thread, when L is posting, important town discussions literally get shut down, and L moved the discussion to whatever inane thing he thinks is important. L really doesn't help the town much at all. these three reasons spread over two posts. 1) Invalid 2) So if we're curious about someone being scum, we should just launch a nuke and ask for it to hit because we can't force a rolecheck either way? 3) Then shift the focus away from that. If you think he's being a detriment to the town, state so - use CAPS bold giant red coloring to get attention. The only reason why L has the ability to derail threads is because people fall into his 'word traps'. L can't derail a thread by himself, the player list isn't just L, L, L, L, L. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On March 27 2010 07:05 Iaaan wrote: and watch L start attacking me now. lol. Nah, the points I disagree with I've already put counter arguments out against prior. I can fully understand townies falling on both sides of this issue. That said, if I do end up dying, take responsibility. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
The only reason why L has the ability to derail threads is because people fall into his 'word traps'. L can't derail a thread by himself, the player list isn't just L, L, L, L, L. Its more like L is dumb enough to refute arguments multiple times, so when they're restated he repeats his counter argument. I think I'm going to start numbering my posts and paragraphs so that I can refer back to the argument in paragraph 2, post 6 or some shit. | ||
|
Iaaan
Canada578 Posts
On March 27 2010 07:19 L wrote: Nah, the points I disagree with I've already put counter arguments out against prior. I can fully understand townies falling on both sides of this issue. That said, if I do end up dying, take responsibility. Okay@paragraph 1, maybe I was a bit rude, I really do enjoy playing with you, even when you do stupid things ;p The way I see it happening is that tree.hugger will take the brunt of 'responsibility' directly, most other people will be ignored. But of course I won't deny that I supported your nuking. | ||
|
johnnyspazz
Taiwan1470 Posts
do you guys mind if i save myself and L at the same time? | ||
| ||
