World at War Mafia - Page 51

On March 27 2010 12:00 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
The way I see it LMNOP is so obviously pro town that the NK nukes are 99% sure to come from mafia.

On March 27 2010 12:04 L wrote:

Given how Ace loves retarded roles, its entirely possible that NK has no affiliation. Either way, LMNOP was railing decently hard against XeliN which means XeliN is probably being set up.

On March 27 2010 11:51 L wrote:

Her being the deciding factor on where town wants to place anti-nukes seems to be a bit of a town policy issue, no?

On March 27 2010 12:06 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:


This is true. I should have said 99% not town. It's possible it's a trick to get us to go after XeLiN, though i haven't seen him be particularly helpful anyway. regardless, i'm pretty sure we have to lynch tree hugger tomorrow?

On March 27 2010 12:06 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:


This is true. I should have said 99% not town. It's possible it's a trick to get us to go after XeLiN, though i haven't seen him be particularly helpful anyway. regardless, i'm pretty sure we have to lynch tree hugger tomorrow?

On March 27 2010 12:13 tree.hugger wrote:


Wrong, we have to lynch North Korea.

Also, since my nuke didn't land, I won't be voting for myself tomorrow. I regret that a little, because I was honest, and I wanted people to know my sincerity, but oh well.

This is the game that keeps on giving.

On March 27 2010 12:10 L wrote:

We should kill him before he can nuke again. If he is indeed mafia, there would be nothing stopping him from attempting to rub another out. Worst case; he absorbs anti-nukes.

I'm not entirely certain that he's mafia given how ballsy his move was, but the only thing I'm sure of is that we shouldn't be pussies about counter-nuking people who don't agree with our anti-nuke position. If we aren't firm on that point, we simply can't dissuade nukes.

On March 27 2010 12:15 Elemenope wrote:


Yes, let's lynch NK! So, who are we lynching again?

On March 27 2010 12:08 Elemenope wrote:


I don't think we as a town had even decided whether to use anti nukes or not as the issue was split with some people supporting your death while others had wanted you to live. I think the fact that it was pretty much down to the wire for your save also shows this. Now, Verse is going to shoot a nuke if she does follow up with her claim, and we're back to the same situation, just down an antinuke which is necessary late game. On top of that, with only one anti-nuke a day, BM can't save you after that. Can you really claim that it was in the town decision to save you if you don't get saved after that second one?

Although I'm glad that you're alive since you don't really offend me or anything and I do believe that despite some cases of self-preservation, you do make good points, you have to also see the situation that we're down an antinuke and we still have the possibility that you'll die from Verse/anybody else willing to fire a nuke. I can only hope your power is strong enough to offset the loss of the antinuke.

On March 27 2010 12:17 tree.hugger wrote:


Well yeah, therein lies the problem.

Also to address L's point, I'd don't see myself nuking anyone else in the near future.

On March 27 2010 12:10 L wrote:

We should kill him before he can nuke again. If he is indeed mafia, there would be nothing stopping him from attempting to rub another out. Worst case; he absorbs anti-nukes.

I'm not entirely certain that he's mafia given how ballsy his move was, but the only thing I'm sure of is that we shouldn't be pussies about counter-nuking people who don't agree with our anti-nuke position. If we aren't firm on that point, we simply can't dissuade nukes.

On March 27 2010 12:24 XeliN wrote:
Excuse me? I didn't even fire a nuke, and if I had I assure you I would have done it publically, i've already stated Elemenope as someone suspicious I wouldn't bother doing it in secret.

On March 27 2010 12:24 XeliN wrote:


"Excuse me" was in reference mainly to this, should have quoted.

On March 27 2010 12:17 tree.hugger wrote:


Well yeah, therein lies the problem.

Also to address L's point, I'd don't see myself nuking anyone else in the near future.

On March 27 2010 12:18 L wrote:
Well, you're looking at this from the perspective of a game without information; Anti-nuking now instead of later means we have more information prior to mafia being able to start their kill machine going. Given the method of lynching is by majority vote, it means that more information early provides us with more analysis for lynches during a time in which the volume of mafia input is minimal.

Additionally, yeah, the town had spoken pretty clearly. The only people who presented a strong opposition to the save as far as I can tell are tree.hugger, Versatile, Iaaan and Fishball. I'm probably missing someone here, but look at that list: 3 of the members there are people who initially wanted to get rid of me during my ban duration which was an obvious anti-town move. By contrast, players who are relatively confirmed or confirmed, spazz and opz, for instance, were against letting shit hit.

If someone throws a subsequent nuke in the face of the entire town saying "no more nukes" (except to kill people nuking, imo) its a pretty clear sign of mafia intention. So if Versatile IS town, actually going through with her threat now might suck up another anti-nuke, and will result in her death either way. If she's mafia, she doesn't really give a shit. She's very high on a huge spectrum of players' radars already.

Either way, I still don't understand this "anti-nukes are better later!!!" statement. They're good to stop town directed hits always. The more people we keep alive who are town oriented, the stronger the town direction during lynches is. The more townies who die, the more nukes, anti-nukes, and abilities we lose.

On March 27 2010 12:29 XeliN wrote:
Oh I see, skimmed the quotes before yours and saw me mentioned like 3 times so figured you were jumping on Elemenopes suspicions.

The guy's only reasonable contribution is the suggestion of insta-lynch for someone who nukes unsupported. He then goes into an argument with fishball over a hypothetical situation or wifom or something. He puts a vote on Abenson, citing that inactivity is something that can't be allowed.

He then abstains his vote, and later puts it on me, reasoning - because I advocated lynching Abenson to see if OpZ was in fact telling the truth or not. I later stated this was because at the time, all we had was OpZ's word on the matter, Abenson hadn't confirmed. Abenson later comes in, votes, goes off, then comes back later confirming. As such, I stated that I'm perfectly fine with the claim that OpZ and Abenson are in fact Masons and I have cleared them of suspicion for now. Keep in mind that he himself suspected OpZ for being scum based on language OpZ used, and then retracted his suspicion when OpZ made the roleclaim. I made similar retractions, only after the other party (which is pretty fucking important in making a Mason claim), responded as such.

He votes RoL, then later removes his vote, even though he was the one who advocated lynching of people who fire nukes. Really? He hasn't contributed anything of late since these more recent nukes which makes me highly suspicious of him.