EPTWorld at War Mafia - Page 7
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Zona
40426 Posts
| ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 29 2010 10:34 Zona wrote: I've dug out really obscure things to talk about day 1 (and it is day 1) like lurkers and their points of view I mean I've gone as far as to dig out... As in, most of the useful topics for day 1 have been exhausted, and we've even moved onto very marginally useful topics such as those. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 29 2010 10:42 Versatile wrote: zona, if you want to talk about something, no one has commented on my ideas for day 2 lynch. maybe we can get this squared away before then. My point of view is the same - we'll be in a much better position to talk once the night is over and we have a bit more information. I've been throwing out lots of things, from high value all the way down to low as the day dragged on and on, but we really have very little context and information to use with our suspicions. I'm just throwing stuff out so we can later refer back to it and examine it in a new light later. I'm glad you put together the list as we can reference it later, but what else can we do now? Re-examine the same posts that have already been looked at and continue to rage as new nukes are launched? Honestly I'm close to reaching to point where I don't care, as no matter how hard I try to help my side, the town, win, there's someone else who nominally is on my side, but goes out and wrecks things to hell and disproportionately hurts the town's chance of winning. What am I to do? Try to talk civilly to yet another person who has nuked town? Even you are part of that boat. Sigh. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 29 2010 10:44 Versatile wrote: what are your thoughts on who to lynch, besides opz? your posts are going to be useful to the town if you don't get saved by an anti-nuke. If/when you flip town, your posts are something we should go over closely, so make the most of it. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 29 2010 20:23 Nikon wrote: And then there's You're directly disagreeing with yourself. Based on this and how you've omitted various pieces of information in your nice big posts, I'd say that you're red. This is not a disagreement. First part, I want you (and other inactives) to post something useful. Now you're posting at least a tiny bit more, good. It would have been nice if you had posted more before you were called out. Second part, I'm responding to those who already saying "we should lynch player x next, we should nuke player y next" - I'm saying we don't need to fully need to commit to lynching a certain person right now when there's at least 72 hours more until the next lynch. In any case, unless a person posting a lot constantly repeats the same damn thing and doesn't take into account what everyone else is posting, it's likely you'll be able to find some change in opinion. Also - feel free to tell me what information I'm omitting, rather than make such a statement without providing any accompanying any evidence. And it's interesting you immediately call me red for such trivial reasons. When have any of my proposals not been in the interests of the town? When others have pointed out flaws in them, they have been modified. The real scummy plans are those that involve launching nukes early. Like I've said time and time again, these early nukes have such high chance of hitting town. And it's not just me saying this is likely theoretically. We know RoL is town. Who did his nuke hit? Johnnyspazz, town. The real problem is that even Opz, with the best townie claim so far in the game, is supporting plans that hurt the town. If I were mafia I'd be sitting back silently and cackling as the town kills other town members for me, not raging at the incompetence of my fellow town members. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 29 2010 23:22 ~OpZ~ wrote: AGAIN, you've argued to save anti-nukes for late game. So your argument makes no sense why wouldn't we want to increase the ToD. If it's the town launching the nukes at ONE player, then the MAFIA can't nuke anyway. You're making a unjustified leap in logic. Saving anti-nukes automatically lead to the conclusion that raising radiation is useful. Two separate issues. As an additional argument against increasing radiation, raised radiation also removes the option of nukes from town, later on. Have you been sleeping the entire time I've argued that town-directed kills get stronger LATER in the game? You're still itching to nuke more on day 1. And what if it's the town launching 3 to 6 nukes at this one player, who happens to have a bunch of nukes of his own, that he fires back? I really don't care anymore. Why do you guys bother discussing such things with the town when you clearly don't care what the rest of the town thinks and will nuke anyways? | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 30 2010 00:52 Zona wrote: You're making a unjustified leap in logic. Saving anti-nukes automatically lead to the conclusion that raising radiation is useful. Yikes. Missed two words which totally changed the meaning. Saving anti-nukes does not automatically lead to the conclusion that raising radiation is useful. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 24 2010 01:07 Nikon wrote: Let's not nuke anyone just yet, shall we? On March 24 2010 04:43 Nikon wrote: Overall, I'd say that I agree with the "Lynch the nuker" plan. What's really interesting is: what if the mafia doesn't have nukes? Then what? On March 24 2010 20:32 Nikon wrote: No, we need an exact definite decision against nukes. Instantly lynching the person that launched them is a good one at this point of the game, since it doesn't leave room for him to retaliate to counter-nukes, should he have more than one. I know that you don't want to get lynched and there are votes for you, but flaunting your arsenal in the manner that you are, isn't going to help you. Even if you launch nuke(s) we can shoot them down, don't worry. On March 28 2010 23:01 Nikon wrote: I don't want to get nuked by you crazy sobs. On March 28 2010 23:19 Nikon wrote: Let's abide by the lynch a nuker plan then, starting with Xelin. Very consistent so far! I wonder what's coming next? On March 30 2010 01:49 Nikon wrote: Oh yeah, before I forget... ##Nuke: Zona | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
My question is: Why have you, Nikon, gone after me with your "analysis" and have not "analyzed" any other player in the game in the same way? Let's take a closer look. He has only provided one single reason to justify his actions, even when repeatedly questioned: On March 29 2010 20:23 Nikon wrote: And then there's You're directly disagreeing with yourself. Based on this and how you've omitted various pieces of information in your nice big posts, I'd say that you're red. This is the sole reason he has provided to justify his nuke on me. First, I've already explained why it is not a contradiction. But to quickly re-iterate: I suggest posting more plans and suspicions, but not solidly deciding on who to lynch until the next day. However, let's for some reason suppose you don't buy my explanation and consider it a real contradiction. Now comes the question. Is this single contradiction enough to declare that surely I'm "red"? Furthermore, this "contradiction" that I posted - does it promote actions that really harm the town in the long run? Finally, notice is that Nikon has not gone after anyone else in the thread in the same manner. Nikon has shown no interest in finding contradictions in anyone else's play. Nikon is exclusively going after me, for a single flimsy reason. What's going on? He's not pointing me out in a general attempt to help the town, but in an attempt to justify his nuke on me. I honestly don't think I was even that threatening to him, given that my post on him was among posts on many players, but his response is to first make his one flimsy argument on me then nuke. By now, so many nukes have been launched that perhaps mafia feel safe in joining the fray. After all, at this rate the town isn't even going to kill our nuke-launchers for awhile - so they don't fear being immediately killed if they nuke. Summary: Nikon tries to paint me as scummy by pointing at a single "contradiction". He repeats himself several times with no new evidence, then goes off and launches a nuke. He has shown no sign of examining anyone else in the same manner. The conclusion to be reached is that all he wanted to do is to nuke me, and his posts are there to try to justify the nuke. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 30 2010 06:10 Zona wrote: I have no nukes, and I do not have any anti-nukes. My question is: Why have you, Nikon, gone after me with your "analysis" and have not "analyzed" any other player in the game in the same way? Let's take a closer look. He has only provided one single reason to justify his actions, even when repeatedly questioned: This is the sole reason he has provided to justify his nuke on me. First, I've already explained why it is not a contradiction. But to quickly re-iterate: I suggest posting more plans and suspicions, but not solidly deciding on who to lynch until the next day. However, let's for some reason suppose you don't buy my explanation and consider it a real contradiction. Now comes the question. Is this single contradiction enough to declare that surely I'm "red"? Furthermore, this "contradiction" that I posted - does it promote actions that really harm the town in the long run? Finally, notice is that Nikon has not gone after anyone else in the thread in the same manner. Nikon has shown no interest in finding contradictions in anyone else's play. Nikon is exclusively going after me, for a single flimsy reason. What's going on? He's not pointing me out in a general attempt to help the town, but in an attempt to justify his nuke on me. I honestly don't think I was even that threatening to him, given that my post on him was among posts on many players, but his response is to first make his one flimsy argument on me then nuke. Summary: Nikon tries to paint me as scummy by pointing at a single "contradiction". He repeats himself several times with no new evidence, then goes off and launches a nuke. He has shown no sign of examining anyone else in the same manner. The conclusion to be reached is that all he wanted to do is to nuke me, and his posts are there to try to justify the nuke. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
If we assume he's town-aligned, then perhaps he's afraid that my mention of him as being inactive might get him lynched. But there are so many alternatives and he isn't even close to being high on the town's radar. He was definitely less in the spotlight than he is NOW. Alternatively, he truly believes that the one so-called contradiction he found in my numerous posts indicates that I'm surely scum. If that's what he truly believes, he's an idiot. As well, for whatever reason he hasn't bothered to analyze other posters for the same kind of "contradiction". If we assume he's mafia-aligned, then things start to make more sense. A lot of other players have launched nukes and have not suffered any consequences. After all, at this rate the town isn't even going to kill our nuke-launchers for awhile - so mafia might feel that they can join in and nuke without being afraid of immediately killed in response. I like to think that I'm driving discussion to some degree, so maybe the mafia wants to get rid of me. Perhaps in one of my posts I've made them nervous by calling some of them out (I wouldn't know which ones.) So this might be the true reason why he wanted to nuke me. He thinks it's better for his team for me to be dead, and he doesn't fear the town calling out nukers, since we haven't really dealt with the ones that have nuked so far. As well, look at how out of the ones who have nuked, he wants Xelin dealt with first. Conclusion: Nikon is an idiot, or scum. Since I like to believe the best of people and posters on TeamLiquid generally display some level of intelligence, let's assume Nikon isn't an idiot. Thus, he's scum. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
| ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
| ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 31 2010 10:04 XeliN wrote: Actually I think I can explain, in his mafia game he implemented a new rule as a result of what I wrote, I think his reaction to it is one that a mafia member would make and whilst certainly a townie could too (trust me it was lame, can't stress this enough) I think it more likely that he is mafia. The BOLD part was my reaction. Do keep in mind that while I want to win, I only want to do so within the confines of the game. In any case, I had no idea that you would actually remove your post in reaction to my rule change in a game that you had no involvement in. I certainly didn't expect that my game rules would somehow spill back into a game I was not hosting. (And I do need to defend myself here. Otherwise this statement made against me: On March 31 2010 09:59 XeliN wrote: just hangs out there which I cannot rebut, as he "won't explain further".)I can say that I consider Zona to be mafia as a result, but won't//can't explain further." @Iaaan: You might want to mention who you're agreeing with, because I'm not sure. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 31 2010 10:30 Fishball wrote: I wouldn't go as far as to say its awful. It's a long shot, but I understand where he is coming from. Okay. Since you understand where he is coming from, I assume you saw what he posted. Sequence of events: Xelin posts something which is supposed to establish that he is pro-town. I go and add a rule to the games I host (which have nothing to do with this game!), and do not react at all in this game. Xelin edits out his post after reading about my game, which ostensibly has its own rule set and doesn't mix with this game whatsoever. His edit admits his post is "dubious" and a later post admits it was a "lame attempt to circumvent [rules]". Xelin says that this sequence of events makes him view me as mafia. Here's the two ways I can see him drawing this conclusion. 1st possible way: The new rule "helps" mafia by taking an "option" away from the town. So Zona must be thinking about how to help mafia and is mafia in this game. But the "option" I take away, which you attempted in this game, doesn't just "help" town, it removes all purpose in playing the game altogether. I add the rule so we can continue to play the game of mafia, instead of having the game revolve around all town-aligned players doing what you just did. 2nd possible way: Zona knew somehow that his rule addition would cause Xelin to remove his post that was showing his pro-townness. Therefore Zona didn't want the town to see Xelin's post. So that means Zona is mafia. Like I said before, I had no idea you would react in that way. I had my own players in mind when I did that, not you. Both of these possible logical sequences are flawed. That's why I say that it is awful logic that my adding a rule in my game somehow is evidence of my being mafia in this game. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 31 2010 11:04 XeliN wrote: I didn't remove my post as a reaction to what you wrote, in fact I saw it after i'd decided to myself so don't assume things, and all I am saying is that I consider your reaction to be more consistent with if you were mafia than if you were town. Just to make things perfectly clear. By my "reaction" are you referring to my adding of the new rule to the games I am hosting? | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
| ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
We now have quite a few "idiot townie or devious scum" candidates. Each of them are players who have made blatantly anti-town moves along with few or no pro-town actions. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
- all the nukers/fake nukers/etc - inactives - the claims that have just come out. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
| ||
| ||
