World at War Mafia

On March 21 2010 10:53 d3_crescentia wrote:
I want to be China so y'all can pump opium in me.

Wait a second...

On March 23 2010 08:14 Ace wrote:
no ^_^

On March 23 2010 10:33 ~OpZ~ wrote:
I say we lynch RoL first....

;>>

That is all.

On March 23 2010 13:47 Zona wrote:

No chain nuking. There might be a third party who wins by annihilating the world by radiation, so everyone launching revenge strikes might lead to them winning. One or two revenge nukes at most.

I do think a no-nukes idea is good for the most part, but later in the game the town can use them as daytime vigilante hits if we really fall behind by mislynching, so I wouldn't rule it out completely.


Stop bringing past games into this. Your grudge against BM last game hit town and didn't meaningfully advance that game towards town victory (the overwhelming setup advantage did, though). If you think someone is terrible, convince the entire group of players to ignore him, rather than waste a lynch, especially a day 1 lynch which should provide information otherwise. The biggest reason is that if everyone piled on some target you proposed, we will have no differentiating votes to examine later on. And then we go to day 2 without that much more information than day 1.

On March 26 2010 00:04 haster27 wrote:


How can we role-claim to him without getting it also known by anyone else when PM is prohibited?

On March 26 2010 06:09 haster27 wrote:


I am seriously beginning to doubt my decision to argue in your favour. First, there are lot of things wrong about launching nuke against him, with cliches such as ToD waste of nuke etc etc, but the most damning of all is that the very fact you are advocating nuke as his mean of death instead of the lynch.

First, RoL is the player who decided to launch a nuke because he was pushed into majority lynch position. His comments and spats against other Townie prove that he is type of player who base at least part of his decisions on emotions. Do you seriously expect he will not retaliate when someone launches an nuke against him, especially if its by 'unconfirmed' Townie?

You propose we should use anti-nuke at his retaliatory missile, but isn't the conservation of Town's defensive ability part of the reason why we are acting reluctant to save Caller (although agreeably his lurkish behaviour also contributed to this a lot)? Why risk decreasing Town's nuke defense capability by 1 when we can simply lynch him out?

If you were serious about eliminating all the people that bandwagoned against you with intent of being an pro-town, you would have proposed lynching RoL and nuking tree.hugger. This plan is far more efficient than your quoted idea because:

1) It both leads to your suspect's death.
2) More realistic; has no worry about day 1 ending with no lynch during the confusion the Town switches their votes from RoD to tree.hugger.
3) There are less risk of retaliatory nuke- the Town does not need to waste anti-nuke needlessly.
4) More information; whether tree.hugger possesses nuke or anti-nukes.

I mean, I know you are half-joking, but this is such an horrendous proposal that I just had to write this out.

Of course the most pro-town move would be to HOLD OFF THE NUKES, wait for the alignment of RoL (and possibly Caller) and NK, then make day 2 lynch as an rational human beings.

Yeah last time I checked, rules were meant to be worked around and broken. What the fuck? Do you think you are showtime? Stop being an asshole and just communicate in the thread.

L I think the town shouldn't save Caller of their own will because the act of agreeing to do that could save a mafia, or a townie.

On March 26 2010 07:49 ~OpZ~ wrote:


His nuking of Caller is the only reason we have time to talk about this.

L, I thought of a potentially deadly downside to your plan. You being mafia, 2 possible town kills become 3. There is no guarantee that anyone listed is mafia. While, you did catch tree.hugger lurking, and the plan does sound pretty rational, the missing information is very much a problem. I would be willing to risk it though and change my vote to tree.hugger.

On March 26 2010 08:13 haster27 wrote:
Yes, plan of L sounds decent, but let me remind you day ends at 08:54 KST at the current time. That's about thirty minutes to attract eleven players. I was impressed at mobilization against RoL, but even this seems to be too much. We at least need a hour.

On March 26 2010 08:26 haster27 wrote:
08:54 KST

We have exactly 28 minutes to discuss this.

L could set up a nuke at me if he'd like.

On March 26 2010 09:12 nemY wrote:
yeah but L didn't actually explicitly nuke ~OpZ~

On March 26 2010 09:16 Zona wrote:
3 people without nukes can extend the game forever if nobody interferes by shooting at them with real nukes.

On March 26 2010 09:43 tree.hugger wrote:


And immediately get killed by the mafia? Yeah right.

Japan is a country that should certainly have more tricks up their sleeve, having this person out themselves will not happen if they're mafia, and should not happen if they're town aligned and want to stay living.

On March 26 2010 09:52 tree.hugger wrote:

What is the obvious reason?

So we can lynch them? So we can not lynch them? What is gained by knowing who did this?

Your assumption about Japan only having one anti-nuke cannot be proven, and in fact, the fact that the anti-nuke was used so early perhaps suggests that this player has other options at their disposal.

On March 26 2010 10:06 tree.hugger wrote:

So you're arguing that if the anti-nuker is mafia, then it would be in the best interests of the town for them to claim firing the anti-nuke?

Well yeah, okay, sure, good luck with that.

On March 26 2010 10:12 tree.hugger wrote:

You're talking about Japan because Japan fired the anti-nuke. What are you talking about?

Just saying something like "you're either a mason, mafia, or Japan" doesn't make it true. In fact, the sole reason you went after me is because I went after you. Fair enough. But pretending like you have some evidence to support that, when clearly none exists is simply rhetoric.

You're entire argument for the anti-nuker (Japan, in case you're not following along) could only benefit a mafia perspective.

Who are you, L?

On March 26 2010 10:14 Zona wrote:

Are you still operating under the assumption the anti-nuker only has spent his or her only anti-nuke and is now vanilla? Because I don't think it's a good assumption, and if this player is town and still has at least one anti-nuke, I would not want this player to step forward and become a mafia target at night.

On March 26 2010 10:13 Nikon wrote:


Yeah, but what happens if the anti-nuker is town, steps forward, and RoL nails caller, who in turn flips red?

On March 26 2010 10:23 Zona wrote:

Um...did you read this?

On March 26 2010 10:32 Zona wrote:

I disagree here, and very much so.

First of all, your assumption that this anti-nuker has no further anti-nukes is based on thin air. But beyond that, my biggest objection to your reasoning is that each extra anti-nuke in late game can potentially stop a full mafia kill.

As an illustration, here's an extremely contrived example. Let's say we've come to a situation where there's 5 town members and 3 mafia left, and the mafia have 2 nukes. The mafia obviously know who the town members are, and they could launch their 2 nukes, kill two town members, and grab their win, as they now have equal numbers as the town members and can prevent lynches. Each anti-nuke the town has can prevent a whole kill from the mafia in this kind of late game situation.

On the other hand, you are suggesting that we ask this person, who might have 1 or more anti-nukes remaining, to step forward and identify themselves, and risk being nightkilled by the mafia, in return for a small amount of information which doesn't even guarantee the alignment of any other player.

I want to emphasize something. In many mafia games the mafia only wins when their number is equal or more than the town. But in this game, if the mafia have more nukes remaining than the town has anti-nukes, for each nuke they have extra, they can have one fewer member than the town and still win. Of course the mafia isn't sure about how many anti-nukes the town has remaining, but that doesn't mean we should risk our anti-nukers needlessly.

To reiterate: The power of a mafia nuke is not the same as the power of a town nuke, when anti-nukes are gone. The mafia nuke is guaranteed to reduce the number of town members. The town nuke may or may not reduce the number of mafia members.

Stupid logic through and through. Think I'd really be that obvious, as to make Japan's argument in third person?

I pointed out that there may be very good reasons for the person who fired the anti-nuke to remain under cover, whether they be town aligned or mafia aligned. Therefore, your call for the anti-nuke person to reveal themselves is redundant, ill-conceived, and spam.

On March 26 2010 11:06 tree.hugger wrote:

Open ended, intentionally vague arguments are really really persuasive.


Attacking my vocabulary is another great way to gain points. Count it!


I would never play myself up to be a big shot. That's your domain.

I suggested we lynch you on Day 1, as per the normal strategy of lynching inactive players. Beyond this, I was aware of your singular ability to disrupt the functional working of the town. I have already made clear that these were my reasons for voting to lynch you. When you returned, you defended yourself, by lashing out at me - perfectly reasonable. In the meantime, of course, you have succeeded in your perpetual quest to derail the town's efforts and confound everyone involved.

Here's specifically what I object to. Your grandstanding, and pretending that you have any motive for lynching me beyond a defense against my accusations against you. You don't. Admit it.

I'll be voting for you, bar anything unexpected, (like my living to tomorrow, for example) because your disruption of common sense in this game has been pernicious, in actively asking a potentially valuable potential town member to compromise their safety.


When did you retract your argument? You were still advocating it a page ago. But at the very least, it's nice you admitted to being wrong about something.

On March 26 2010 11:25 Abenson wrote:
Now the most important matter:
To save or not to save
As you've probably know, I'm all for lynching/killing JSpazz.
The most important part is that we, as a town, should collectively decide whether to save JSpazz or not.

On March 26 2010 11:29 Abenson wrote:


Well I just thought that giving Jspazz a chance to talk could perhaps give us some evidence/information :O

Here's where you've bothered me in the past L, as well as this game. I recognize that in many games, including XX, you've been town aligned, and I've recognized your earnest attempts to aid the town. But in actuality, you posses a certainty in your writing which is highly convincing to some people, (including myself, on occasion) but also does not take into account the chance that you're wrong. You make gambits where you pretend to sacrifice yourself in order to get someone to be killed. We all know those are ploys, but they keep working, and you keep employing these disingenuous strategies

On March 26 2010 11:40 Zona wrote:
Is there a point to continue to drag out the day with a fake nuke?

On March 26 2010 12:01 d3_crescentia wrote:
I don't

what

this is just going to be another repeat of Red Army mafia -_-

On March 26 2010 12:11 Versatile wrote:
do not waste our anti-nukes on L. let him die. please lord, i do not want to read that letter again.

On March 26 2010 12:14 Versatile wrote:


responsibility for? don't worry, i'll bring you some apple pie in hell

On March 26 2010 12:24 tree.hugger wrote:
Here's what I have to say:

- If L is not mafia, he might be saved.
- If L is mafia, he will definitely be saved.
- There is no way this nuke will be as successful as I wish it could be. But at least it might make L a little more friendly and constructive. Or out of the game. Either would be nice.

- Opz is definitely another great candidate for being mafia. If L flips green, then he's probably not. If L flips red (and again, I think the odds are that we will not see this happen) then he's more probably mafia.

- If you're town aligned, and pondering saving L, don't do it, and let's see what happens.

- If you nuke me, I will nuke you back. Let the justness of my action be decided in a vote tomorrow, or in a mafia hit tonight.

***

Back to basketball. I'll be back a little later.

On March 26 2010 12:28 Versatile wrote:
why are you telling people to nuke me? take it back.

On March 26 2010 13:11 tree.hugger wrote:


Note reason #1. Also—I mean—I offered to be nice to L and treat him like an adult, and he chose different path. So yes, about half of it was because he was getting on my nerves.

Amendment to the post above. 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.

Also, about my pledge to vote for myself, if L flips green, I'll vote for myself as soon as possible. If the votes don't exist, then I'll move my vote, but I think it's more sincere if I kick off my own bandwagon.

On March 26 2010 13:17 tree.hugger wrote:


Your ego knows no bounds does it?

Ever considered a job writing cheap crime thrillers?

On March 26 2010 13:37 Fishball wrote:


Haha, there are many reasons to vote for you, Mr. self righteous.
You should be the one growing up, kid. Not tree.hugger.
Should I even quote that hypocritical PM you sent me?
Feel free to dick around TL and get temp banned again. Would do us all a favor.

On March 26 2010 13:51 Fishball wrote:
Basically in the PM to me, you said that you're not trying to be a jerk, but here you are being one to tree.hugger, and dragging me and Versatile into your argument.




See, normally I would just ignore you, but since you are a hypocrite to such a degree AND brought my name up in such manner... Ah, to be honest what else is expected from L?

On March 26 2010 14:02 Fishball wrote:
To be honest, this is the internet, he can do or be whatever person he wants for all I care.

All I'm saying is he has no credibility, which is game related.
His ruthless and forceful arguments along with personal attack isn't convincing anyone.

A simple and recent example. Could the action of tree.hugger launching a nuke be prevented? Absolutely.

On March 26 2010 14:07 Fishball wrote:


See, you like to put words in other people's mouth and have selective reading. I lost count how many times, in the past 2 years, people have said something similar.

I never brought up previous games. YOU did.

Zero evidence? This is subjective. tree.hugger's action is evidence to you, but your behavior is evidence to me. You don't agree? I don't care, but same thing could apply to your argument.

You act like this is the first time I've seen you play.
The other post I just posted is just another reason.

The other post I just posted is just another reason.

Meanwhile, my intent with the L nuke was to eliminate someone who I see as a anchor to the town's effort

On March 27 2010 01:30 Zona wrote:

I think he means anchor in terms of something holding back a ship. Rather than the other interpretation of anchor, being a solid foundation to build something on.

On March 27 2010 02:30 tree.hugger wrote:


Oh yeah, I never thought about the other positive connotation. I was originally going to say 'parasite' but I subbed it out for something a little less harsh.

I meant 'anchor' as in the object that prevents forward progress, and weighs the team down.

So to clarify; "Meanwhile, my intent with the L nuke was the eliminate someone who I see as a parasite to the town's effort."

Sorry for the confusion.

You're right in that we can't continue to think this way, but 'continue' implies future action, if we let both nukes fall, then we can subsequently not fire any other nukes.

On March 27 2010 04:26 Versatile wrote:


if you anti-nuke him, i will just nuke him.

so i suggest not anti-nuking him so as to not waste your anti-nuke.

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.

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.

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.

On March 27 2010 07:05 Iaaan wrote:
and watch L start attacking me now. lol.

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.

On March 27 2010 07:37 Iaaan wrote:


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.

On March 27 2010 09:26 haster27 wrote:
nemY// he has declared his intention to retaliate nuke if any Townie apparently interferes. Lynching is the only way Town can get rid of him safely.

On March 27 2010 09:29 nemY wrote:
and this is why the mafia's going to win the game... we set up rules and idiots think they are above them and break them. way to go tree.hugger.

On March 27 2010 11:38 ~OpZ~ wrote:


Let me make sure this post is seen.

One reason I was garnering votes earlier, was because I went against L's idea of Abenson so strongly, to the point of threatening to use a nuke.
(L got banned nearly right afterwards, saving my ass from arguing with him severely, and I'm sure, accusing and bussing me)

On March 27 2010 11:42 Bill Murray wrote:
LMNOP is hugely pro-town with his walls of text, but noone believes L is except me
he is playing the exact same way he did last game, and if he is red, hurray, if he is not, whatever

im going to save him
if you all don't like it, or want to lynch me, go ahead. i'll withhold my nukes if i'm lynched

On March 27 2010 11:44 Elemenope wrote:


I hope you realize that verse said she would nuke, I believe.

You're wasting antinukes if that's the case.

On March 27 2010 11:48 Elemenope wrote:


How does any of what I said relate to her dictating town policy?

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 12:06 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 12:08 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 12:24 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 12:28 Elemenope wrote:

A remark we can't exactly trust, especially given the situation that transpired.



The only thing I don't understand is the last part. The other 3 paragraphs make sense except I don't necessarily agree that she's high on player's suspect's list, but the last part is that the counter to the 'antinukes are better later' statement is that we should always use these to stop town-directed hits. The issue with this, which I'm sure you know, is that it's very hard to prove that it's town-directed, especially on day one, unless you'd like to enlighten my feeble mind about this.

On March 27 2010 13:50 flamewheel91 wrote:


Rofl.



Rofl.

Man I like these nukes.

On March 28 2010 06:46 tree.hugger wrote:


Dude, are you blind?

How many times do I need to say that I won't be firing another nuke out in the foreseeable future? Do you have trust issues? Did you take it hard when you learned the tooth fairy was a lie or something?

I'm not going to nuke.
I'm not going to nuke.
I'm not going to nuke.

On March 28 2010 10:21 haster27 wrote:


Why don't you use FF? I assume those will work b/c I am having absolutely no problem with my Safari (mac). Also I think you can stop breathing down tree.hugger's neck for now- there are too many suspect & crazier non-concensus nukers present to bother about him right now.

On March 28 2010 10:33 Elemenope wrote:


I assume by 'you', you mean tree.hugger/he, unless there's something I missed.

On March 28 2010 10:42 Versatile wrote:


lol. i think that's fair to say. however, i warned BM what happened, but apparently he didn't realize i have bigger balls than him.

in any case, i wanted L dead because i believe him to be bad for the town, period. who knows, maybe i'll change my mind in the future. once a nuke was launched at him, i took the opportunity. i guess i underestimated how stupid BM is though, an impossible task though it is. one would think that at the point i nuked L, he would realize nuking me would only lead to his death. if he had been thinking long-term about the radiation levels and to keep himself alive, getting me lynched would have been a far better plan, because why wouldn't i retaliate?

either way, for all you dummies who keep putting me at the top of your lynch lists, newsflash: i have a nuke coming at me. i will die. discuss other plans and other targets as i'm old news.

further, town may want to think about their attempts to lynch/nuke townies who have broken the precious rules. you guys have got townies attacking townies while the mafia and third party sit back and watch the town do the work for them. yeah, you can blame the townies who acted without town-consensus, but what's done is done. if you want to win, it's time to move on past the blame game. someone has to take the high ground.

On March 28 2010 10:53 Iaaan wrote:
I think I missed what the point of extending the day AGAIN was.....

umm, i'm not RoL. i wouldn't have launched a nuke just to eff the town, that's not my style. so that point is null and void.

Here's my problem L.

As versatile has pointed out, AND demonstrated, nuking people who've already been shown to have nukes is just downright stupid and suicidal.

But then, who'd be willing to carry that judgment out, when it would possibly lead to a retaliatory nuke against themselves? In your scenario, all that happens is more dead townies, all in the name of justice.

Strategy #2:
1) I am town
2) I am nuked
3) Upon being nuked, I fulfill my promise, and do not retaliatory nuke. I die.

Result:
Town loses a townie, strategy flawed.

I wasn't speaking specifically about myself.

And there's nothing that would prevent people from nuking, except the suspicion of the town. That's one of the reasons that attempted to explain fully the reasons why I nuked you.

On March 28 2010 15:29 Versatile wrote:
LMAO. fake nuke BM?

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. L is going to kill you. what a failure at life.

my nuke isn't fake by the way.

: )

On April 11 2010 03:08 Ver wrote:
I loved Caller's strategy. Hosting his games must've paid off.

Caller's Recipe for Success. What to do if you get caught red-handed:

1) Post immediately out of nowhere after being accused despite having lurked the entire game.

2) Make up a bunch of random and far-fetched claims to mislead them. A cop here, random nation there, weird sanity here, convenient dead person check there...hmm that's not good enough.

3) Add even more bizarre claims to confuse them so much they just ignore you. What's missing? Invent a role! How about a Bus driver switch? Follow it up by sidetracking everyone into debates about how this role that doesn't exist works so they forget about the real issue.

4) When people finally stop getting sidetracked and come back to accusing you, spice it up more! Reveal you are actually an even more suspicious country, supply some random filler, and 'rolecheck' your accusers.

5) Now sidetrack everything onto a long debate about how the accuser's role works according to other rules to make everyone confused and waste time. Accuse said person that they don't understand their role. Mayhem ensues and town misses the lynch.

On April 11 2010 05:45 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:



I think the distraction provided by XeliN / Nikon really helped him get away with it.

edit: i'm also surprised at the number of nukes the mafia had

On April 11 2010 08:45 citi.zen wrote:

He actually made many sloppy mistakes but had great support and a most gullible town. Jeejee tottered that plausible deniability line much much better I thought.

On April 11 2010 12:25 JeeJee wrote:



stfu
no
it was only 2 bottles

also after this game i have no idea how to do post analysis for mafia anymore
at least for the first 2 days i was just posting whatever pro-town shit i would post normally just a bit more active cos i had a role. it doesnt really affect mafia unless a mafia's a target of popular opinion which given the odds they probably aren't. so i have no friggin' clue how people like mbh are so damn good at it.

So was there foul play or not?

On April 12 2010 14:09 Qatol wrote:

How do you know? You weren't even in that game. You missed mafia 3 - mafia 5.

Specifics?