Sengoku Mafia - Page 51

On November 04 2010 04:44 Hesmyrr wrote:
/in
gotta enter the Caller's game man.

On November 05 2010 04:25 Hesmyrr wrote:

When do you expect this game to start? Just want to compare against my RL schedule.

Edit: Also, should I send in my pick of provinces & name of the province now, or do I wait until the game officially begins?

On November 13 2010 11:01 Hesmyrr wrote:
Don't know how nation claiming can help mafia to bring down SIFZ honestly. I am hoping you guys will at least abide to non-aggression pact, since the presence of alliance who is willing to tolerate use of force is going to discourage people into making universal peace agreement.

On November 14 2010 07:26 Hesmyrr wrote:
I can't see the second map you updated (shows up as 'image' for some reason). Also cannot really understand the point of war advocates at all, since if everyone notices and agrees that randomly attacking someone is bad most of their concerns will be alleviated. It's like Kingmaker mafia all over agan -_-

I just want to point out if we are going to go with non-aggressive pact method it should be our priority to take care of the missionary over all.

On November 14 2010 12:35 Hesmyrr wrote:
Considering risk-quese nature of this setup I would be surprised if PM was forbidden though. And if it's not, we can just re-roll everything.

On November 14 2010 14:37 Hesmyrr wrote:
-_-

On November 14 2010 15:40 Hesmyrr wrote:
Another reason that you do not want to attack is that you might be taking out a town power role. It's not just matter of "town voting power stays the same lol" after all.

On November 15 2010 00:43 Hesmyrr wrote:
AWAKE!
AWAKE!
AWAKE!

On November 15 2010 22:06 Hesmyrr wrote:
To my experience, Caller always find a way to extend the original deadline in strange ways =/
The Caller's confirmation that unofficial PM alliance do not stack their kills is good news though (I just asked him via PM and he confirmed it); should help to reduce the chaos somewhat if defending oneself is almost assured protection til nation with multiple province/fronts appears as long as gunpowder/elite soldier roles don't behave stupidly.

On November 16 2010 05:39 Hesmyrr wrote:
Actually I attacked 25 since it's neutral province. I am province #27 btw (they knew this). Still interesting decision that they attacked me, because I already repeatedly contacted LSB over whether he was going to follow non-aggressive pact or not. If any of the other nations had decided to attack #25 also, I would have been eliminated. Definitely interested in knowing whether it was a group decision.

On November 16 2010 05:42 Hesmyrr wrote:
Just realized the defended attack don't seem to show up in OP, so think #26 should definitely claim if he defended/subsequently attacked.

On November 16 2010 06:11 Hesmyrr wrote:
Uhh... no. I happening to contact you during day 1 while you guys were apparently discussing my demise contrarily to majority town concensus do not automatically lead to conclusion that there are mole within your faction and I am scum. What benefit do I gain from asking you the PM instead of just defending n1, and talking shit about you breaching the NAP (anti-town move) when it fails? Also if there are mole in your ranks, then I would have known that attack was coming.

On November 16 2010 06:14 Hesmyrr wrote:

IF country 24 attacked me, there would have been two person attacking the same territory and it wouldn't have become mine then. I find it highly suspect that how you are trying to incorporate more people into joining your PM land by bringing very circumstantial argument out of nowhere. Hopefully #24 is smart enough not to follow your advice.

On November 16 2010 06:19 Hesmyrr wrote:

Can you explain this statement, because I cannot understand leap of reasoning here. I'm astounded that people in your alliance believe what you are saying because I can't really see anyone agreeing to your case.

On November 16 2010 06:33 Hesmyrr wrote:
Yes, because by that time Ace and that other guy was starting to raise ruckus on the thread that aggression was necessity, and as I have repeatedly stated pacifistic approach only works if everyone - at least those in position of power - is willing to follow it. It was also in my interest to get assurance that my province won't be backstabbed by SIFZ since I was planning on grabbing the neutral province like everyone else anyway (by that time newer map with #26 nation was not present if you remember). There's so much pro-town and pro-self motivation in order for me to persuade SIFZ into being non-aggressive besides big bad mole theory that it isn't even funny.

On November 16 2010 06:36 Hesmyrr wrote:

Repeating myself, I could have created a doubt on your alliance simply by defending myself and revealing that I had been hit.


Now you are suggesting that #24 you just wanted to contact on, and possibly #26 and #22 is mafia? Seriously?

On November 16 2010 06:38 Hesmyrr wrote:
oh wait, it isn't LSB who made the last post so the thing about #24 is kinda void, but it stil is terrible argument.

On November 16 2010 06:45 Hesmyrr wrote:

seven hours before the night post in which I could have changed my actions any time. Thanks.

On November 16 2010 06:55 Hesmyrr wrote:
Also reminding everyone that LSB wasn't the only one who made the attack (apparently way more than I expected) exploiting those trying to attack neutral lands. Should pay greater attention to those nation's future actions. Pandain's lurker vote is another interesting dimension we might choose to consider today.

On November 16 2010 08:49 Hesmyrr wrote:
That's what people in Kingmaker said.

On November 17 2010 10:32 Hesmyrr wrote:
Country claims
Pandain 10 ... New Aiur
annul 20 ... eight equals equals equals capital D
Hesmyrr 27 ... Sakura Gaibun

starting the list before more claims make things confusing. Also who attacked 13?

On November 17 2010 10:35 Hesmyrr wrote:
That's quite a long nose.

On November 17 2010 10:36 Hesmyrr wrote:

???

On November 17 2010 09:03 LSB wrote:
Either that or 13 is an elite soilder

On November 17 2010 10:49 Hesmyrr wrote:

Read your post again. Your post about saying 13 is an elite soldier doesn't make sense at all unless 13 has been attacked, and there was prior talk about 13 possibly being Elite Soldier, which is why I asked who attacked 13. Also what excuse? (the second accident you mentioned)

On November 17 2010 10:55 Hesmyrr wrote:
Can you specifically address which part, because I do not understand "Either that or 13 is an elite soilder" could mean anything but that 13 was attacked and I will abide by that position unless you tell me what I am getting wrong. Also how am I supposed to explain a PM from someone I never had contact with?

Also lol at fishing attempt.

On November 17 2010 10:59 Hesmyrr wrote:

One would have mafia will have replied to find out more -_-

On November 17 2010 11:07 Hesmyrr wrote:
Say what you will, but I think I have given sufficient ground for my misinterpretation. Besides the fact that even if I am mafia I have absolutely nothing to gain by publicly asking who attacked 13. Can't really see any reason why I should not be assuming that 13 had been attacked.

On November 17 2010 11:14 Hesmyrr wrote:
No, because I don't play around with PM land like other TLer's seem to have penchant for. My sole argument stays that I really thought that the majority of people believed that 13 had been attacked, and therefore asked who did it. If you believe that really is lynch-worthy argument so be it.

On November 17 2010 11:16 Hesmyrr wrote:
To my understanding 17 was eliminated already, and I still do not understand if eliminated players can communicate with those still in the game? I actually want Caller to clarify on this, because this day has nothing but you trying to attack me all day after I somehow managed to survive the night.

On November 17 2010 11:18 Hesmyrr wrote:
sent PM to Caller whether eliminated player can talk/post in thread.

On November 17 2010 11:25 Hesmyrr wrote:
I said "Who attacked 13?". That does not mean I knew that 13 was attacked. You yourself just said I assumed that 13 had been attacked so don't know the change of tone here.

On November 17 2010 11:36 Hesmyrr wrote:

Yes, because as, I repeat this again, I thought several people were saying that 13 was attacked, due to posts that repeatedly mentioned that 13 had to be either supported or elite soldier. Which is why asked the question to those individuals, "who attacked 13?". That I knew 13 was attacked because I didn't choose to phrase it as how you word is nitpicking. And this isn't even mentioning why I would even ask such a thing if I knew 13 was attacked.

On November 17 2010 11:41 Hesmyrr wrote:
I find it really suspicious that you would prefer lynch of normal player over individual with 0 votes and whom you only have contact with.

On November 17 2010 11:45 Hesmyrr wrote:

Read what I am saying. Also I would prefer if you revealed the identity of #17 publicly, because frankly this 'trust me' argument with you is getting tiring.

On November 17 2010 11:48 Hesmyrr wrote:

If this is true can you agree to compromise lynch of #17? Not a bad trade-off since according to you, it's going to net you two easy scum.

On November 17 2010 11:50 Hesmyrr wrote:
The part where several people kept entertaining the idea of 17 being elite soldier? And I am curious why you suddenly chose to change your position regarding 17.

On November 17 2010 11:56 Hesmyrr wrote:
Okay, that part was mistake. Either way if you are not willing to reveal the identity of #17, then I will have to vote for you because this is a situation of "two people arguing with each other where someone out of one side will need to be lynched in order for argument to be resolved" like you aptly put it. You have been nitpicking for ways to portray me as suspicious ever since your attack on me have failed, and now is refusing to agree for #17 lynch that will provide more information unlike your previous post was willing to make.

On November 17 2010 11:59 Hesmyrr wrote:
I here am clarifying that I am not officially aligned with 13 b/c this argument seem to be side-tracking. The problem is how LSB is spending all his entire day trying to tunnel-vision me on argument that is not decisive.

On November 17 2010 12:08 Hesmyrr wrote:
By the way by "not decisive" on my last post, it means that his argument is completely up to interpretation, relying on sole basis that I absolutely knew 13 was attacked by asking "who attacked 13?" while the wording could go either way. The first time he attacked me wasn't any better, since it was completely and logically demolished as absolute nonsense. Now when I am trying to clarify matters he reverses his prior position and withholds information. On light of this action I have to believe this is more than townie making accusation, because he is being extremely dogmatic about his stance on me.

On November 17 2010 12:14 Hesmyrr wrote:
No, lynching #17 will provide a solid flip, and you prior stated that you are willing to do this just to prove that you are on right side. But now when I asked for info on #17, you suddenly withdraw completely. I do not understand that change in stance. And are we really discussing counterclaims when only five people like posted since this argument started?

On November 17 2010 12:15 Hesmyrr wrote:
In fact Caller still has not yet confirmed if eliminated players can talk to surviving players at all. Still waiting for him to officially clarify it on thread.

On November 17 2010 12:23 Hesmyrr wrote:



Okay, just read your last post. But before that, is there any eliminated player currently posting in this thread? I just want to see if counterclaim is available, because otherwise I am guessing you are going to keep sticking to attacking me regardless of how much I explain that my words you are incriminating me with can be interpreted ambiguously.

On November 19 2010 09:19 Hesmyrr wrote:
Wow I defended myself last night and my province still got steam-rolled? I guess SIFZ strikes again, prob with perma-ally mechanic considering pro-SIFZ stance ~OpZ~ is taking. I especially like he is pointing fingers at DCLXVI and Pandain for basis of PM alone.

On November 19 2010 10:20 Hesmyrr wrote:
preparing for an attack from the west, not preparing for attack toward the west.
Honestly the flavour post is much more immensely useful than I thought before the game started. Don't know why LSB is questioning that I have defended, when 26/22 - only countries that can team up with 24 to take me out - is apparently in his control.

On November 19 2010 10:22 Hesmyrr wrote:
Oh wait nvm, read the post wrong. So it has to be 22.

On November 19 2010 16:20 Hesmyrr wrote:
Okay, I didn't check that. Agree with DCLXVI's post then. Also I'm pretty sure 22 would be notified if he was attacked (if I am getting what LSB is saying correctly).

On November 21 2010 01:22 Hesmyrr wrote:
Dropping in because I seem to be focus of discussion on quick glance, busy with university work so declaring v/la for 24~30 hours. If I still don't return after that hr replace me I guess. Apologies to everyone and if the worst scenario occurs will take a ban if necessary.