|
On November 09 2010 19:29 CubEdIn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 18:56 Hesmyrr wrote:
WTF are you keep talking about. So if there is 5-3 split and king goes, "oh guy with 3 votes seem more suspicious imma hammer him" do you have any idea what chaos would ensure thereafter? At the point where king makes a decision where town opinion is not so decisive as your example, everything goes to shit whether the king turns out to be town or not. Like I said, if the king has valid excuse behind his push, then it should be enough to convince the majority into believing his case.
In fact please explain how "t should be pretty obvious if he goes with the general "stream of thought" that the town is going with, or if he just chooses to lynch someone who seems completely random to the town" somehow turns into support for the statement "I disagree that king should listen to town." Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm sorry, but the king is a cool role. Why do we have to spoil it? It's the player's chance. IF there's a 5-4 vote split, (king's vote is on the 4) the king can lynch whoever he wants, no? That's fair, the imbalance is not that big. If there's a 5-3 vote split (assuming one player died), then the king has one of those 3 votes. So in fact, it's just a 5-2 vote split (not counting king's vote), so the imbalance is fairly obvious. King has the option of going with the majority, or taking a huge risk and killing the "2-vote". If the 2-vote turns blue, then the king will have a lot to explain for, and it won't be an easy way out. Also, the other 2 voters will be in trouble. So no, given the fact that there are only 9 players, I don't think there's any way for the king to explain un-town-like moves. I fail to imagine a scenario where the king could justify a "gut feeling" blue kill, unless the votes are actually quite close (note the 5-4 split I was talking about earlier).
Remember, it is quiet easy to state a few reasons why someone is probably scum. In every single game, scum are accused, town are accused. Take this post in the Micro Game http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=161868¤tpage=8#145
Each are reasons why the king could have killed someone.
If we allow the king to go against majority, all that's going to happen is the assassins are going to be able to crowned, write up an analysis against a random player. Post the analysis and get the town to waste a lynch.
I don't buy the 'the king should have fun' argument. Remember, the problem is that the King is a very big danger and hold lots of power. Play to win, not to 'roleplay'
|
On November 10 2010 02:56 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 02:28 LSB wrote:Okay. This is going to be quick Firstly, we need a united town. We need some sort of policy regarding the kings. If we're going to decide to let the king lynch people independently, we cannot make the argument later that 'you should have followed majority'. At the same time, if we force the king to follow majority, the must hold him accountable On November 09 2010 16:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
I agree. The king should not roleclaim. This way the mafia can not manipulate the king directly and he can participate in the town discussion without being pushed in a direction intentionally. And we fear this because the assassins have sercretz mind control abilities </sarcasm> You are saying that 1) The king is smart enough to make his own decisions. and 2) The king is too easily influenced. Please clarify Unless the king is Coagulation I think he should be allowed to scumhunt on his own. most of the players in this game are decent or good. No I'm not saying the assassins have secretz mind control. But if both get active, they can manipulate the shit out of the town. If they know the king then they can push him directly and put pressure on him directly to do what they want to do. If they don't the king, then they can't. They have to focus manipulation on the town as a whole which is much more difficult. Honestly just one good scum poster can totally change the direction of a bandwagon. Early game bandwagons are very often directed by scum when the town has no real viable scumtargets, that's why I think the king should act somewhat independently. If the town doesn't know the king, it doesn't bust their balls at all. At the end of the day, the king is held accountable for what he does and he must reveal himself eventually.
This is assuming that the king decides to go with his 'gut decision'. The king being influenced wouldn't be an issue if he is following the vote of the majority. This problem only arises if we allow an independent king.
I don't understand what you mean by Early Game bandwagons. Sure, if this was micro mafia iv where people ran around not knowing what to do. But this town is pretty experienced. We are talking about people with multiple games underneath their belt. People aren't going to jump on a bandwagon because it looks cool.
Lastly, you forget the town. We can stop manipulations. In fact, public discussion is best because it show manipulations and brings light to the mafia. In games where not much discussion occurs, mafia easily lay back and watch the town turn on themselves.
Let's look at your plan.
The king should stay hidden, and 1 hour from the end, pop up, and kill someone because 'he thought he was scummy'. This is extremely mafia favored.
To me, all it seems like what you are doing is trying to create a mafia favored environment where the town has no control over the lynches
This is the big issue. Making sure the town has control over the lynches Town KP is Always Always Always better than mafia KP
|
On November 10 2010 03:07 CubEdIn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 02:59 LSB wrote:On November 09 2010 19:29 CubEdIn wrote:On November 09 2010 18:56 Hesmyrr wrote:
WTF are you keep talking about. So if there is 5-3 split and king goes, "oh guy with 3 votes seem more suspicious imma hammer him" do you have any idea what chaos would ensure thereafter? At the point where king makes a decision where town opinion is not so decisive as your example, everything goes to shit whether the king turns out to be town or not. Like I said, if the king has valid excuse behind his push, then it should be enough to convince the majority into believing his case.
In fact please explain how "t should be pretty obvious if he goes with the general "stream of thought" that the town is going with, or if he just chooses to lynch someone who seems completely random to the town" somehow turns into support for the statement "I disagree that king should listen to town." Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm sorry, but the king is a cool role. Why do we have to spoil it? It's the player's chance. IF there's a 5-4 vote split, (king's vote is on the 4) the king can lynch whoever he wants, no? That's fair, the imbalance is not that big. If there's a 5-3 vote split (assuming one player died), then the king has one of those 3 votes. So in fact, it's just a 5-2 vote split (not counting king's vote), so the imbalance is fairly obvious. King has the option of going with the majority, or taking a huge risk and killing the "2-vote". If the 2-vote turns blue, then the king will have a lot to explain for, and it won't be an easy way out. Also, the other 2 voters will be in trouble. So no, given the fact that there are only 9 players, I don't think there's any way for the king to explain un-town-like moves. I fail to imagine a scenario where the king could justify a "gut feeling" blue kill, unless the votes are actually quite close (note the 5-4 split I was talking about earlier). Remember, it is quiet easy to state a few reasons why someone is probably scum. In every single game, scum are accused, town are accused. Take this post in the Micro Game http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=161868¤tpage=8#145Each are reasons why the king could have killed someone. If we allow the king to go against majority, all that's going to happen is the assassins are going to be able to crowned, write up an analysis against a random player. Post the analysis and get the town to waste a lynch. I don't buy the 'the king should have fun' argument. Remember, the problem is that the King is a very big danger and hold lots of power. Play to win, not to 'roleplay' Fair enough. You don't have to explain the easy bandwagons, as I said, I got raped for simply counter-attacking the guy who attacked me in the Assassin game. Nobody even bothered to read my posts and see if they made any sense from a Bodyguard point of view. But I digress. However, the king is only a big danger if he's on his own. There is NO way that a king who will go against the majority will not be held accountable. I think that it's very well worth having the king go totally against town and kill a blue if in return he will get killed day 2 and flip red. So no, I don't think it's very easy for someone to get away with killing whoever they want, and bandwagons can be started by anyone, king doesn't have much to do with that. At the very least king should have one extra vote or something. You are only judging from the perspective of being a townie, but what if there's a king who is really sure (based on a gut feeling) that someone is an assassin? What will he do? He might even invoke Merlin or do silly things like that just out of frustration of not being listened to by the town. Either way, I'll go with any decision, but forcing king to be normal townie will probably cause more bad than it does good. Just my two cents.
Exactly. The issue I'm seeking to prevent is what if the king goes against majority.
If we have no definitive statement, there will be no way to tell if a king is scum or town.
But I see your point about a frustrated townie. Although I usually would say "suck it up and do what's best". I just thought of this.
New thought
How about this. The king can announce, at least 24 hours beforehand who he is going to lynch. And then he must defend his lynch and reasoning, and satisfy the town, or go with the majority opinion.
I am okay with this, as it's a lot more transparent, and we can easily tell if the king is trying to find scum, or if the king is just trying to make a flimsy case against someone.
|
On November 10 2010 03:27 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 03:16 LSB wrote:On November 10 2010 03:07 CubEdIn wrote:On November 10 2010 02:59 LSB wrote:On November 09 2010 19:29 CubEdIn wrote:On November 09 2010 18:56 Hesmyrr wrote:
WTF are you keep talking about. So if there is 5-3 split and king goes, "oh guy with 3 votes seem more suspicious imma hammer him" do you have any idea what chaos would ensure thereafter? At the point where king makes a decision where town opinion is not so decisive as your example, everything goes to shit whether the king turns out to be town or not. Like I said, if the king has valid excuse behind his push, then it should be enough to convince the majority into believing his case.
In fact please explain how "t should be pretty obvious if he goes with the general "stream of thought" that the town is going with, or if he just chooses to lynch someone who seems completely random to the town" somehow turns into support for the statement "I disagree that king should listen to town." Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm sorry, but the king is a cool role. Why do we have to spoil it? It's the player's chance. IF there's a 5-4 vote split, (king's vote is on the 4) the king can lynch whoever he wants, no? That's fair, the imbalance is not that big. If there's a 5-3 vote split (assuming one player died), then the king has one of those 3 votes. So in fact, it's just a 5-2 vote split (not counting king's vote), so the imbalance is fairly obvious. King has the option of going with the majority, or taking a huge risk and killing the "2-vote". If the 2-vote turns blue, then the king will have a lot to explain for, and it won't be an easy way out. Also, the other 2 voters will be in trouble. So no, given the fact that there are only 9 players, I don't think there's any way for the king to explain un-town-like moves. I fail to imagine a scenario where the king could justify a "gut feeling" blue kill, unless the votes are actually quite close (note the 5-4 split I was talking about earlier). Remember, it is quiet easy to state a few reasons why someone is probably scum. In every single game, scum are accused, town are accused. Take this post in the Micro Game http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=161868¤tpage=8#145Each are reasons why the king could have killed someone. If we allow the king to go against majority, all that's going to happen is the assassins are going to be able to crowned, write up an analysis against a random player. Post the analysis and get the town to waste a lynch. I don't buy the 'the king should have fun' argument. Remember, the problem is that the King is a very big danger and hold lots of power. Play to win, not to 'roleplay' Fair enough. You don't have to explain the easy bandwagons, as I said, I got raped for simply counter-attacking the guy who attacked me in the Assassin game. Nobody even bothered to read my posts and see if they made any sense from a Bodyguard point of view. But I digress. However, the king is only a big danger if he's on his own. There is NO way that a king who will go against the majority will not be held accountable. I think that it's very well worth having the king go totally against town and kill a blue if in return he will get killed day 2 and flip red. So no, I don't think it's very easy for someone to get away with killing whoever they want, and bandwagons can be started by anyone, king doesn't have much to do with that. At the very least king should have one extra vote or something. You are only judging from the perspective of being a townie, but what if there's a king who is really sure (based on a gut feeling) that someone is an assassin? What will he do? He might even invoke Merlin or do silly things like that just out of frustration of not being listened to by the town. Either way, I'll go with any decision, but forcing king to be normal townie will probably cause more bad than it does good. Just my two cents. Exactly. The issue I'm seeking to prevent is what if the king goes against majority. If we have no definitive statement, there will be no way to tell if a king is scum or town. But I see your point about a frustrated townie. Although I usually would say "suck it up and do what's best". I just thought of this. New thoughtHow about this. The king can announce, at least 24 hours beforehand who he is going to lynch. And then he must defend his lynch and reasoning, and satisfy the town, or go with the majority opinion. I am okay with this, as it's a lot more transparent, and we can easily tell if the king is trying to find scum, or if the king is just trying to make a flimsy case against someone. I am on board with this idea. The King could probably give a list of 2 people that should be up for a lynch. This might encourage more discussion. By putting on player under the radar you're going to have 1 player vs. the town. No one is going to step up and defend someone unknowingly. Giving the King the task of identifying and examining 2 players means that his analytical reasoning should remain constant, and it gives the town more leeway.
I imagine it to be more like. 1 player vs. the king. Basically its a test to see how well the king's reasoning works. If the king's reasoning sucks and is just BS, the king will have to switch targets.
This should solve the problem with defense, as people are pretty prone to attacking arguments.
The only problem with putting up a list of two people, is the mafia could just put up a list of 2 townies. One player means we can always switch to a second choice if needed.
I could only imagine an assassin King coming up with some BS as to why candidate X should be lynched, and the town just idly agrees while candidate X is screaming at the other players that they aren't being reasonable. This is where the King should absolve his power. When it comes to discussion, he should remember that he is still just another townie.
I don't think this is going to be a problem, especially considering how active this game is currently.
I will commit to analyzing arguments. And I expects others to do the same
When should the King announce his presence? Right at the start of day? Wait 24 hours after each day post?
So here are what I believe are acceptable options for the king.
Roleclaimed King
The King Roleclaims ASAP, and then the town discusses who to lynch. The King then will execute whoever has the most vote, with the king's vote counting as 1.5 votes (to break ties).
This is if the King has not found a scum yet, or is not confident in his own abilities.
Judgment king
King Roleclaims Before 24 hours are up. He then declares who he is going to execute (make sure you don't accidentally execute them), and has a long post with all his reasoning.
The town will then discuss this and the king will defend his arguments.
If the kings arguments hold up. He can proceed to lynch.
If the kings arguments fail, he can either 1) Find someone else to attack, or 2) Go with town majority opinion of who to lynch (The town can decide to use a relic)
|
On November 10 2010 03:37 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
no it's not about taking town control away from the lynches
listening to the "town" 9 times out of 10 is listening to the mafia. the king should not be a robot that does whatever the "town" says, he should of course seriously consider the town discussion
but do you really think the assassins won't manipulate the shit out of bandwagons? the whole point of the king is to take that away from scum
if we just have the king do whatever the town says, we're handing the mafia the power to control our lynches not the opposite
What do you think about the new idea? That should help with the 'manipulating bandwagons'. Secondly, you forget about town defense against scum. We can see how these manipulations are working, and scum hunt from these manipulations.
Lastly, the king will be drawing his decisions from the thread, who says the scum isn't manipulating the thread? You propose to 'remove scum manipulations' however it will not work
You have consistently ignored the possibility of an assassin king. What is your solution? Throw in the hat and call it a game?
I'm not doing that
|
|
|
On November 10 2010 05:11 Pandain wrote:
Are we not going to use merlin then? I mean, if we're not sure at all, doesn't 'merlin give us the best chance?
Of course, at the very least, wait for him to respond.
Merlin just brings us close to lylo.
Remember the town only can have 2 mislynches before lylo.
If we use the merlin, we can only have 1 mislynch before lylo.
|
On November 10 2010 05:58 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 05:50 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On November 10 2010 05:47 BrownBear wrote:
Let's hear Coag defend himself before we go ahead and execute. how can you defend being inactive and bad 1.You could wait for him to talk for one... 2.It's not just that about coag, by waiting longer we can have more time, having more people talk. More information=good. @Lsb: How does merlin affect the # of mislynches?
Lets assume that no assassins get killed.
Day 1: 7-2
Night 1: 6-2
Day 2: 5-2
Night 2: 4-2
Day 3: 3-2 LYLO
Lets say we use merlin
Day 1: 7-2 Merlin!
Night 1: 7-2
Day 2: 6-2
Night 2: 5-2
Day 3: 4-2 LYLO
|
On November 10 2010 07:35 Coagulation wrote:
generally from what i have seen so far lynching inactives only gets a town role killed.
i dont think lynching an inactive is the way to go in any mafia game and i have never ever used it as a reason. if your lynching inactives you might as well just lynch the most active.
The difference is that an inactive does not help the town in away way shape or form. Mafia have no incentive to hit an inactive person as they are essentially sheep.
Inactive people will cause us to waste a lynch later on the road. I would say that inactive players are anti-town due to the problem with separating the wolves from the sheep.
no the king needs to vote who he feels he personally needs to vote. this is the best aspect of the game that puts it in towns favor. a vote outside the influince of the scums grasp is.
What if the scum is the king? Check back through the thread, I made some points on this already
I dont think the king should be forced to role claim. i think it only gives the scum extra information that they can use when there is absolutely no reason at all that town needs to know who the king is during a lynch debate.
Again, please look at the 'what if the scum is king' argument. We need to make sure the king doesn't just do anything he wants.
What extra information would the scum get once they know someone is king?
|
On November 10 2010 07:42 BrownBear wrote:
influEnce. Not influInce.
Jesus.
I have to admit, though, LSB has been kinda making me wonder all game... he's not playing the way I've come to expect out of him. Not enough to make me say "YO LETS KILL DIS MOTHAFUCKA" but enough to worry about him. A lot.
On November 09 2010 11:56 LSB wrote:
Incase you haven't noticed. I'm going to try to cut my spammyness, I want to see how this will go
Basically I'm going to try to emulate Incog <3
|
On November 10 2010 07:47 Coagulation wrote:
if scum is king
then there is nothing we can do about making his decision help town anyway regardless.
we will see who he is after the lynch right?
at that point he would probably be in alot of trouble if he didnt use his head and play pro town.
its a double edged sword but i think the benefits outweigh the cons.
Basically your saying if the king lynches a green, he's probably scum and should be executed the day after?
|
All right, theres a few thing you need to do then.
Either 1) Contribute meaningfully to the discussion. This means not rehashing old points. And possibly coming up with new ideas or plans.
2) Scumhunt
|
On November 10 2010 07:55 Coagulation wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 07:50 LSB wrote:On November 10 2010 07:47 Coagulation wrote:
if scum is king
then there is nothing we can do about making his decision help town anyway regardless.
we will see who he is after the lynch right?
at that point he would probably be in alot of trouble if he didnt use his head and play pro town.
its a double edged sword but i think the benefits outweigh the cons. Basically your saying if the king lynches a green, he's probably scum and should be executed the day after? nonono not at all. theres a difference between lynching a green on accident that had scummy behaviors and just lynching a green randomly who was clearly town roled
On November 10 2010 02:59 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 19:29 CubEdIn wrote:On November 09 2010 18:56 Hesmyrr wrote:
WTF are you keep talking about. So if there is 5-3 split and king goes, "oh guy with 3 votes seem more suspicious imma hammer him" do you have any idea what chaos would ensure thereafter? At the point where king makes a decision where town opinion is not so decisive as your example, everything goes to shit whether the king turns out to be town or not. Like I said, if the king has valid excuse behind his push, then it should be enough to convince the majority into believing his case.
In fact please explain how "t should be pretty obvious if he goes with the general "stream of thought" that the town is going with, or if he just chooses to lynch someone who seems completely random to the town" somehow turns into support for the statement "I disagree that king should listen to town." Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm sorry, but the king is a cool role. Why do we have to spoil it? It's the player's chance. IF there's a 5-4 vote split, (king's vote is on the 4) the king can lynch whoever he wants, no? That's fair, the imbalance is not that big. If there's a 5-3 vote split (assuming one player died), then the king has one of those 3 votes. So in fact, it's just a 5-2 vote split (not counting king's vote), so the imbalance is fairly obvious. King has the option of going with the majority, or taking a huge risk and killing the "2-vote". If the 2-vote turns blue, then the king will have a lot to explain for, and it won't be an easy way out. Also, the other 2 voters will be in trouble. So no, given the fact that there are only 9 players, I don't think there's any way for the king to explain un-town-like moves. I fail to imagine a scenario where the king could justify a "gut feeling" blue kill, unless the votes are actually quite close (note the 5-4 split I was talking about earlier). Remember, it is quiet easy to state a few reasons why someone is probably scum. In every single game, scum are accused, town are accused. Take this post in the Micro Game http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=161868¤tpage=8#145Each are reasons why the king could have killed someone. If we allow the king to go against majority, all that's going to happen is the assassins are going to be able to crowned, write up an analysis against a random player. Post the analysis and get the town to waste a lynch. I don't buy the 'the king should have fun' argument. Remember, the problem is that the King is a very big danger and hold lots of power. Play to win, not to 'roleplay'
|
BrownBear
orgolove
Pandain
Hesmyrr
Amber[Light]
What do you think of Coagulation?
|
On November 11 2010 11:22 BrownBear wrote:
It's more of a meta-thing, but I feel like he's posting out of character, and a lot of his posts just rehash stuff already said, ask other people for their opinion, or correct other people, rather than add new content. He could be a mafia flying under the radar, or I could just be paranoid.
Either way, I'll look at his posts later. Tired now.
Very interesting. I understand the posting out of character.
But can you please tell me about this 'rehashing'? Or flying under the radar?
|
Tip, type [b]Execute: Coagulation[/b]
|
|
|
On November 12 2010 01:56 BrownBear wrote:
Mk, well, night discussion was kind of a wash...
Maybe you could look at my posts? I know that you said that you were going to do so.
|
On November 12 2010 22:55 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Idk don't discount Orgolove just yet. Just because DrH flipped doesn't guarantee anything. It would seem that the assassins went for a dead-end route. They picked a target that wouldn't lead back to any mafia connections. Think about the people who targeted who on Day 1. Think of everyone who put pressure on Coag. Chances are one of the people in that list is mafia. DrH did more-or-less enhance the lynching but the chances of the assassins backing that decision were probably pretty high.
I think Orgolove is my biggest suspect since he was the only person that threw out a blank accusation yesterday (against me). The pressure wasn't pushed after DrH stepped up and named his lynch, so I'm a bit suspicious of this.
I'd like to hear more from BrownBear & Hesmyrr since they're playing on the fairly quiet side.
Only thing about Orgolove is just right before the day post, he decided to make a (kindof sucky) accusation against DoctorH. And I don't think the mafia is dumb enough to attack someone who they are going to kill.
However, we can't discount the fact that possibly Orgo was looking for anti-Doc sentiment in the town
|
FOS: Brownbear
Brownbear makes three significant points in the game.
1) Brownbear dodges the main debate
He argues against lynching inactives
+ Show Spoiler +On November 09 2010 12:36 BrownBear wrote:
Well, I'm looking at the "lynch an inactive" plan, and I don't really think it's that smart, given that we especially don't want to get anywhere near LYLO. I think we really should be trying to drop an Assassin right now: it's totally doable this stage in the game, and if we fall into the "hurr durr lets just lynch inactive" trap TL town usually falls into, it's going to bite us in the ass. On November 09 2010 12:43 BrownBear wrote:
Well, obviously, but I'm too used to seeing a bunch of people vote on an inactive, go AFK for the rest of the cycle, and then the poor guy dies, even if he shows up.
I'm just saying, king should be using his judgement here. If town wants to kill a dude "for being inactive" but the dude has posted, should king go ahead and kill the dude? Not unless the king thinks he's actually an assassin, or the king himself is an assassin.
Part of the awesome part of having a King is that the king reveals a lot about HIS role by how he acts. If we force him to be our puppet, that doesn't tell us much at all. Giving the kings a bit more leeway might actually make an Assassin-King work in our favor - we thrust him into the spotlight, make him more likely to screw up, and thus stand a better chance of catching him.
I'm in favor of ADVISING the king, but not forcing him to follow our orders. Gives us more to work with.
Also, whoever is the king should be held to a VERY HIGH standard of activity, for the same reason: we know they're king, but we want to know as much more about them as we can.
Although this isn't necessarily pro-town or anti-town, its more of an attempt to lurk and try to get some easy posts in. The inactive debate has happened countless times before and brownbear easily could pull arguments without actually contributing to the town.
Now, if this was the only debate at the time, I wouldn't worry. But the issue was whether or not the king should claim and follow the majority. This is pretty crucial as the mafia defiantly would want to go against the plan. And brownbear is absent from the debate
2) Contradicts himself in order to seem better
Slightly against the Coag lynch
+ Show Spoiler +On November 10 2010 06:58 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 05:50 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On November 10 2010 05:47 BrownBear wrote:
Let's hear Coag defend himself before we go ahead and execute. how can you defend being inactive and bad Because we don't want to lynch based off of JUST being inactive and bad? ----- Player 1: "Hey, Player 2 is inactive and terrible. I'm king. I'm going to kill him before the end of the day because of this." Players 3-9: "Well, Player 2 is inactive and bad. I guess I don't have any problems with killing him..." Player 1: "Awesome! EXECUTE PLAYER 2!!!" Player 2 flips greenPlayer 1: "Well, shit. At least he was inactive and bad. Now, lets look at the posts today and analyze... wait... fuck." ----- That shit ain't gonna fly here. If no better option exists at or near the end of the day, go ahead and lynch Coag, but under no circumstances should you be executing people until the last possible minute. If anyone turns this into Bang Bang Mafia I will make it my personal goal to get them executed as soon as possible. On November 10 2010 07:07 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 13:30 Coagulation wrote:
so whos king?
oh and bite me pandain. Coag's first post (of 2) this game. The "bite me Pandain" is in reference to Pandain trying to pressure-vote him. Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:34 Coagulation wrote:And no, I do not agree with the King not revealing himself once chosen. We need to find out what the king is thinking. We have a different king each day, and the game setup does not have any day kills. So there is absolutely no disadvantage to the king being revealed to the towns, and it will only give the Assassins, with their ability to PM, an even better chance to plot behind their backs. Remember - there are -no- PMs for townies! the only ones that really "need to find out what the king is thinking" are the assassins. Coag's second post (of 2). This is kind of just blatantly wrong. Town absolutely needs to figure out what the king's thinking and logic is. Kingmaker is not infallible, an Assassin-King could absolutely be chosen, and it's town's duty to not only advise the king on a scummy player to lynch, but also attempt to figure out the King's role. If the king is acting scummy/not agreeing with town/being evasive/executing without fully discussing why or explaining himself... chances are he's got something to hide. The thing I can't tell here is whether this is Coag deliberately trying to mislead town, or whether it's just Coag being an idiot. Analysis is hard when the player doesn't give you anything to analyze. On November 10 2010 07:54 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 07:47 Coagulation wrote:
if scum is king
then there is nothing we can do about making his decision help town anyway regardless.
we will see who he is after the lynch right?
at that point he would probably be in alot of trouble if he didnt use his head and play pro town.
its a double edged sword but i think the benefits outweigh the cons. Are you kidding? If we scumhunt properly, we can get a scum king to work for us, or out himself as scum as well. It's a win-win situation.
Firstly, Brownbear started yelling at Coag for his anti-town analysis, he was pretty much anti Coag for a while. And this post
On November 11 2010 11:09 BrownBear wrote:
I don't think Coag is the new Bill Murray... I think we're too focused on him honestly. I'd have him as a execute-if-we-have-no-better-options candidate.
Honestly, I'd go with Hesmyrr or LSB over Coag.
This is a slight defense of Coag. He's saying that he doesn't want Coag lynched. This is even after Brownbear flamed Coag for anti-town ideas. And lets take a look at who he wants lynched.
Hesmyrr- Hesmyrr has been inactive. Brownbear is supposedly against lynching inactives
LSB- more on this later, but Brownbear just makes a random accusation and then disappears, not stating why.
All this post is so that he can buy some kudos points when coag flips blue. This wishy washy view is to slightly influence the town in the direction he wants.
3) He makes a random accusation with no weight
He accuses me, for no apparent reason
+ Show Spoiler +On November 11 2010 11:09 BrownBear wrote:
I don't think Coag is the new Bill Murray... I think we're too focused on him honestly. I'd have him as a execute-if-we-have-no-better-options candidate.
Honestly, I'd go with Hesmyrr or LSB over Coag.
I then ask him why, repeadily. No response.
On November 11 2010 11:37 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 11:22 BrownBear wrote:
It's more of a meta-thing, but I feel like he's posting out of character, and a lot of his posts just rehash stuff already said, ask other people for their opinion, or correct other people, rather than add new content. He could be a mafia flying under the radar, or I could just be paranoid.
Either way, I'll look at his posts later. Tired now. Very interesting. I understand the posting out of character. But can you please tell me about this 'rehashing'? Or flying under the radar?
On November 12 2010 02:00 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 01:56 BrownBear wrote:
Mk, well, night discussion was kind of a wash... Maybe you could look at my posts? I know that you said that you were going to do so.
Its a slip up that he said, "I feel that LSB is mafia." At the time, he was just looking for someone to accuse and say that they are mafia.
I did this (as mafia) back in TMMM, when I said that "Oh, Southrawer/Divinek is mafia". I couldn't back up my claim and that was a great scumtell.
Brownbear, can you black up your claim?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
