EPTTL Mafia XXXIV: Pokemafia - Page 19
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Kavdragon
United States1251 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Take a look at my posts with Jcarlsoniv. They are not spam, they serve a specific purpose. If you want me to explain, sure... but it's quiet obvious Secondly, you are taking all of the posts out of context. Most of them are responses to other people. | ||
|
tube
United States1475 Posts
you were really suspicious with the way you got us to spend all that time discussing inactives before the first (real-time) day was anywhere near over then later i remember you pretty much completely changed stances on the issue | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On December 11 2010 13:22 tube wrote: actually most of the earlier stuff kav said is the reason i voted for you initially lsb you were really suspicious with the way you got us to spend all that time discussing inactives before the first (real-time) day was anywhere near over then later i remember you pretty much completely changed stances on the issue That's the point...we always start off with a "lets vote inactives!" and then that prompts discussion which is the real reason anyone says "vote inactive? yes? no/". Obviously it's better to vote mafia then inactive. We have a very low chance of hitting a mafia if we're just going for inactives. I don't see what's wrong with it at all. | ||
|
seRapH
United States9827 Posts
Plus it pushes people to actually post. In the end it's all about how much content we have. | ||
|
tube
United States1475 Posts
On December 11 2010 13:27 chaoser wrote: That's the point...we always start off with a "lets vote inactives!" and then that prompts discussion which is the real reason anyone says "vote inactive? yes? no/". Obviously it's better to vote mafia then inactive. We have a very low chance of hitting a mafia if we're just going for inactives. I don't see what's wrong with it at all. Ok so... you don't see whats wrong with what? You just said that we have a very low chance of hitting a mafia going for inactives, which is obvious. So how would LSB's promotion of lynching inactives agree with what you said. Obviously it's better to vote mafia then inactive. why did you even say this when it is, as you say, obvious it doesn't even match with whatever you're trying to say (that "the point" is to waste time discussing inactives or that you don't see whats wrong with it) | ||
|
Insanious
Canada1251 Posts
Look at every mafia game here, or on any other site and it always starts with the "do we lynch inactives or not", why? Because it gets people talking, and unless people talk then we will never ever find scum. Activity is counter productive to the mafia, as that means they have to participate more, and that gives them more chances to slip up. LSB started on the convo, but now we have found a few people acting scummy, and as such we are no longer talking about lynching inactives, but weather to lynch people who've actually said something. Do we lynch Kenpachi for his posting habbits, Gab for his out burst, Infun for his previous actions, LSB for trying to be the head of the town, or you for just angrily, randomly, accusing people of being scum. This is where the game should be focused, but we needed a start... and lynching inactives is a start. | ||
|
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
| ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6789 Posts
| ||
|
tube
United States1475 Posts
On December 11 2010 13:42 Insanious wrote: tube your acting simply just very confrontational right now... what chaoser was trying to say is that you have to start the game somewhere. Promoting lynching inactives is a place to start. You never want to end with simply lynching inactives, but the discussion between whether we lynch or do not lynch inactives can actually lead to something that can be analyzed. Look at every mafia game here, or on any other site and it always starts with the "do we lynch inactives or not", why? Because it gets people talking, and unless people talk then we will never ever find scum. Activity is counter productive to the mafia, as that means they have to participate more, and that gives them more chances to slip up. LSB started on the convo, but now we have found a few people acting scummy, and as such we are no longer talking about lynching inactives, but weather to lynch people who've actually said something. Do we lynch Kenpachi for his posting habbits, Gab for his out burst, Infun for his previous actions, LSB for trying to be the head of the town, or you for just angrily, randomly, accusing people of being scum. This is where the game should be focused, but we needed a start... and lynching inactives is a start. how is my responding to his response a scum accusation the only person I've accused so far is LSB, nor was it a random or angry accusation you just suggested that I be a lynch prospect on a basis that doesn't exist chaoser's post reminded me much of Gabriel's in that it was contradictory and made few actual points and if we really are past the point of inactive lynching, I really suggest that people go back and look at LSB's posts | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On December 11 2010 13:59 tube wrote: how is my responding to his response a scum accusation the only person I've accused so far is LSB, nor was it a random or angry accusation you just suggested that I be a lynch prospect on a basis that doesn't exist chaoser's post reminded me much of Gabriel's in that it was contradictory and made few actual points and if we really are past the point of inactive lynching, I really suggest that people go back and look at LSB's posts You need to calm down dude...Where in my posts have I been contradictory? You said that LSB has been flip flopping from lets vote inactives to lets not vote inactives didn't you? And I'm saying that that's a normal switch to happen. Most of LSB's stuff has either been pro-town or been responding to other's questioning. If mafia were trying to take over as town leader, they wouldn't be doing it the way LSB is, at least, not normally. | ||
|
kingjames01
Canada1603 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
Brocket
Australia192 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On December 11 2010 14:16 kingjames01 wrote: DrH: Should I PM you if I'm smurfing in PokeMafia also? Yes. | ||
|
tube
United States1475 Posts
On December 11 2010 14:17 chaoser wrote: Also, I don't think I've added "very little", I responded to the whole Gabe Bandwagon and right now I'm responding to this little situation...It's kind weird that you're getting so defensive/confrontational though...just calm down dude I was only talking about your reply to my post, in which you did not say that that was a normal switch to happen your post was hard to actually understand, and if that came off as confrontational then I'll just say that I wasn't feeling confrontational at all Is it normal to tell others to "calm down" in a Mafia game after they respond to something like On December 11 2010 13:42 Insanious wrote: that is pretty much completely untrue?Do we lynch Kenpachi for his posting habbits, Gab for his out burst, Infun for his previous actions, LSB for trying to be the head of the town, or you for just angrily, randomly, accusing people of being scum. . Also, before you defend LSB you should take another look at the manners in which hes been posting On December 11 2010 12:55 LSB wrote: Look at his defense against Kav's [long] list of suspicions. He tries to answer for all of his posts by merely responding that they were all taken out of context. Nor does he even say what "specific purpose" any of those posts had. If those purposes were to answer questions, they had more of an effect of making him look like hes trying hard to come off as town. Though apparently we should see his purposes as "quiet obvious" to the point where he does not have to explain them. (or can't?)Kav, you completely misinterpreted what I did in the game. Take a look at my posts with Jcarlsoniv. They are not spam, they serve a specific purpose. If you want me to explain, sure... but it's quiet obvious Secondly, you are taking all of the posts out of context. Most of them are responses to other people. | ||
|
Brocket
Australia192 Posts
| ||
|
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
| ||
|
Gabriel
149 Posts
I believe defending myself is not really needed so im keeping my reasons to myself. On the lynch Gabriel bandwagon we *may* actually have some mafia but im inclined to believe most of them are town alligned people. I dont want to go further. In return i present a better case for active lynching. The thing is: I agree we dont really need to tackle down an inactive because they are actually going to die to a modkill (please disregard anything i said before about the matter). The key point here is that i expect a bunch of people voting very late to dodge the non voting modkill (thus looking suspicious) but at the same time mafia can not hide so well this game because there are no abstainers: we are actually forced to vote. So far the most unconvincing active voice is zeks. On December 10 2010 08:52 zeks wrote: I'd also encourage the new people to post more if you want to live because if you don't talk (1) We're probably going to hang you sooner or later for being useless (2) If you're blue you might be unluckily sniped Basically just holding back the town in a witch hunt. Make informative posts and contribute. I'm pretty sure the veterans of the game here are somewhat forgiving of newbie mistakes - just don't pull the "newbie card" on us repeatedly. Otherwise the game is pretty easy to pick up On December 10 2010 11:00 zeks wrote: Lynch inactives or eventually they'll burn us in the ass in the end when we're fighting amongst each other 6 scum + 1 third party = 7 / 31 = 22% chance of sniping someone. I haven't played for a couple months but most the player list looks relatively foreign to me so I'm assuming theres quite a number of new players (over half?) From what I've seen from past games newb scum tend to lurk (correct me if I'm wrong) so we shouldn't give a free pass to inactives. And with new players we don't have any material from past games to work with. Nobody is going to correct you: scum tend to lurk around and make contributing like yet meaningless posts, way too defensive to state something that is almost general consensus. On December 10 2010 13:59 zeks wrote: Vote on infun is placeholder for now - though his recent slip ups seem unusual Nice to get a reaction from you folks though This post is a big tell in my book. You were called out by at least 3 players for your vote (d3_crescentia, jcarson and others) and your argument was voting infundibulum as a placeholder. Interesting that you choose someone with a vote already. Next 2 lines are really odd: What are Infundibulums slip ups? You were called out about that (Node) but you just dodged in olympic fashion. Your last line is very likely to be red:"Nice to get a reaction?" Its not like you are the one making the crazy guys play here to get a reaction. In fact you actually had no reaction (and when you got it you dodged meh?) This "praise like" post is really red [B]On December 10 2010 15:20 zeks wrote: [b]Another reason why I placed such an early vote on infun was to spark discussion and reactions. Certainly infun has calmy taken this early heat quite better than the rest of you all. It's 3 votes out of 31 people, stop overreacting. I have my suspicions of infun from his posts but I think he's "contributed" enough to warrant an exemption from day 1. Small hunch its a soft claim so take it with a grain of salt (and don't go ape shit on me) [b]I'm going to keep my vote on him for now until tomorrow when enough time has passed and we can make a fair inactive list, which then I'll vote for one from there. But you didnt get any discussion at all from your voting. I mean you could just let it go as a "placeholder" vote but you wanted to get spark from that? Not really convincing that the second vote on the same guy wants to do that. Maybe the third or fourth (if they make a valuable argument, but still lack to explain why you were suspicious of Inf) and you are not actually getting anything like discussion or reaction, so your early vote doesnt add up with your reasoning. Excuse me if im reading you as an "active lurker" so far. [B]On December 11 2010 05:31 zeks wrote: Changing my vote to stormtemplar for inactiveness But wait... you wanted a "fair inactive list"? why picking an inactive at random just now? I mean at least give us something. Why stormtemplar and not any other inactive? This is just too weird for you to target an inactive at random when there is a guy fighting everyone in the thread. Some people think im disrupting the town and others think im just playing bad. You still fail to write something different than "lets vote an inactive but dont look at me to lynch" Adding to your fail to explain anything there are just too many parts were your posts follow an extreme defensive pattern: (stop overreacting), (dont go apeshit on me), (correct me if im wrong), out of nowhere. This fear is highly indicative of scums play, i have never ever seen a green or blue post like that when there are actually almost no votes on them. Sir I have to say that unless you come with some actual reasoning (why did you suspect Inf?) (why you fear so much?) (why do you insist in voting an absolutely random inactive?) you look very very good for a first day lynch... a lot better then me. | ||
|
Gabriel
149 Posts
| ||
| ||
