|
Weeeee /in
Or, Doc, if you need me to, I would love to help you mod.
|
On December 07 2010 20:41 Coagulation wrote: i dont think its fair to caller to call sengoku dead. caller still takes the time to update it and the players are still playing it. its just very slow.
No, it is very fair to call it dead. It is ridiculous that one day/night cycle takes almost a week, and unreasonable to expect people to still be dedicated.
|
Oh shit, I'm in those too...
uhhhhh. I fix it.
|
Doc, if I'm just in this and HP is that alright?
|
On December 08 2010 12:11 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 12:06 koreasilver wrote: Actually, you know, it might be best for me to watch a game before actually taking place. I've never played TL mafia before. Jumping right in is the best way.
That's what I did. People will definitely be willing to help you learn. I'm fairly new myself, but I'm loving it.
|
On December 08 2010 23:11 Roffles wrote: Man, it would suck to be Koffing or Weezing, cause they suck.
Well Weezing is just a role blocker, which is pretty standard right?
|
|
Fun day post. I love Doc's posts, he always seems to have so much fun with them.
Ok, let's get down to business (to defeat the Huns...)
On December 10 2010 08:04 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 07:56 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 07:46 Amber[LighT] wrote:On December 10 2010 07:42 Oceanic wrote: Doesn't it say in 1 of the guides posted that lynching an inactive day 1 is not something you should do? Lynching an inactive typically results in lynching an apathetic townie. Everyone should be posting frequently to discuss who should die for day 1. There are no PM's so everything should be out in the open. We should really worry less about how the blues should play. Thinks like role checks won't be overly reliable, and saving people cannot be discussed in the thread. It probably would be a good idea for the electrodes to think about where to place voltorbs and pick up on good scum tells. Having a general system for how blues play is pretty important. We need to establish a good town environment where the most pro-town players won't find themselves dead. We need to establish a place where everyone is active. Sure, we could leave everything to RNG, but we could do so much more with the blues. I have to agree with this, having a general idea of how the town runs will help keep down the number of accidental lynchings. This is more or less pulled from one of the guides that DcH posted, but when you have a town that uses larger posts, filled with a lot of information, it makes it a lot easier to pick out those that want to give no new information and are simply regurgitating stuff that has already been said in the thread.If we start with a town that runs this way, it should carry through to the end of the game. The best way to keep a town that functions correctly functioning this way would be to keep the people that are running in a more administrative fashion (i guess i could say that) where they are trying to keep some semblance of order alive. I mean a town that runs all willy-nilly chaotic is a town that breeds scum, where a town that runs in a more ordered fashion has a higher chance of weeding out those that are trying to bring disorder to an already disorderly situation. Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote: how many people can Mafia target per night? It says that the mafia get 3kp, added to this mewtwo (although not part of the mafia, is still playing against the town) has 1kp. This means there can be 3 mafia targets, and 1 third party target a night.
You mean like this post is doing?
From your two posts, I've noticed you haven't really added too much at all. Your first post was almost exclusively regurgitating previous posts. Your second one you seemed to be trying to add more, saying you've read guides, and it appears that you are trying hard to look like the poster child of "how to be a townie". Everyone pretty much knows the environment that is conducive to town progress. It is very apparent when scum tries to disrupt things if they are going smoothly. We just have to catch them as they are doing it before things spiral out of control.
Townies don't need to try to look like townies, because they already are.
@LSB: While trying to coordinate blues seems good, I have to say, the more games I play, the more I hate to see people directing blues in thread. On Day 1, I think they need to do what they think needs to be done without influence from the thread. Any direction from the thread can also be seen by scum, and thus they will be clued in as well. No, obviously, I know that the blues don't need to listen to what is said in the thread, but they will be influenced by what is said. Let's hope we have good blues this time around.
|
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun.
|
On December 10 2010 09:29 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:53 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 08:04 Insanious wrote:On December 10 2010 07:56 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 07:46 Amber[LighT] wrote:On December 10 2010 07:42 Oceanic wrote: Doesn't it say in 1 of the guides posted that lynching an inactive day 1 is not something you should do? Lynching an inactive typically results in lynching an apathetic townie. Everyone should be posting frequently to discuss who should die for day 1. There are no PM's so everything should be out in the open. We should really worry less about how the blues should play. Thinks like role checks won't be overly reliable, and saving people cannot be discussed in the thread. It probably would be a good idea for the electrodes to think about where to place voltorbs and pick up on good scum tells. Having a general system for how blues play is pretty important. We need to establish a good town environment where the most pro-town players won't find themselves dead. We need to establish a place where everyone is active. Sure, we could leave everything to RNG, but we could do so much more with the blues. I have to agree with this, having a general idea of how the town runs will help keep down the number of accidental lynchings. This is more or less pulled from one of the guides that DcH posted, but when you have a town that uses larger posts, filled with a lot of information, it makes it a lot easier to pick out those that want to give no new information and are simply regurgitating stuff that has already been said in the thread.If we start with a town that runs this way, it should carry through to the end of the game. The best way to keep a town that functions correctly functioning this way would be to keep the people that are running in a more administrative fashion (i guess i could say that) where they are trying to keep some semblance of order alive. I mean a town that runs all willy-nilly chaotic is a town that breeds scum, where a town that runs in a more ordered fashion has a higher chance of weeding out those that are trying to bring disorder to an already disorderly situation. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote: how many people can Mafia target per night? It says that the mafia get 3kp, added to this mewtwo (although not part of the mafia, is still playing against the town) has 1kp. This means there can be 3 mafia targets, and 1 third party target a night. You mean like this post is doing? From your two posts, I've noticed you haven't really added too much at all. Your first post was almost exclusively regurgitating previous posts. Your second one you seemed to be trying to add more, saying you've read guides, and it appears that you are trying hard to look like the poster child of "how to be a townie". Everyone pretty much knows the environment that is conducive to town progress. It is very apparent when scum tries to disrupt things if they are going smoothly. We just have to catch them as they are doing it before things spiral out of control. Townies don't need to try to look like townies, because they already are. Two newer mafia players asked two questions, I was simply answering them. Its not like I was just throwing that info out there as if it was anything new. Eiii asked what a pro-town environment entitled, while Kenpachi asked how many attacks the mafia can make in a night. Both of which they could of found by reading what DrH posted, but I thought it would be nice to answer both questions... I guess if you would rather I could of simply just not answered their questions and left them guessing.
I missed Eiii's post asking about that, your second post is warranted. I still stand by my point on your first post though. You pretty much reiterate what people have been saying while saying "try to watch for people just spewing the same stuff again." They are just things I'm taking note of.
|
On December 10 2010 09:40 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote: Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. How do you propose we deal with inactives/lurkers then? We can't just 'leave it for another day'. It's going to be a problem, and if we have no good leads day one, we should do this early, rather than late. Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:53 jcarlsoniv wrote: @LSB: While trying to coordinate blues seems good, I have to say, the more games I play, the more I hate to see people directing blues in thread. On Day 1, I think they need to do what they think needs to be done without influence from the thread. Any direction from the thread can also be seen by scum, and thus they will be clued in as well. No, obviously, I know that the blues don't need to listen to what is said in the thread, but they will be influenced by what is said. Let's hope we have good blues this time around. So your saying that plans are bad? Interesting. Take my plan, what's bad about it?
I agree that we should point to inactives if we have no other leads, but I'm saying to not just say "ok, let's find the inactives" right away. We have 48 hours to find candidates for lynch, no reason to dismiss the possibility of finding one right off the bat.
I didn't say your plan was bad, seeing as you didn't really post a plan, nor did I say the word "plan" I was merely pointing out my own observations. What you had posted was good, it was vague, and a good general direction. Getting anymore specific than that at this point can be dangerous.
On December 10 2010 09:40 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote: Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. I rather start the blind shoot into this small room with a shotgun. We are not getting analysis going too far away day one. Picking the right guy at the right time is picking a dead weight at first.
How can you possibly say this? The game literally just started, and we have 48 hours to scumhunt. Again, I am going to say, there is no reason to dismiss the idea of finding a lynch candidate Day 1.
|
On December 10 2010 09:46 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:44 Node wrote: I'm not entirely sure what your "plan" is, LSB. All you've said is that we need to "have a general system for how blues play" and that barring any glaringly scummy play we should lynch an inactive day 1. Could you be a little more specific? Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 07:43 LSB wrote: One plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The Alakazam should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Chansey's should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions.
I wouldn't say that's really a plan. I would say it's a general direction and usually is what occurs. Only difference from the usual is using Alakazam to check inactives as opposed to possible mafia suspects. I'm not so sure about checking the inactives. It depends on how many we have. If there are a lot, checking them could just be a waste, but if it is narrowed down to a few players, I would say it's worth it.
|
On December 10 2010 09:53 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:48 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 09:40 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote: Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. How do you propose we deal with inactives/lurkers then? We can't just 'leave it for another day'. It's going to be a problem, and if we have no good leads day one, we should do this early, rather than late. On December 10 2010 08:53 jcarlsoniv wrote: @LSB: While trying to coordinate blues seems good, I have to say, the more games I play, the more I hate to see people directing blues in thread. On Day 1, I think they need to do what they think needs to be done without influence from the thread. Any direction from the thread can also be seen by scum, and thus they will be clued in as well. No, obviously, I know that the blues don't need to listen to what is said in the thread, but they will be influenced by what is said. Let's hope we have good blues this time around. So your saying that plans are bad? Interesting. Take my plan, what's bad about it? I agree that we should point to inactives if we have no other leads, but I'm saying to not just say "ok, let's find the inactives" right away. We have 48 hours to find candidates for lynch, no reason to dismiss the possibility of finding one right off the bat. I didn't say your plan was bad, seeing as you didn't really post a plan, nor did I say the word "plan" I was merely pointing out my own observations. What you had posted was good, it was vague, and a good general direction. Getting anymore specific than that at this point can be dangerous. On December 10 2010 09:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote: Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. I rather start the blind shoot into this small room with a shotgun. We are not getting analysis going too far away day one. Picking the right guy at the right time is picking a dead weight at first. How can you possibly say this? The game literally just started, and we have 48 hours to scumhunt. Again, I am going to say, there is no reason to dismiss the idea of finding a lynch candidate Day 1. You must understand. In order to make sure that people are active, we have to decide early that we going to punish people who are inactive. This way, people are going to be warned and hopefully people won't be inactive. Best case scenario we won't have to lynch an inactive person in the first place since everyone will contribute to the town. I notice you avoided discussion on my 'general direction.' Do you support it? Why? Do you now think we should give general directions to blues?
I don't not support it (if that makes any sense). I am going under the assumption that our blues are at least halfway competent players, and will be able to think for themselves to use their roles effectively. This may be very naive though.
I think general direction right now is fine for now, as long as we don't get too specific, especially Day 1. The last thing I want is for blues to be sniped right away. In this sense, I definitely agree with you that everyone should keep their roles secret for now.
|
On December 10 2010 10:06 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote: Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. I rather start the blind shoot into this small room with a shotgun. We are not getting analysis going too far away day one. Picking the right guy at the right time is picking a dead weight at first. Show nested quote + How can you possibly say this? The game literally just started, and we have 48 hours to scumhunt. Again, I am going to say, there is no reason to dismiss the idea of finding a lynch candidate Day 1.
Game started long before first day post. Interesting that you still defy chances: mafia takes some time to get in contact. Maybe you want to propose a lynch candidate right now? I actually have one right in front of me. Edit to pretify
From the Day Post:
The day has begun. It will end at 1200 KST on Sunday (TL time) or 7:00 PM PST/10 EST on Saturday. You have a little extra time today.
You want to propose me as a lynch candidate because I am trying to generate discussion instead of being like "Oh yeah, ok, let's just jump on the plan to lynch inactives. See you guys in 2 days." No.
Also from the First post of the thread:
7. Editing posts. Editing posts is not allowed for any reason. The mods can see your edits, and if you are caught, you will look suspicious. Editing will result in a warning. After that, you will be owned.Please do not edit; this is the one part of the site where it is okay to be double posting, even triple-posting. While I ask for everybody to post as concisely as possible, post again if you have to edit anything.
If you have to edit, edit by way of post (EBWOP).
|
On December 10 2010 10:14 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:10 jcarlsoniv wrote: You want to propose me as a lynch candidate because I am trying to generate discussion instead of being like "Oh yeah, ok, let's just jump on the plan to lynch inactives. See you guys in 2 days." No.
I don't get this.
In response to:
Game started long before first day post. Interesting that you still defy chances: mafia takes some time to get in contact. Maybe you want to propose a lynch candidate right now? I actually have one right in front of me.
Unless I'm misunderstanding his post, he seems to be accusing me. Although the bolded portion doesn't really make much sense to me. Can you clarify it Gabriel?
|
On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote: 48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP.
At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed.
|
On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote: 48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives?
Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie.
I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills.
|
On December 10 2010 10:25 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:14 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:10 jcarlsoniv wrote: You want to propose me as a lynch candidate because I am trying to generate discussion instead of being like "Oh yeah, ok, let's just jump on the plan to lynch inactives. See you guys in 2 days." No.
I don't get this. In response to: Game started long before first day post. Interesting that you still defy chances: mafia takes some time to get in contact. Maybe you want to propose a lynch candidate right now? I actually have one right in front of me. Unless I'm misunderstanding his post, he seems to be accusing me. Although the bolded portion doesn't really make much sense to me. Can you clarify it Gabriel? Mafia needs time to coordinate. Is that clear? I dont get your bolded either.
I understand that they need time to coordinate. I was bolding because I wanted to ask you about that section because I was confused, and bold font points it out quite nicely.
I don't understand what your point is though. Are you saying that since they need time to coordinate, they will be inactive? Scum will still post in the thread, especially since there will be 48 hours of activity before a lynch occurs. They won't be inactive the entire time.
|
On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote: 48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check?
I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important.
I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources.
|
On December 10 2010 10:47 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:35 Hesmyrr wrote:On December 10 2010 10:25 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:23 Hesmyrr wrote: Moreover D1 lynches are always crapshoot. It is good and fine to publicly discuss and prod one's suspects, but at least waiting until D2 so one have more actual data to support the case on him/her seems just better. This is a large setup so we cannot just afford to let all the lurkers pass-by. They're always crapshoot because we have players that go about finding scum in a crappy way. I suggest that everyone else vote for you as well. Chances of finding scum D2 > Chances of finding scum D1 always just purely on the basis that amount of information available will increase as the game progresses. Although lynching inactives is always a start, we shouldn't discount the power of day one analysisI've seen it many times actually. Kenpachi/Coagulation (Almost, but we switched)- Deconduo's Don't lose your village game Me/Pyrr- TLMMM 2 Masq- Haunted Mafia Bill Murray (Almost, but Ace made us switch x.x)- Penalty Mafia And many others...
I feel like you just said what I have been trying to say all along! haha
|
On December 10 2010 10:07 LSB wrote: ##Vote:Infundibulum
Why?
|
On December 10 2010 11:03 Infundibulum wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:55 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:07 LSB wrote: ##Vote:Infundibulum Why? I already have 3 votes. Do I smell or something?
Holy bandwagon batman. Could we get some reason for these votes please? I hate votes without reasons.
|
Obvious bandwagon is obvious. Zeks and Gabriel, speak up.
|
On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote: [quote]
At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote.
Hahaha are you serious? Votes shouldn't be placed, especially started, without some reasoning. According to LSB, it's some sort of old grudge. Methinks a little immature =P <3
Again, I would like to reiterate that the game just started. People will be jumping in at random times because people have lives outside the games on the forum. I hardly see this as a convincing reason to vote Infund.
|
On December 10 2010 11:25 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:20 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote: [quote]
Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie.
I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. With a game of 31 people and a little more than half the people having posted recently it's just dumb to blindvote someone for "just showing up." What do you read into the line about efficiency that I don't? Is it really efficient at this point lynch an active player over the inactive that is going to die anyways?? Really? I mean mafia is not going to die because he doesnt vote, blues are not going to die because they dont vote. Meh i want to flip infundibulum badly.
If you read the rules you would know that people who don't vote will be killed by Dr.H (the moderator). So yes, Infund is correct that it would be more efficient.
|
Gabriel, I don't understand your logic at all.
On December 10 2010 11:46 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:28 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 11:25 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote: [quote]
I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important.
I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. With a game of 31 people and a little more than half the people having posted recently it's just dumb to blindvote someone for "just showing up." What do you read into the line about efficiency that I don't? Is it really efficient at this point lynch an active player over the inactive that is going to die anyways?? Really? I mean mafia is not going to die because he doesnt vote, blues are not going to die because they dont vote. Meh i want to flip infundibulum badly. If you read the rules you would know that people who don't vote will be killed by Dr.H (the moderator). So yes, Infund is correct that it would be more efficient. I still put it this way: You rather have an active poster that is somehow contributing the town dead instead of a non contributer that *may get modkilled* or *may be just hidding*. Note that in everycase *May* just depends on him because he can just post oneliners or vote at the last minute.
If they jump in last minute, I'm pretty sure that's something we will notice. This is very very suspicious behavior and will not be overlooked.
You voted Infund and are pegging him as scum with VERY shaky logic, and you jumped on LSB's bandwagon, which could very well be coincidence, but it's not sitting right with me. My vote is going on you for now.
|
On December 10 2010 12:19 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 12:12 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 12:11 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 12:01 Oceanic wrote:On December 10 2010 11:57 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:44 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:34 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote: oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote: Pikachu - Townie Raichu - Miller Chansey - Medic Cloyster - Veteran Alakazam - Detective Electrode - Mad Hatter Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father Koffing - Mafia Grunt Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote: yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote: how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote: Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. what would posting history 4 hours into the game show you? A) You dont want to be active posting B) You want to "look" active C) You read the rules but you actually dont know mafia KP? That was rare. D) You dont want to lynch inactives because that doesnt work. E) You want enlightment. F) You vote for me out of literally nowhere. I mean: i post to flip Infundibulum and you come right after me. Care to explain at least? A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. A) Well you just wrote 7 one liners and have yet to post something relevant. B) But you are NOT. It is not about how you look. Come on that is not an argument, so you post one liners to look active? what is that? Sparta? C) Well you actually read the rules because you posted the pokemon/classicmafia relation. I wonder why you just couldnt look for the mafia KP, and insisted to look clueless asking for it. D) It doesnt? well you were pretty much inactive and so was Infundibulum. Maybe it does.E) You think too much. You have again 2 posts where you "think" about this "think" about that, when it is clear that those post refer to info available in the opening rules. This heavily smells like "im not too sure, i dont know" plot. F) So you agree that you are protecting infundibulum by voting me: More reason to flip him!. This logic is flawed since the game just started. So they didn't post right at the start and their first post was later then a lot of people's. So they were inactive til their first post? What about all the other people that haven't posted yet. When they make their first post are you going to say the same thing about them? After all, they were even later and therefore must be even more suspicious? Note that Kenpachi was actually posting since the start of the thread. People is inactive because we are just starting the game but nonsense has to be pinned down as soon as it comes out. I find hilariously weird that a guy posting one liners comes right after i vote Infundibulum (with a reason that may or may not be strong for other players) and simply votes Gabriel because he doesnt like my vote on Infundibulum. What do you think? Is that normal? He didnt even posted that. So is this your first game? You are not good at reading my friend ⇓.
Excuse him for not looking through your sig? It was a valid question considering your logic is so immensely flawed that it is laughable.
|
On December 10 2010 15:22 Insanious wrote: So now we have 4 people voting for Gabriel with little to no explanation... actually I think like only 1 person explained why they were voting for Gab and the other three didn't even say they were voting for him or why... bandwagon on an active, outspoken player? Me no likey...
Well, I explained why I voted for him, as well as a few others. I think it is rather clear at this point why people are voting for him. Lynching an active is actually not a bad thing because they have posted enough to analyze their posts. His posts are extremely questionable with shaky logic and poor accusations.
I love how he is pointing the finger and Infund and Kenpachi for being inactive in the first 4 hours of the game, but has said nothing about the number of people who haven't posted yet or who have barely posted. I'm hoping everyone steps up and contributes, because lurkers suck.
|
On December 10 2010 23:22 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 15:22 Insanious wrote: So now we have 4 people voting for Gabriel with little to no explanation... actually I think like only 1 person explained why they were voting for Gab and the other three didn't even say they were voting for him or why... bandwagon on an active, outspoken player? Me no likey... Gabriel did out himself pretty early as a big voice in this game. This could split one of 2 ways. Mafia could want to shut him up (Gabriel = Pro-Pokealliance), hence the votes, or he's hoping that if he barks loud enough the town will bend to his will later on (Gabriel = Pro-Team Rocket. People like to jump on power players when they're not "known" in these games, so the votes aren't completely at a surprise. I'm iffy about Gabriel. I looked at his posting history and he did play in BC's game early this year. He was a vigilante and was quiet, didn't spark controversy, and eventually died by like Night 2 or something. Now he's being loud, so I'm encouraged to believe he's a vocal pikachu, or a team rocket member. Don't forget Gengar is more-or-less the Godfather, but based upon what his role description says, he can manipulate role checks. This makes him a sort of godfather with less power, so Gengar probably won't be vocal in the thread, unlike SouthRawrea in Salem mafia.
I would agree with you more if Gabriel was actually presenting logical arguments, as this is something the mafia would fear. However, since his arguments are very flimsy, they are causing confusion, something the mafia wants. So he is either bad townie or scum in my eyes (two types of players that mafia wants to keep in the game), always hard to tell the difference early on...
|
On December 11 2010 02:29 chaoser wrote: Usually, to me, mafia wouldn't go out on a limb to try to be in the spotlight of the town unless they were very skilled. It's better to cause mayhem quietly and with a few words and add to town bandwagoning of each other than to outright start arguments in the thread. That's not a very mafia thing to do because mafia would be scared of being too much in people's thoughts. So in that regard, I don't think Gabriel is acting very much red at all. New players like to think all illogical arguments=mafia when really it could just be townie playing badly.
I'll analyze the thread some more in a bit once I'm fed
I agree with you, which is why I'm not convinced he's scum. He is making wild accusations though that is disrupting everything, and even if he's town, removing that isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, if we can find scum, I definitely want that, obviously. I just want Gabriel to have an eye kept on him.
|
On December 11 2010 04:28 LSB wrote: The problem isn't that his post came early. 5 hours is a lot of time and enough to get a feel for how people act He pointed out that Kenpachi's posts were spammy and didn't contribute to the town at all.
The problem is now, why the bandwagon the bandwagon against Gabriel took place. (i'll look into it later, right now I'm hard pressed for time)
But, at the same time, 5 hours isn't long enough to start pegging people for inactivity.
|
On December 11 2010 16:08 Gabriel wrote:Come on guys we can do it better. 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.Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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 redShow nested quote +[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. Because the cop wants to not be found by the mafia so he should know how people look for him And because the medic wants to find the cop so he can protect him. 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. Show nested quote +[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.
Well, Gabriel...wow. This is so very ironic.
You accuse zeks because of some suspicious stuff. Ok, that's fine, I agree, he is on my "players to watch" list. But come on. What. The. Fuck. You are seriously questioning for two reasons: 1. Accusing Infund with shaky reasoning and 2. Choosing a random inactive to vote for.
YOU also voted for Infundibulum. YOU voted for Infund AFTER zeks. YOU proposed very questionable logic for accusing Infund yourself. You are more of a waffle than John Kerry...
You were an advocate for lynching inactives and calling it a day, something I called you out on. If you were to lynch inactives, how would you go about it? Would you have a strategy other than picking a random inactive and hanging him? However, now you are accusing zeks because this is what he wanted to do. Not only that, but it's not like one random vote on an inactive is going to start a random bandwagon without some reasoning behind it, so as far as I can see, stormtemplar isn't in any real danger.
This looks like possible scum bussing scum to me.
Also, lawl at Gabriel saying he doesn't feel he need to defend himself. Well, buddy, you've got 6 votes on you at the moment, which is triple other player for the majority at the moment. I DEFINITELY feel that you need some defense because honestly, you are playing super anti-town at the moment.
Anyways, that's it for me tonight. It is late and I've had way too much rum. See you guys in the morning.
|
Alright, I want to point out one thing. While I do think Gabriel has been very scummy, I am not completely convinced that he is scum. I find it odd that scum would be out in the spotlight like that. Keeping votes on him proved a very effective way to get him to talk.
To answer Gabriel: I do find zeks scummy as well, but it is possible to keep focuses on multiple players.
I honestly hadn't noticed the things about Kenpachi that had been brought up, and I assure you that our connection is pure coincidence. However, after reading TreeHugger's post, he does seem very scummy. I can definitely see him flipping scum on the lynch. Also:
On December 11 2010 17:28 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 17:18 tree.hugger wrote:Apologies to everyone for my lack of participation. As is easily verified, I've been sitting on 3999 posts for several days, and trying to write two major essays and my 4000th post at the same time, so it's been a little awkward. That said, this really hasn't been a particularly eventful day so far, so I've caught up easily. Firstly: On December 11 2010 12:31 Kavdragon wrote: Oh, and that's why I'm voting LSB. In case that wasn't clear. Please don't put your entire posts in green. Makes it impossible to read. Your post was noticable enough because of it's length, and green text has a purpose, so don't abuse that. Anyway, we should probably lynch a TR member this first round and, we've got an obvious mafia to lynch in Kenpachi, so we should probably go take it. + Show Spoiler [Kenpachi Archive] +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote: oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote: Pikachu - Townie Raichu - Miller Chansey - Medic Cloyster - Veteran Alakazam - Detective Electrode - Mad Hatter Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father Koffing - Mafia Grunt Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote: yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote: how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote: Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. On December 10 2010 11:30 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote: Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain
A) your vote B) your deep posts?
what? On December 10 2010 11:34 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote: oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote: Pikachu - Townie Raichu - Miller Chansey - Medic Cloyster - Veteran Alakazam - Detective Electrode - Mad Hatter Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father Koffing - Mafia Grunt Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote: yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote: how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote: Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. what would posting history 4 hours into the game show you? On December 10 2010 11:44 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:34 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote: oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote: Pikachu - Townie Raichu - Miller Chansey - Medic Cloyster - Veteran Alakazam - Detective Electrode - Mad Hatter Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father Koffing - Mafia Grunt Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote: yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote: how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote: Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. what would posting history 4 hours into the game show you? A) You dont want to be active posting B) You want to "look" active C) You read the rules but you actually dont know mafia KP? That was rare. D) You dont want to lynch inactives because that doesnt work. E) You want enlightment. F) You vote for me out of literally nowhere. I mean: i post to flip Infundibulum and you come right after me. Care to explain at least? A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. On December 10 2010 12:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:57 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:44 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:34 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote: oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote: Pikachu - Townie Raichu - Miller Chansey - Medic Cloyster - Veteran Alakazam - Detective Electrode - Mad Hatter Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father Koffing - Mafia Grunt Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote: yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote: how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote: Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. what would posting history 4 hours into the game show you? A) You dont want to be active posting B) You want to "look" active C) You read the rules but you actually dont know mafia KP? That was rare. D) You dont want to lynch inactives because that doesnt work. E) You want enlightment. F) You vote for me out of literally nowhere. I mean: i post to flip Infundibulum and you come right after me. Care to explain at least? A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. A) Well you just wrote 7 one liners and have yet to post something relevant. B) But you are NOT. It is not about how you look. Come on that is not an argument, so you post one liners to look active? what is that? Sparta? C) Well you actually read the rules because you posted the pokemon/classicmafia relation. I wonder why you just couldnt look for the mafia KP, and insisted to look clueless asking for it. D) It doesnt? well you were pretty much inactive and so was Infundibulum. Maybe it does. E) You think too much. You have again 2 posts where you "think" about this "think" about that, when it is clear that those post refer to info available in the opening rules. This heavily smells like "im not too sure, i dont know" plot. F) So you agree that you are protecting infundibulum by voting me: More reason to flip him!. A) There isnt much to post in the beginning, due to low information and lack of suspicion. B) I am not what? I posted in the beginning to "look" active because i have a history of lurking. C) You are still assuming i read the rules. Did i read or skim it? Did i read it but pass the KP? I posted that in the thread for people who also didnt know to possibly take a burden off many people. D)Idk man. you found a bunch of posts in the beginning and call me inactive? Refer to B). Why am i posting to "look" active? E) "I think its 2." hey i only played 1 game with Double Lynch before. F) your logic is flawed. i can vote for anyone i want to and im defending Infundibulum by not voting for him. Why do you think youre gonna be the main bandwagon from 1 vote? On December 11 2010 15:20 Kenpachi wrote: So, i didnt vote Gabe to start a bandwagon on him.. was mainly a placeholder but after his responses, i decided i wont be switching my vote. If I had a nickle for every useful thing Kenpachi said for the town, I'd be broke. This is pretty basic mafia stuff here, no substantive accusations, and some aimless FoSing on Gabriel, which has turned into a mini-wagon. Specifically note Kenpachi actually disowning the bandwagon that he created in the last post, because he doesn't want to commit to anything. From the beginning, Kenpachi has been particularly useless, not commenting on or committing to plans, even as they're being discussed under his nose. His strategy is pretty clearly non-committal, and every single post of his just highlights the fact that he's not saying something useful. I know this basic formula well, because I used it in the game that Ver analyzed. I was killed by BM being bad, but lets kill Kenpachi day one, so we don't have to put up with this anymore. My problem so far with lynching Kenpachi is that i really think he is not Green but he may as well be Blue. As someone already stated i was actually triyng to get some reaction from him (so it is not really like im doing mafias work) and to direct somw attention for a RC. Im not ready to lynch Kenpachi (and i never advokated to lynch him). Honeslty zeks is far away a better target for now.
If Kenpachi is lynched and flips red, take another look at Gabriel. This is a decently strong defense of Kenpachi by Gabriel, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if they are scumbuddies.
|
On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote: Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing. I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic?
Are you claiming DT or medic?
|
Hey! I hope everyone else had a great weekend.
Ah well, lynching townie on Day 1 is not uncommon, in fact, it's somewhat expected. I'm glad we didn't get a blue though.
I was unsure about Kenpachi going into the lynch (while other people say they knew he was town 100%, well hindsight 20/20 and all that...) partly because as it was apparent he was going to die, his defense was awful and he was chainsaw defending. However, in retrospect, I guess he does do that in all of his games.
I also wasn't very inclined to vote for zeks, although I do find him very suspicious, because Gabriel was the one to really start the lynch on him, and I still don't trust Gabriel.
One thing that really jumped out at me was zeks' pre-goodbye post:
On December 12 2010 12:38 zeks wrote: I think I'm dead ?
Oceanic meapak Hesmyrr infundibulum
Please take a good look at these people especially infun. Votes came off him way too easily and the people who voted for him got mobbed immediately for the dumbest reasons.
Cheers and at least u didnt get a blue
He doesn't mention Gabriel on his "look at these people" list, even though Gabriel was the one to point the gun in zeks' face. Also (a bit of WIFOM here), if zeks had actually counted the votes, he would know he wouldn't be lynched, so he could post this and sort of get away with it, knowing he would still be alive.
|
|
|
|