|
On December 29 2010 02:03 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 00:34 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 17:39 Barundar wrote:On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:I'll also say that I find annul's posting to be much scummier than LSB's. The way he's posting reminds me a lot of the way he played Experimental Mini Mafia (which was an interesting experience, as I knew he was scum from the beginning  ), whereas LSB's defense and contribution seems a lot more like his posting in Pokemafia, where he was green. In that game annul only posted 1 liners, voted without reason etc. In this game he is providing big analysis and is willing to defend it. How is that the same? Besides responding to my posts. What else has Annul contributed? Not much besides an Albus Dumbledor claim that claim happened before the game even began - you cant count that stuff in analysis. obvious HP mafia reference, too. and what have i contributed? i dunno, 90% of the fodder of day 1's debate?
More like 50% of the LSB and Annul debate. And I the other 50%.
You have completely ignored the inactive issue and the blue issue
|
On December 29 2010 02:06 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 00:37 LSB wrote:
If you guys divert the lynch, I will prove, without a doubt, my role at the end of night two. so you hint at vig but then scale it back, making it not vig because you cant kill until night 2, so no "maybe earlier" what could you be hinting to here? hatter? you could only "prove" that upon death. medic? can't "prove" that "without a doubt" anyway unless you get lucky with hits.
I can prove it without a doubt.
I'm not going to provide clues on my roles because of an obvious fishing attempt
|
we can all prove it without a doubt in like 10 hours when you flip
and i meant that without my catalyst posting, 90% of day 1 wouldnt have happened. i know you contributed to half of it once it began.
|
furthermore you say its fishing but i mean you just came up to the water surface with a giant open mouth, as if you want to swallow that bait. you are claiming blue, essentially, to save your lynch
so i want to know what you are. convince me and i will drop my attack until the time comes when you say you can prove it and cant actually prove it.
|
On December 29 2010 02:11 annul wrote:
furthermore you say its fishing but i mean you just came up to the water surface with a giant open mouth, as if you want to swallow that bait. you are claiming blue, essentially, to save your lynch
so i want to know what you are. convince me and i will drop my attack until the time comes when you say you can prove it and cant actually prove it.
I am claiming blue. Just not what role.
As for convincing you. It impossible since your attack is forced and you left reason a long while ago.
|
then you will flip, because you are lying.
|
On December 29 2010 02:09 annul wrote:
we can all prove it without a doubt in like 10 hours when you flip
and i meant that without my catalyst posting, 90% of day 1 wouldnt have happened. i know you contributed to half of it once it began.
lol
So why are trying to claim everything when so much more went on in day one besides the LSB vrs Annul debate?
|
On December 29 2010 02:15 annul wrote:
then you will flip, because you are lying.
If I'm lying just Vig hit me then after night 2 or lynch me
|
my point is this though
why pass up on a likely red today? we give up on you in favor of something else and its less likely to get a red. say we DO lynch you day 3 - that is day 1 and day 2 of possibly killing town. this means possibly two more nights with mafia having 3 KP. who knows what the KP will be when you die? if it doesnt change, then we get the chance to drop a mafia day 2 and possibly put it lower then.
the point is this: if you are mafia and we let you get away with this blue claim, even for 2 days, if in your mind the only point behind this is to stall for time, its still at the cost of 1, maybe 2 town through a higher mafia KP. the question is then do you believe this claim enough to risk sacrificing 1 or 2 players (or more) to prove it?
right now, i dont think so.
|
My opinions and worthless assessments up to the now.
TheMango HEYOOOO!!!! Look at me I'm scum!!!!! - Yes I believe you are. What better way to hide than in plain sight.
annul & LSB Both bashing away at nothing. - I think you are both playing us for fools.
Brocket Woohoo!!!! I made a post and voted so now I can go back into the shadows. - That's how I see it atm anyways.
ShoCkeyy See above.
I'm changing my vote from LSB to Mango.I'll give you a day LSB.
|
Yeah, but I'm blue. And I can prove this.
The point is, the fact that you are willing to lynch one of your blues means that this lynch has become something else to you.
It no longer is about helping out the town, it's about proving to yourself that you can get someone lynched.
It's time to abort.
|
read the last paragraph of my previous post.
|
WTF? As a blue player I need to keep myself alive.
|
Killing a blue player doesn't magically lower KP
|
Wait... your saying, that I should just get lynched just so I can prove to the town I'm blue?
wtf?
|
I don't think LSB is scum. I don't see any good arguments for his scumminess. If you look at annul's analysis, its done based off the assumption that LSB is mafia from the start and is therefore useless. He is blindly tunnelling LSB for no good reason.
Voting for annul.
|
im saying i assume you are red, not blue, but if you want to prove otherwise, you need to do better than "ill prove blueness on day 3" given the harms to that if you are actually not blue (1-2 more deaths)
|
I'm going to ignore Annul for a while.
Right now, all the votes are split. What we need to do is refocus the votes on a few candidates.
I propose the candidates be Me, annul or OpZ.
If you want to vote for a blue who can confirm himself, go for it. It will help us find scum on day 2.
As for Annul. I feel like with the mass of people voting me, we should refocus onto OpZ, or we won't get enough votes.
OpZ is the inactive vote. He hasn't done much this game besides reiterated points that people have already spoken.
I'm up for redirected the inactive vote to someone else.
|
On December 29 2010 02:57 annul wrote:
im saying i assume you are red, not blue, but if you want to prove otherwise, you need to do better than "ill prove blueness on day 3" given the harms to that if you are actually not blue (1-2 more deaths)
Your Rhetoric was: I think your red. Prove that your blue.
Now since I can prove that I am blue, your rhetoric boils down to: I think your red. I don't have any reason. But I'm going to lynch you to prove that you are blue.
|
no, you cannot prove you are blue. that is what my rhetoric is saying.
my rhetoric is "he realizes he is about to go... he is going to try to save himself."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
