|
On December 28 2010 17:18 Barundar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 16:50 GGQ wrote:On December 28 2010 16:40 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:18 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:17 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
LSB; while Annul doesn't have a very strong case against you, your defense was pretty pathetic. I've had a bad gut feeling about you for a while, it's not something I was planning on voting on but Annul did bring out all of the problems I had been having with your posts. I'm not voting you quite yet but I would like you to give more than one line answers whenever someone puts a fos on you. Consider this post a +1 for Annul's case against LSB. I'd like to see you take some time in defending yourself and not just brush it off because there were some good points in annul's post. Give me a point to address then. Bump. Why did you OMGUS vote annul when I'm sure you know that's a common scumtell? ... and why did you vote for him while you kept trying to make town look for inactives? Shouldn't you be trying to convince people to your case if you where certain enough to vote? In pokemafia, you said "I was very protective of my Shockeyy lynch", when someone suggested another possible mafia lynch. Now you are fine with the town splitting up attention. How would you explain this change in play style?
OMGUS: The point is, lets say I do an analysis of you, and its all lies. Wouldn't you be suspicious of me?
It would be selfish of me to not do anything about it. As a townie I have a responsibility to attack Annul, even though it may be a bit scummy
Inactives: In case you haven't noticed, I've been dealing with the inactives using blue roles.
I proposed we deal with inactives by a combination of DT checks and mass cover by everyone allowing the DTs to safely .
The thing is, this plan was immediatly dismissed by people who probably didn't read the thread. All they say is "well, lets not rely on DTs".
In addition, as I've said, we should lynch an inactive only when there iw no obvious mafia canditdate. Given that I found a obvious mafia candidate...
|
On December 28 2010 17:39 Barundar wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
If you guys divert the lynch, I will prove, without a doubt, my role at the end of night two.
|
|
|
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
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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'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.
|
On December 29 2010 03:18 annul wrote:
in sengoku, i claimed guerilla. i said i would PROVE it the next day, if they decided to take their lynch off of me.
they did.
it was the smarter move to not blow the power the next day, so i didnt. they still had no idea if i was guerilla or not.
The difference is that I can, and I will prove that I am a blue.
And Sengoku we redirected the lynch because we didn't want to lynch a blue. You see, in that game, the town cared about winning.
|
On December 29 2010 03:28 annul wrote:
in sengoku i breadcrumbed early so it was somewhat believable...
... but my point is i could have been or i could have been scum, town has no idea. if LSB is a blue he can make a believable claim on day 3 "HEY the smart move is to stfu about my power" ... and town has no idea if he is being sincere or if he is mafia and unable to prove himself.
so the point of this is to question whether you believe the blue claim, in light of all the happenings, not to make an automatic "get off the blue" decision.
every single mafia in this game would be smart to claim blue in the situation LSB did whether he is or is not blue. that is my main point.
I am not stupid.
I know how to prove my role, and I can prove my role.
Right now, mafia wants to lynch me because they know they will not be able to take me out at night since medics will probably protect me. So they will try to take me out before it gets to night 2.
|
On December 29 2010 04:38 annul wrote:
there is no role you can PROVE (outside of death - see hatter, etc) before the end of night 2.
Yes there is.
|
How about this.
At the start of night 2. I will post my proof of being blue.
If you're not satisfied, just call a vig hit on me.
Deal?
|
If I offer myself to be lynched, will you lynch Annul afterwards?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
