|
On January 21 2011 11:24 Pandain wrote:
Because mafia will never go inactive.
As for pressuring them....
For example, we can threaten to lynch people. When for 2 days in a row you only say "I'm busy", that's unnacceptable, and we lynch them. As of now though there is no one I would consider truly "inactive inactive." There really the only way to differentiate is by lynching them, such as soulfire and george clooney, who wouldn't talk even if pressured.
But no one is doing that now. So for now, lynching "inactives" is not what we should be doing.
You literally just finished XXV where two mafia were modkilled for inactivity...
|
Hey pandain! HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
|
Meh now jumping to another target Pandain? Pressure doesn’t work if it isn’t real, and you basically just switched because Nemesis makes one post arguing against you. I like that you are being offensive, but it has to serve it's purpose, and right now you are all over the place.
Hesmyrr, do you still think your vote on BC is justified, and who else would you vote for now?
|
Shockeyy right now you are my favourite suspect. You have promised to add more in this game than last, but so far you have only added short statements, repetition of what others have said, and statements of “I will post more later”.
First real post in thread (fixed quotes for you): + Show Spoiler + On January 21 2011 00:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Meh, the games start really late at night and i work in the morning, so of course i can't post much since im using my phone to do this. Either way trying to see who talks the most and says the stupidest things before i start voting.
This is your first post saying you are busy. Timewise it’s posted straight after Chaoser calling you out on a list of inactives.
Second post after I call you out + Show Spoiler +On January 21 2011 05:14 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 01:30 Barundar wrote:
Shockeyy, you where laying really low in mafia xxxv, I hope to see more out of you in this game. Of course I was laying low seeing as all the active kids kept dying first, because everyone in that game was so dumb to realize who were the mafia either way. I was dumb as well, but hey it happens. That game actually has showed me a lot more that the way I played mafia back in the day has changed than the way we play it now. And Pandain, if you read the thread, I clearly state I can't post till I get out of work. I will try and post from my phone as much as possible, but that is such a pain in my ass. Either way, I will post some more when I do get home.
First post offering content: + Show Spoiler + On January 21 2011 09:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 06:11 Nemesis wrote:On January 21 2011 01:47 Pandain wrote:Hello everyone its Pandain the Panda, hoping he won't ruin town again for everyone. And as Pandain always learned when young, the best way to get from A to B when theres a brick wall in front of you is to not go around the wall, but keep on running into it until it breaks! In other news, just some general thoughts: 1.Blue's dont claim unless you are about to be lynched. If you find a red, don't claim. Instead prepare an analysis on him and get him lynched without claiming. If you find green, and they're about to be lynched, express support for him, but don't claim unless its near lylo. 2.I agree we should not let inactives survive in this town. But considering we've hardly started, "inactives" is hardly the word to call them. So let's get things moving. ##Vote NemesisOn January 20 2011 22:08 Nemesis wrote:
@Jackal I wouldn't say that lynching actives is a big mistake. I wasn't paying attention to what happened in XXXVI, but we should lynch scum, and mafia is not always inactive.
And I guess back to the usual first day topic. Lynching inactives. Since lynching a scum is very hard in the very first day. Lynching inactives would be a very good start as it would prevent mafia from lurking.
I'm going to wait a bit for people to talk since the game has just started. What is this? Clarify this for me, because as I understand right now you just said we should lynch scum, and then say we should lynch inactives. Plus I want to see more contribution. Come on people, pressure is pointless if only one person votes. Let's get things moving. Yes, I did say that we should lynch scum, but day 1, it is very hard to actually lynch scum because we don't have a lot of information available to us. Which is why I suggested that we should lynch inactives for the first day. As it has been said before, inactivity is a big problem which we do not want to see in this game. Lynching inactive first day encourages people to participate more in the discussion and be more active which makes it is easier to find mafia, as the more discussion we have as there is more information available to analyze. ##Vote ShockeyyI haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. Wait, you're going to vote for me just because I was at work and clearly stated I wasn't going to be able to post till I get home? Ok let's see what you have posted so far: Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 22:08 Nemesis wrote:
@Jackal I wouldn't say that lynching actives is a big mistake. I wasn't paying attention to what happened in XXXVI, but we should lynch scum, and mafia is not always inactive.
And I guess back to the usual first day topic. Lynching inactives. Since lynching a scum is very hard in the very first day. Lynching inactives would be a very good start as it would prevent mafia from lurking.
I'm going to wait a bit for people to talk since the game has just started. Meh, something that always gets discussed in the first day of the game. "Should we lynch inactives or not? "Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 22:30 Nemesis wrote:On January 20 2011 22:24 Jackal58 wrote:On January 20 2011 22:08 Nemesis wrote:
@Jackal I wouldn't say that lynching actives is a big mistake. I wasn't paying attention to what happened in XXXVI, but we should lynch scum, and mafia is not always inactive.
And I guess back to the usual first day topic. Lynching inactives. Since lynching a scum is very hard in the very first day. Lynching inactives would be a very good start as it would prevent mafia from lurking.
I'm going to wait a bit for people to talk since the game has just started. I would argue that lynching the most active players on day 1 is a mistake. Unless of course active player A states "I am scum" which probably isn't going to happen. Duh, of course lynching the most active player day 1 is not the best idea ever (I suggested lynching inactives), but I am saying that we shouldn't be afraid to lynch active players. We shouldn't focus too much on what blues should do. We don't know what blue roles there are and blues will do what they think is best anyways. We should just focus more on scumhunting than whatever blue plans. More of the same stuff everyone post on day one... When do people ever learn that this won't get you by. You're basically repeating what everyone has stated before you and will state after you. Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 06:11 Nemesis wrote:On January 21 2011 01:47 Pandain wrote:Hello everyone its Pandain the Panda, hoping he won't ruin town again for everyone. And as Pandain always learned when young, the best way to get from A to B when theres a brick wall in front of you is to not go around the wall, but keep on running into it until it breaks! In other news, just some general thoughts: 1.Blue's dont claim unless you are about to be lynched. If you find a red, don't claim. Instead prepare an analysis on him and get him lynched without claiming. If you find green, and they're about to be lynched, express support for him, but don't claim unless its near lylo. 2.I agree we should not let inactives survive in this town. But considering we've hardly started, "inactives" is hardly the word to call them. So let's get things moving. ##Vote NemesisOn January 20 2011 22:08 Nemesis wrote:
@Jackal I wouldn't say that lynching actives is a big mistake. I wasn't paying attention to what happened in XXXVI, but we should lynch scum, and mafia is not always inactive.
And I guess back to the usual first day topic. Lynching inactives. Since lynching a scum is very hard in the very first day. Lynching inactives would be a very good start as it would prevent mafia from lurking.
I'm going to wait a bit for people to talk since the game has just started. What is this? Clarify this for me, because as I understand right now you just said we should lynch scum, and then say we should lynch inactives. Plus I want to see more contribution. Come on people, pressure is pointless if only one person votes. Let's get things moving. Yes, I did say that we should lynch scum, but day 1, it is very hard to actually lynch scum because we don't have a lot of information available to us. Which is why I suggested that we should lynch inactives for the first day. As it has been said before, inactivity is a big problem which we do not want to see in this game. Lynching inactive first day encourages people to participate more in the discussion and be more active which makes it is easier to find mafia, as the more discussion we have as there is more information available to analyze. ##Vote ShockeyyI haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. Now back to this... You seemed pretty active in the beginning of the game and then leave for about 40 post and come back instantly voting for me even though I haven't even had a chance to actually type anything. Great job... You just gained a lot more suspicion to yourself than anybody else could. Either way, I'm not voting till tomorrow, but for now I'm going to be watching you will be writing out and timing them.
I like the decisiveness in this post, but there is a few problems with it. First of all you get called out, and go straight after your attacker. Secondly you aren’t adding anything to Pandain’s analysis, basicly you are just repeating his arguments. You also again mention you don’t have time to write anything, and people questioning are suspicious per default.
Next: + Show Spoiler + On January 21 2011 09:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 09:13 LSB wrote:
I'm going to ignore the Nemesis issue right now. I have made a decision on the bandwagon I want to see where it goes before I say anything.
Remember, although we are talking about lynching inactives, there are only two people I see that are in danger of being inactive. ShoCkeyy likes to lurk, and Chaoser can disappear at times (well, Chaoser had an excuse).
Lurker- Avoids positions, attention, and tries to pretend that he is contributing, but really isn't. For example, Annul was technically a lurker in XXXV (Notice that besides answering questions, he did not comment on anything else). Generally Mafia
Inactive- Doesn't post besides a "sorry, I'm inactive". Defiantly Ainti-town.
I'm cool with killing both Lurkers and Inactives. But remember, the Inactive kill is more of a policy lynch, while the Lurker kill should only accompany analysis proving that the lurker is mafia. I'm going to try and be as active as possible this game since I don't really have to fly out of town, lol... But either way, I usually lurk in the mornings while I'm at work to try and keep up with the thread.
Another 1 liner promising us more, and admitting to lurking.
And lastly+ Show Spoiler +On January 21 2011 11:06 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 10:53 Nemesis wrote:On January 21 2011 06:50 Pandain wrote:On January 21 2011 06:11 Nemesis wrote:On January 21 2011 01:47 Pandain wrote:Hello everyone its Pandain the Panda, hoping he won't ruin town again for everyone. And as Pandain always learned when young, the best way to get from A to B when theres a brick wall in front of you is to not go around the wall, but keep on running into it until it breaks! In other news, just some general thoughts: 1.Blue's dont claim unless you are about to be lynched. If you find a red, don't claim. Instead prepare an analysis on him and get him lynched without claiming. If you find green, and they're about to be lynched, express support for him, but don't claim unless its near lylo. 2.I agree we should not let inactives survive in this town. But considering we've hardly started, "inactives" is hardly the word to call them. So let's get things moving. ##Vote NemesisOn January 20 2011 22:08 Nemesis wrote:
@Jackal I wouldn't say that lynching actives is a big mistake. I wasn't paying attention to what happened in XXXVI, but we should lynch scum, and mafia is not always inactive.
And I guess back to the usual first day topic. Lynching inactives. Since lynching a scum is very hard in the very first day. Lynching inactives would be a very good start as it would prevent mafia from lurking.
I'm going to wait a bit for people to talk since the game has just started. What is this? Clarify this for me, because as I understand right now you just said we should lynch scum, and then say we should lynch inactives. Plus I want to see more contribution. Come on people, pressure is pointless if only one person votes. Let's get things moving. Yes, I did say that we should lynch scum, but day 1, it is very hard to actually lynch scum because we don't have a lot of information available to us. Which is why I suggested that we should lynch inactives for the first day. As it has been said before, inactivity is a big problem which we do not want to see in this game. Lynching inactive first day encourages people to participate more in the discussion and be more active which makes it is easier to find mafia, as the more discussion we have as there is more information available to analyze. ##Vote ShockeyyI haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. I don't like this post either. Let's take a look at it. First off, lynching inactives itself is a bad strategy. I shall be lenient to him because even I make this mistake, but lynching inactives is a horrible thing to do. When we say "lynch inactives", we mean "lynch lurkers." We want to differentiate the lurkers from the inactives/bored. You are just arguing semantics here. Besides, you can't exactly tell a lurker from an inactive unless they make it obvious.If we say we'll lynch the inactives, the inactives won't respond. IF we say we'll lynch the inactives, the bored won't really respond. Only the mafia will respond if we say lynch the inactives. Which is why you never want to end up LYNCHING an inactive, just pressuring all of them to post. If they don't respond, that does not necessarily mean that they are bored townies. Just take a look at TMM3. Subversion(he was red that game) claimed he was roleblocked, and then disappeared afterwards. There were plenty of FoS on him after that, and he was up for lynch next day, but he still didn't respond. It is pretty much impossible to tell the difference between a lurker and an inactive townie.Furthormore, he just repeated information without actually adding anything to it. Finally he goes for the "easy" kill. There was pretty much nothing else that people were discussing about. I gave my opinion on what we were currently talking about. What else could I have added to the discussion? It is not like anyone else was trying to generate new topic. At least I was trying to further the discussion.
I just woke up, I was still half-asleep when I checked this forum. I rather dislike it when town loses because everyone is inactive, and when I saw Shockeyy post "sorry I'm inactive, I promise I'll be active later," I wanted to pressure him to make sure that he actually keeps his promise and doesn't disappear as soon as we forget about him.This is typical mafia to me. I now offer Nemesis as a viable option for a real lynch. Yes? I don't see anything wrong with what he posted, it's quite true.
1 liner, doesn’t add anything.
It’s been at least 24 hours without you adding anything that hasn’t been said by others. You can’t have been working the whole time. Last game you spend tunnelling the active townie Pandain the whole game, distrubting the town discussion to a point where I considered stopping defending Pandain, just so we could go back to scumhunting. Even if you aren’t scum, I have no problem offing you on day 1.
|
You also again mention you don’t have time to write anything, and people questioning are suspicious per default.
EBWODP: You also again mention you don't have time to write anything, and that people questioning you are suspecious per default.
|
Good morning all. So the debate rages on. I think it's now time to start attempting to identify lurkers/inactives rather than to continue debating whether or not it's wise to do so. We appear to have a clear consensus on the issue. Having everyone on board is not a requirement since the player with the most votes wins anyways.
Shockeyy - Yes he may be at work. Yes he may be unable to post. Or he may be something else. In either case if he continues at his present rate of participation he is a detriment to us.
BloodyC0bbler - Hello!!!! You're the worst of the bunch so far.
GGQ - Your lips are moving but you're not really saying much.
I'm heading off to work. I'll catch up with you guys in a couple of hours.
|
My god, you guys are still going on about dealing with inactives? You went from talking about what blues should do which is self explanatory
moved on into talking about how to deal with inactives which again, is self explanatory. Do you guys seriously just make posts for the sake of posting? You guys all should know better than this by now.
The only saving grace is that people are still posting for the sake of fitting in.
Pandain, talked about defining what a lurker and an inactive is and which we have to aim for, awesome. However this was not included with much analysis. Now its only day 1 so i'm giving him a bit of breathing room here, but if someone tells people how a game should be played, all eyes should be flickering back there periodically to make sure he's coming through.
Jackal. FoS a player based on a previous game and uses that as analysis to justify FoS them. After the crapshoot of the last game any player with a brain would have learned from it. Aside from that most posts have been fluff posts
To my eyes these are the most notable people right now playing the "fit in game" you all seem to be discussing. Which I will now also mention is a really dumb way to play day 1. Day 1 you have no idea if people are busy at work, busy with school, etc...
There is no trend in which to analyze to base their behaviour off of. Metaing the player gets you know where as you need multiple days worth of information typically to fully match them to one of their previous play styles. Anyone who continues the discussion of how to deal with inactives at this point in the game should be massive FoS. It is a moot point now and just gives the mafia an easy discussion to blend in with. You need to apply pressure to people or have a general point in which everyone would be compelled to give their piece on, yet make it much harder for a red to blend in.
Inactivity/lurkers, generic blue roles discussions don't do jack to narrow down reds.
IF you want to talk about blues you go into things like
zodiac lists
dt check lists
or the like day 1. Those generate discussion, and usually get good reactions.
However, these are my recommendations and general observations. You guys have to learn these things at some point, might as well be now.
|
On January 21 2011 12:17 GGQ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 11:24 Pandain wrote:
Because mafia will never go inactive.
As for pressuring them....
For example, we can threaten to lynch people. When for 2 days in a row you only say "I'm busy", that's unnacceptable, and we lynch them. As of now though there is no one I would consider truly "inactive inactive." There really the only way to differentiate is by lynching them, such as soulfire and george clooney, who wouldn't talk even if pressured.
But no one is doing that now. So for now, lynching "inactives" is not what we should be doing. You literally just finished XXV where two mafia were modkilled for inactivity...
And we don't want to be voting those who we modkill anyway, no?
On January 21 2011 17:08 Barundar wrote:
Meh now jumping to another target Pandain? Pressure doesn’t work if it isn’t real, and you basically just switched because Nemesis makes one post arguing against you. I like that you are being offensive, but it has to serve it's purpose, and right now you are all over the place.
Hesmyrr, do you still think your vote on BC is justified, and who else would you vote for now?
I got enough out of him, the point is to pressure as many people as possible in a limited amount of time. Speaking of which, why is chaoser still voting me since I've obviously spoken.
And BC, I'm expecting alot out of you this game. You're certainly the most experienced one here, yet as of now have hardly said anything of real substance.
Finally, I've decided that I don't think Shockkey is scum. He's playing his norm, in fact, even has contributed more with a semi analysis of Nemesis. I think Hesmyrr is a far better person to vote considering he has barely talked at all.
|
On January 22 2011 02:08 Pandain wrote:
Finally, I've decided that I don't think Shockkey is scum. He's playing his norm, in fact, even has contributed more with a semi analysis of Nemesis. I think Hesmyrr is a far better person to vote considering he has barely talked at all.
Shockkey's 'semi analysis' of Nemesis was a FOS for Nemesis targeting him.
I'm going to support the Shockkey lynch because
1) Indirect FoS on Pandain.
Pandain has detracted from his initial posts on activity back in XXXV, one possible explanation could be that Pandain is on a scum team with an inactive, shockeyy.
2) He's not going to be very active anyways
3) He hasn't posted anything besides excusing himself for lurking,+ Show Spoiler +On January 21 2011 05:22 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 05:19 GGQ wrote:On January 21 2011 05:14 ShoCkeyy wrote:On January 21 2011 01:30 Barundar wrote:
Shockeyy, you where laying really low in mafia xxxv, I hope to see more out of you in this game. Of course I was laying low seeing as all the active kids kept dying first, because everyone in that game was so dumb to realize who were the mafia either way. I was dumb as well, but hey it happens. That game actually has showed me a lot more that the way I played mafia back in the day has changed than the way we play it now. And Pandain, if you read the thread, I clearly state I can't post till I get out of work. I will try and post from my phone as much as possible, but that is such a pain in my ass. Either way, I will post some more when I do get home. You were green, why would you need to stay alive if you weren't actively posting. That's a really bad reason for 'laying low'. So we actually had a chance in the end to win as a town? But that didn't happen either way. JESUS
|
|
|
|
|
I got enough out of him, the point is to pressure as many people as possible in a limited amount of time. Speaking of which, why is chaoser still voting me since I've obviously spoken.
You've spoken but all you've given is definitions and what we SHOULD do with no clear plans/idea on how we're going to even go about doing it (differentiate between town lurkers/inactives and mafia lurkers/inactives). You stated that your main goal is get town to be active which is a non-committal thing to do. Your analysis of Nemesis was pretty bad, pretty much calling him out on saying pretty much the same things everyone else was saying/everyone else usually says on Day 1 (Lynch inactives, blah blah blah). Though I do think Nemesis' over aggressiveness was a bit weird, I think your actions/posts haven't been much better. So I'm keeping my vote on you for the time being.
|
Quickly dropping into say (and yes, my access to internet is currently being very wanky, enough to declare hiatus on My Starcraft translation efforts and I don't like breaking promises) I cannot understand Pandain's accusation.
Can you specify what do you mean by "a common mafia tell"? I mean, I know you say more immediately after but none of them seems to be relevant to my post. I have not mentioned any single players, so I fail to understand where you got the impression of me giving out the voting list. More importantly, I think it is clear that the post you quote is analyzing the setup to see why lynching someone b/c inactivity is a bad thing. (There is a reason why I emphasized word anti-town instead of scumtell, because as all good players know they aren't necessary the same thing)
So what you say on the next paragraph about being contradictory, doesn't hold any water.
That out of the way, since the day ends in 12 hours to my knowledge, I'll try to drop by once again during that time to see who I can vote. @Mod: If I do not make another post before the day ends, replace me.
|
P.S. (treat this is continuation of my previous post, considering the green comment I just made)
I added everyone in this game to my buddy list and turned on 'Allow your Mutual Buddies to see when you're online?' thing, just to ensure people know I am not bsing.
|
I mean, so you can add me to the buddy list and you can see whether I am online or not. Really going now.
|
On January 22 2011 02:08 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 12:17 GGQ wrote:On January 21 2011 11:24 Pandain wrote:
Because mafia will never go inactive.
As for pressuring them....
For example, we can threaten to lynch people. When for 2 days in a row you only say "I'm busy", that's unnacceptable, and we lynch them. As of now though there is no one I would consider truly "inactive inactive." There really the only way to differentiate is by lynching them, such as soulfire and george clooney, who wouldn't talk even if pressured.
But no one is doing that now. So for now, lynching "inactives" is not what we should be doing. You literally just finished XXV where two mafia were modkilled for inactivity... And we don't want to be voting those who we modkill anyway, no?Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 17:08 Barundar wrote:
Meh now jumping to another target Pandain? Pressure doesn’t work if it isn’t real, and you basically just switched because Nemesis makes one post arguing against you. I like that you are being offensive, but it has to serve it's purpose, and right now you are all over the place.
Hesmyrr, do you still think your vote on BC is justified, and who else would you vote for now? I got enough out of him, the point is to pressure as many people as possible in a limited amount of time. Speaking of which, why is chaoser still voting me since I've obviously spoken. And BC, I'm expecting alot out of you this game. You're certainly the most experienced one here, yet as of now have hardly said anything of real substance. Finally, I've decided that I don't think Shockkey is scum. He's playing his norm, in fact, even has contributed more with a semi analysis of Nemesis. I think Hesmyrr is a far better person to vote considering he has barely talked at all.
Do you really think that's a relevant reply to what I was saying? You initial point was that we shouldn't lynch inactives because mafia are never inactive. I pointed out the undeniable fact that two mafia were inactive in the last big game, proving your point wrong. Now you are trying to say we don't want to lynch inactives because they will get modkilled (which might not even happen if they're careful enough to post once or twice and vote), and you're saying it as though that was your point all along. Maybe you just weren't keeping up with the logic, but this feels sketchy to me.
Also, why so uncomfortable with having just one vote on you? Your play seems nervous to me.
|
On January 22 2011 04:12 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +I got enough out of him, the point is to pressure as many people as possible in a limited amount of time. Speaking of which, why is chaoser still voting me since I've obviously spoken. You've spoken but all you've given is definitions and what we SHOULD do with no clear plans/idea on how we're going to even go about doing it (differentiate between town lurkers/inactives and mafia lurkers/inactives). You stated that your main goal is get town to be active which is a non-committal thing to do. Your analysis of Nemesis was pretty bad, pretty much calling him out on saying pretty much the same things everyone else was saying/everyone else usually says on Day 1 (Lynch inactives, blah blah blah). Though I do think Nemesis' over aggressiveness was a bit weird, I think your actions/posts haven't been much better. So I'm keeping my vote on you for the time being.
I'm not just going to say "If someone does this: then I suspect them as mafia". Should I? It just seems to me that would enable mafia to easily hide from me even more.
And me thinks I've gotten town active. By accusing two people, I started discussion, got people talking, and so forth.
On January 22 2011 04:53 GGQ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2011 02:08 Pandain wrote:On January 21 2011 12:17 GGQ wrote:On January 21 2011 11:24 Pandain wrote:
Because mafia will never go inactive.
As for pressuring them....
For example, we can threaten to lynch people. When for 2 days in a row you only say "I'm busy", that's unnacceptable, and we lynch them. As of now though there is no one I would consider truly "inactive inactive." There really the only way to differentiate is by lynching them, such as soulfire and george clooney, who wouldn't talk even if pressured.
But no one is doing that now. So for now, lynching "inactives" is not what we should be doing. You literally just finished XXV where two mafia were modkilled for inactivity... And we don't want to be voting those who we modkill anyway, no?On January 21 2011 17:08 Barundar wrote:
Meh now jumping to another target Pandain? Pressure doesn’t work if it isn’t real, and you basically just switched because Nemesis makes one post arguing against you. I like that you are being offensive, but it has to serve it's purpose, and right now you are all over the place.
Hesmyrr, do you still think your vote on BC is justified, and who else would you vote for now? I got enough out of him, the point is to pressure as many people as possible in a limited amount of time. Speaking of which, why is chaoser still voting me since I've obviously spoken. And BC, I'm expecting alot out of you this game. You're certainly the most experienced one here, yet as of now have hardly said anything of real substance. Finally, I've decided that I don't think Shockkey is scum. He's playing his norm, in fact, even has contributed more with a semi analysis of Nemesis. I think Hesmyrr is a far better person to vote considering he has barely talked at all. Do you really think that's a relevant reply to what I was saying? You initial point was that we shouldn't lynch inactives because mafia are never inactive. I pointed out the undeniable fact that two mafia were inactive in the last big game, proving your point wrong. Now you are trying to say we don't want to lynch inactives because they will get modkilled (which might not even happen if they're careful enough to post once or twice and vote), and you're saying it as though that was your point all along. Maybe you just weren't keeping up with the logic, but this feels sketchy to me. Also, why so uncomfortable with having just one vote on you? Your play seems nervous to me.
Tevo made a very long post, and actually was quite content-full when he actually contributed. Then he died on day 2. We don't know what would've happened with his activity. Furthormore, Brockett was lurking, not inactive. I'm unsure about Tevo, he may have just been inactive as well.
But as a very consistent trend those who are inactive are not mafia. While you can name two(and only really one might be inactive mafia), I can name at least 4. George clooney, soulfire, DTA, treehugger.
Seeing as I doubt I'll get any more from Hesmyrr seeing as he's going to be gone, it's time to pressure a more seasoned player.
I'm going to be voting Bloody Cobblar. He actually hasn't played anti town. But the thing is he hasn't contributed at all really to the discussion of who to lynch. He's talked about "forced activity" and "watch out for lurkers", but then hasn't done anything. I know your in another game, but you need to start posting more.
##Vote BC
|
|
|
On January 21 2011 19:32 Jackal58 wrote:
Good morning all. So the debate rages on. I think it's now time to start attempting to identify lurkers/inactives rather than to continue debating whether or not it's wise to do so. We appear to have a clear consensus on the issue. Having everyone on board is not a requirement since the player with the most votes wins anyways.
Shockeyy - Yes he may be at work. Yes he may be unable to post. Or he may be something else. In either case if he continues at his present rate of participation he is a detriment to us.
BloodyC0bbler - Hello!!!! You're the worst of the bunch so far.
GGQ - Your lips are moving but you're not really saying much.
Yeah, I haven't done as much analysis as I would like, but honestly I could say the same thing about you. You've made a good number of posts, but almost every one is a one liner. The activity is good, but more content would be appreciated.
|
I'm going to say I don't like Pandain's butterfly flirting around the issue. He isn't actually committing to any position, besides lets not lynch shockeyy.
How about we lynch shockeyy and see what Pandain thinks????
:D!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
