EPTsorry but its a safe way to play
TL Mafia XXXVII - Page 32
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
sorry but its a safe way to play | ||
|
RLTY
United States965 Posts
On February 24 2011 14:14 why wrote: LSB, I cannot believe I just read an entire page of you and annul fighting again. Seriously there is no reason to get drawn into that again if you are town. And why are you voting for annul? You say that he is playing similarly to XXXV in that he is tunneling a player early. The (obvious) difference is that this game he isn't really pushing for GMarshal or chaoser's lynch like he did yours, he's just sort of putting their names out there. I feel like you are just voting for annul because you don't like him and not because you think he's mafia. And annul, why are you voting for GMarshal again? If it's because you think his plan is scummy than you should lynch a large portion of town who like it. I certainly do. In other news here is my current lynch pick: icemac His relevant posts in spoilers - + Show Spoiler + On February 24 2011 10:20 icemac wrote: Seems like shit's hitting the wall pretty hard without any real leads so far. Since its too early, why not just get a semi-active who is probably smart enough to keep their heads in the game but not smart enough to post big as a mafia. I guess this is ironic coming from me seeing as how I've just got up to date & posting. On February 24 2011 10:22 icemac wrote: Also, I just want to say that these cell things is either big balls move by mafia or the workings of bad play. On February 24 2011 10:39 icemac wrote: Analysis doesn't mean shit Day 1. I don't see why you feel so compelled to pull stuff out of your ass and call it high level analysis. On February 24 2011 10:41 icemac wrote: I'm proposing we kill 0 of annul, GMarshal, gryffindor, chaoser and play it by ear afterwards. On February 24 2011 12:12 icemac wrote: Imo, we just need to get a vote out. With so many mafia on the floor, its trivial for them to just sweep something under the carpet. He has a reasonable activity level if you just look at the post count, but really he has said absolutely nothing. He says who we should vote for in a general sense, but avoids naming names. The one post that he does mention names in he basically just takes the top 4 most active players with no further explanation. He seems to be forcing himself to post when he doesn't actually have anything to say, so as to give the illusion of contribution. ##Vote: icemac So by responding to posts, I'm up for lynch? I've said a lot: the current way we're analyzing data isn't optimal. I don't think we should be you using scant data on Day 1 such as you, yourself, are doing. The reason I'm not listing any names other than the inactives is because I have no reasoning against anyone. I don't think I'm forcing myself at all; instead, I'm making meaningful posts on how town should act on Day 1 which is lynching inactives and semi-actives trying to stay in the covers. | ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
On February 24 2011 15:16 gryffindor wrote: Coagulation, what are you mumbling about? My massclaim is to ONE PERSON who will be CONFIRMED through night actions That is how you play mafia as a town, you confirm a doctor or a vigilante through a protection or a kill. If it's a vigilante kill, it better be on mafia, or pre-called and you better hope the mafia don't skimp on killing power as opposed to previous nights, so the vigilante idea could be easily manipulated into submission. A protection, however, would give us a clear for a day. Cross-referencing counterclaims is how we would be able to create lynch-pools, or at the least be able to hold people accountable for their night actions in PMs, as opposed to in the thread which would enable mafia to counteract us with their role reversal mechanic. Just sayin'  HOST Suggested to avoid that kind of play. its just not safe. not now at any rate. | ||
|
gryffindor
United States524 Posts
| ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
| ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Possible Boot Camp Information Here is a small tip. If you can't tell by the set up. This game is designed so you fuckers have to learn to use PM's properly or get royally screwed. This game is ALSO designed to emphasize behavior analysis over EVERYTHING. This IS punishment for Salem Mafia. | ||
|
gryffindor
United States524 Posts
you create a confirmation you whisper them your claims mafia will likely claim townie, we will probably have 1-3 of each power role if we have like 5 trackers, though, who knows. It can happen if you have a certain mod. | ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
DO NOT think you can make a confirmed circle day 1 DO NOT rely on 'confirmed towniesm | ||
|
RLTY
United States965 Posts
On February 24 2011 15:25 LSB wrote: DO NOT claim to anyone your role. DO NOT think you can make a confirmed circle day 1 DO NOT rely on 'confirmed towniesm seriously | ||
|
gryffindor
United States524 Posts
OK lets dissect that game... made... use PMs Ok, he made the game, and we can use PMs... It's not right to mass claim to someone who isn't confirmed, sure. That's what you're blindly saying, right? Now, if someone is confirmed to have taken a hit in the night (mafia have been killing 2 people n1 and n2, and then they only kill 1) -> vet comes forward and claims to have been hit -> town claims to him -> profit Now, I would only say N1 and N2 on this scenario, because mafia can choose to manipulate that. I would want to use this d3 at the earliest (if we haven't caught scum yet)... It's all just reactionary. Just because you make two barracks, doesn't mean you have to mass marines. You can end up floating one for scouting, or even make medics to blind observers. The point of my plan is that it is just a basic way to play this setup correctly, as opposed to people lashing out against it because they got played in one particular game... Salem mafia, was it? Well, I wasn't in that game. I love people getting raised up about being outted in PMs. It's actually proper to withhold information. That's why you wait on a confirmation. Then, you PM them, so the mafia can't see what you're saying in the thread to use it against you. The above veteran scenario is actually bad. If you get a PM from the mod, as a doctor, saying you had a successful protection though.... bingo. If a cop rolechecks someone, and sees they are a mad hatter, then there is confirmation there are many ways to have confirmed people on d2, d3 We wait on them to claim We can do this while having scumhunting cells. As long as you DONT ROLECLAIM in your cells, I don't see a problem in it. | ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
Vote gryffindor | ||
|
gryffindor
United States524 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
For example, in PM gryffindor just defended Iceman/annul. When annul flips red this will prove very useful information. | ||
|
why
United States215 Posts
On February 24 2011 15:18 icemac wrote: So by responding to posts, I'm up for lynch? I've said a lot: the current way we're analyzing data isn't optimal. I don't think we should be you using scant data on Day 1 such as you, yourself, are doing. The reason I'm not listing any names other than the inactives is because I have no reasoning against anyone. I don't think I'm forcing myself at all; instead, I'm making meaningful posts on how town should act on Day 1 which is lynching inactives and semi-actives trying to stay in the covers. No, by responding to posts in meaningless ways, you are up for lynch. Basically you are saying we should go for a policy-lynch of some sort instead of going after someone we feel is mafia. Why wouldn't you go after mafia? Even if you want to lynch a semi-active you still have to choose which one which requires, you guessed it, analysis. Also, I was calling you out because you haven't mentioned one person you would lynch. General directives are ok, but only when you back them up with specific people you would lynch based on them. Then at least people can argue whether they fit the criteria you have laid out. Also, can you clarify what you meant by this post: On February 24 2011 10:41 icemac wrote: I'm proposing we kill 0 of annul, GMarshal, gryffindor, chaoser and play it by ear afterwards. I assumed the 0 was a typo for 1 because it makes much more sense as "I'm proposing we kill 1 of...". | ||
|
gryffindor
United States524 Posts
On February 24 2011 15:31 LSB wrote: PMs are great for purposes other than trying to make some kind of ill fated town circle which is going to fail and loose the town the game. For example, in PM gryffindor just defended Iceman/annul. When annul flips red this will prove very useful information. Are you kidding? I would lynch either one of them. | ||
|
gryffindor
United States524 Posts
however, i would vote him BECAUSE of that. | ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
On February 24 2011 15:31 LSB wrote: PMs are great for purposes other than trying to make some kind of ill fated town circle which is going to fail and loose the town the game. For example, in PM gryffindor just defended Iceman/annul. When annul flips red this will prove very useful information. what makes you so sure hes red again?? | ||
|
gryffindor
United States524 Posts
On February 24 2011 15:31 LSB wrote: PMs are great for purposes other than trying to make some kind of ill fated town circle which is going to fail and loose the town the game. For example, in PM gryffindor just defended Iceman/annul. When annul flips red this will prove very useful information. I could reference a particular game in which it lead to a lopsided town victory, and a game in which the town didn't create a circle whatsoever which was a convincing scum win. It's a case by case scenario. People don't have to believe in confirmation, but I know I will claim immediately when that time comes, except seriously this time. Now, if you all want to lynch me, as some LAL(lynch all liars), go right ahead. Lose your best tactician. | ||
|
RLTY
United States965 Posts
On February 24 2011 15:31 why wrote: No, by responding to posts in meaningless ways, you are up for lynch. Basically you are saying we should go for a policy-lynch of some sort instead of going after someone we feel is mafia. Why wouldn't you go after mafia? Even if you want to lynch a semi-active you still have to choose which one which requires, you guessed it, analysis. Also, I was calling you out because you haven't mentioned one person you would lynch. General directives are ok, but only when you back them up with specific people you would lynch based on them. Then at least people can argue whether they fit the criteria you have laid out. Also, can you clarify what you meant by this post: I assumed the 0 was a typo for 1 because it makes much more sense as "I'm proposing we kill 1 of...". What I mean is that we shouldn't lynch any actives because they're at least contributing. We'll be able to see their alignment or slipups in the future via posts/ pms/ hit patterns/ lynch patterns/ etc. If it's really that important, then I say ICanFlyLow for not talking at all. First person in the list I found that wasn't talking at all. ##Vote: ICanFlyLow | ||
| ||
