EPTif we can agree to this, now those of us IN ITEM GAME should be able to campaign without interference. if you think i am scum and want me to not get the mayorship, or if you think im just a bad who will waste the job, okay fine, dont vote for me. but at least frame it in that way.
Insane Mafia 2 - Page 4
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
if we can agree to this, now those of us IN ITEM GAME should be able to campaign without interference. if you think i am scum and want me to not get the mayorship, or if you think im just a bad who will waste the job, okay fine, dont vote for me. but at least frame it in that way. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On March 25 2011 08:50 GMarshal wrote: Can you seriously not see why bum is the person who should get the mayorship unless the mafia grows some balls and counterclaims? (or the blues if bum is mafia [doubtful]) yes, i seriously can not see why bum should get the mayorship. that's only been my entire case all day | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On March 25 2011 08:53 deconduo wrote: No, that wasn't a serious analysis. I was merely pointing out that I too can pull figures from my ass and say the maths are sound if they add up. By electing a town mayor from the item game you do increase the chance of town winning it. That is obvious, but your other arguments are terrible. -Electing mafia as mayor essentially is an autoloss in that case -Electing a black is bad too. People are less inclined to lynch a mayor unless there is a lot more evidence against them, so it will increase his survivability. Finally, and this is the big bit, we give up having a 100% clear mayor with a circle behind him. argue directly against my math, then. don't try to skirt off with some flawed argument by analogy. tell me exactly how my math is wrong, not that it is possible to come up with wrong math. its quite possible. my math, however, is not wrong. "electing a red mayor in item game is an auto loss." it would be very bad, yes, but not an auto-loss. but that is a 1/6 chance to happen. giving mayor to the black would be bad but only insofar as its bad for green to not have it. black gains nothing, relative to item game powers, with mayorship. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On March 25 2011 09:00 deconduo wrote: Did you not read my post? Blacks DO gain with mayorship, as it makes them a bit more lynch proof simply because people are much less inclined to lynch the mayor. but this is in the hands of the town, something we can actually control. this argument is extremely tenuous. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
if i am elected mayor, it would be suboptimal to kill the red in item game. i posted my math immediately when you challenged me originally, but YOU conveniently ignored that, too. if anything, it is you who looks quite suspicious at the moment. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On March 25 2011 09:01 GMarshal wrote: Ok, let me break it down for you then. Lets take our premise, bum is one of 4 things 1.) Insane Townie, 2.) A Blue, 3.) Third Party 4.) Mafia lets make Mafia and Third party one category as third party is pretty much like the mafia, except less interested in the mayorship, and lets eliminate one, becuase if thats the case I lose all respect for bum forever. So bum is either 1.) a Blue 2.) Lying scum with you up until this point. On March 25 2011 09:01 GMarshal wrote: Lets assume he is Blue, then thats great we just elected a mayor with a blue circle and with who knows what powers, we gained an advantage, even assuming the precense of a role blocker its still a pretty good deal. Lets assume he is red, then a blue WILL counterclaim (this is optimal play) we lynch one to figure out the alignment of the other, worst case, we lynch the blue and get a red tommorow, best case we have a confirmed blue for medic protects. If a red counterclaims then we get the same scenario as above. So essentialy we have a claimed mouthpeice for the blues, which we might have to sacrifice to kill scum if there is a counter claim. Do you see it now? Its just logic... if he is a blue, it is good that we elected a blue mayor, yes. but it would be BETTER if we elect a green in item game mayor. sure, if we cant get that, a blue mayor is a good thing. but with a 4/6 chance to get the green mayor in item game (and a 1/1 chance if you elect me!) then the chance to win SIX items is worth much much more to us than a blue mayor. if he is a red, the blue will not necessarily counterclaim, again, for reasons ive stated multiple times in the thread. just for you, ill do it a 17th time: sacrificing a blue for ONE scum is a horrible trade when its 10 scum 20 nonscum; furthermore, the blues may have abilities worth much more in the long term than one scum death. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On March 25 2011 09:09 Jackal58 wrote: I have a great desire to kill scum. Their color doesn't really matter to me atm. Your fixation is somewhat fascinating. blacks can only die to lynch/mayor kill reds can die to those PLUS black's KP. therefore, we should try to find the black since we have to be the ones to pull the trigger on him. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On March 25 2011 09:13 CubEdIn wrote: @ annul: Let's come to a conclusion here. It is good to pick a blue mayor. It is BETTER to pick a green mayor from item game. It is most horrible to pick a red mayor from item game. It is "just bad" to pick a black mayor from item game. So, you know, we have "better" against "horrible". Unless someone counter-claims, we have the blue. I don't want another game that ends in mass murder. So I'd rather NOT take the chance of picking that red, even if the odds are slim. this is true, but understand that without giving mayor to a green in item game, we are conceding item game outright. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
i just think 1. bum may or may not be blue; and 2. to take the mathematical chance to win six items worth much more than one blue. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
its strategic for the reds to not kill anybody in item game until the black player is dead. however, it's also strategic for the reds to not kill greens in item game once the black is dead (beyond 1 or 2 people in some situations). once its town + town + red, the red is not going to be killing towns (it forces the medic, which will make it smart for red to just go after non-IG players to get full use of KP). but if the black is alive, then this changes. both the red and the green want to kill the black in item game in the daytime ASAP. it is true once the black dies, all IG players are [relatively] safe. your scenario presumes a medic. why wouldnt medic be on bum tonight if a green IG mayor is elected? red is not going to hit IG players (its actually a net loss for them), only the black will be doing this. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
the fact that you say this, in light of the conversation we are CURRENTLY having, removes all of your credibility. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
i get to see what my item is in 80 minutes. i will be able to extrapolate from this what the power level of the rest of them can be. if its not worth it, we can give this up. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
i say this not to attempt to persuade people i am green or even that anyone in particular is scum. just remember who is fighting this tooth and nail. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
ONE BLUE IS WORTH MORE TO THE TOWN THAN SACRIFICING HIMSELF TO GET RID OF ONE SCUM. ONE BLUE IS WORTH MORE TO THE TOWN THAN SACRIFICING HIMSELF TO GET RID OF ONE SCUM. ONE BLUE IS WORTH MORE TO THE TOWN THAN SACRIFICING HIMSELF TO GET RID OF ONE SCUM. ONE BLUE IS WORTH MORE TO THE TOWN THAN SACRIFICING HIMSELF TO GET RID OF ONE SCUM. ONE BLUE IS WORTH MORE TO THE TOWN THAN SACRIFICING HIMSELF TO GET RID OF ONE SCUM. ONE BLUE IS WORTH MORE TO THE TOWN THAN SACRIFICING HIMSELF TO GET RID OF ONE SCUM. ONE BLUE IS WORTH MORE TO THE TOWN THAN SACRIFICING HIMSELF TO GET RID OF ONE SCUM. ONE BLUE IS WORTH MORE TO THE TOWN THAN SACRIFICING HIMSELF TO GET RID OF ONE SCUM. ONE BLUE IS WORTH MORE TO THE TOWN THAN SACRIFICING HIMSELF TO GET RID OF ONE SCUM. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
ive only been arguing this entire time that bum is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT confirmed. can he be blue? sure. is he CONFIRMED? of course not. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On March 25 2011 09:50 deconduo wrote: Another retarded argument. If bum is lying and a blue claims, how is that sacrificing himself? He will have someone to back him up, and won't get lynched. He will be elected mayor and his partner will have a medic protecting him. We get to lynch a scum day one and a blue mayor. If bum is telling the truth we have a blue mayor. ok let me indulge you. "I AM A BLUE*. BUM IS NOT BLUE. HE IS LYING." auto mayor please! * i'm not actually blue. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On March 25 2011 09:53 Tackster wrote: i KNOW i shouldn't go on but i think we may be close to a breakthrough here... Annul: Why isn't he confirmed? Give me a situation in which he isn't blue when: There are no ccs The blue players aren't afk Just answer that question PLEASE Stop answering it by telling me he IS blue and he is NOT confirmed and he COULD be blue. Just tell me the situation in which he isn't blue given the constraints we're assuming 4 hatters on blue. 4 medics on blue. 2 hatters 2 medics. whatever. pick one of many scenarios where the life of a blue is worth more than the life of ONE scum in a game with ten of them. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
me: why u so dum? several on town: OMFG YOU MUST BE A SCUM | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On March 25 2011 09:57 Tackster wrote: OH MY GOD... Can't have 4 blue hatters cos blues don't have KP.... Check the OP AGAIN And ONCE AGAIN: You haven't answered my question I asked explain how he isnt confirmed blue without ccs AGAIN you implied he IS blue i NEVER implied he IS blue. ever. please quote a single thing ive said the entire game where i implied that bum IS blue. "may be" blue is not the same as IS. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
| ||
| ||
