|
On July 26 2011 06:38 Curu wrote:
You don't know if he suffered his penalty or not Wiggles. It might just be he's roleblocked for tonight, who knows.
BC, would you submit to having supersoft check you?
Nope. As much as being confirmed town benefits town as a whole, it gets me shot by third party / mafia or some asshole townie who thinks they are being a hero.
Instead I will risk getting shot anyway, but the likelyhood of a third party shot or red goes down whereas the option of a townie shooting me is higher. Any med with half a brain will realize I have been trying to make people think and not be stupid and might protect me.
|
On July 26 2011 06:41 heist wrote:
BC please. I really don't know why you are still arguing about this. We are not all idiotic. We can choose to ignore SS if we want. Him claiming town DOES NOT make him more town in our eyes. The risk is nothing and the advantage everything.
Please read my argument about the confirmed townie bit if you are still arguing about that.
I swear if you are doing this to make people think scum won't be vehemently arguing against something so pro-town, I will be very annoyed.
I am doing this because from past games that I have played in, read and hosted people take dt checks of any kind like some rule of god. He is not confirmed and any check he reveals some people will take as legit. It also gives mafia / sk awesome snipe shots that will make his checks worthless anyway if he is in fact town.
The cons far outweigh the pros. This is not day 3 or 4, we do not have a series of people who have proven themselves to be town. This is day 1 where we know nothing and should be basing all our decisions on what people say, not what some guy forces them to do.
|
On July 26 2011 06:45 sandroba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 06:40 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 06:38 sandroba wrote:
Yes, I asked for people to claim the Tim role. Then I asked for SS to kill whoever shot YM and it gave us dead scum. How is that bad? Also I can see jackal's reasoning for claiming in that situation. It's null at best for me, it does not indicate that jackal is scum, because he could do the same thing as either aligment. In the mean time you have kita. He's not just asking questions. He's pushing suspicion on people that he doesn't even think are scum. There is no reason to do that as town, thus he must be scum. Why would jackal have to claim? People know harry potter lore. Voldy is always evil. People would have been hesitant to actually trust him. Except you apparently? he could have pm'd people using his mason ability and the like and found stuff that way. He opted to day 1 RC. Maybe he was scared, who knows, but it created a situation of chaos not helped get us back on serious track. And thus he must be mafia??? Why are you even voting for him? Why is he a better lynch than kita?
Keep in mind when I made my vote? I have more than 24 hours for a better lynch person to come along. At the time he was the scummiest option. As of now I see no reason to swap. Kita has done less scummy activity in my eyes than Jackal. If i had to swap my vote at this point I'd be analyzing 1 of the many people arguing with me.
|
On July 26 2011 06:49 Curu wrote:So you're saying it hurts Town because Mafia will use his power to kill confirmed Towns. And yet you say we can't trust him so no one he says is green is a confirmed Town. Huh. You also said earlier that Townies should be most eager to get themselves checked: Show nested quote +Check the bolded part. In almost every case of someone asking or begging for a dt check they are town or covered role. I guess you don't fall into that category. Acting scummy and Anti Town is less likely to get you killed than being confirmed Town. Hmm. Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 03:03 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 02:50 Kurumi wrote:
Check BC because we are fucked if he is mafia. Check me and laugh. Whoever dt checks will laugh almost as hard as i cringed at my role. You're so open to being checked here when you were in no real danger of being checked. Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 04:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 04:04 syllogism wrote:On July 26 2011 04:01 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 03:56 redFF wrote:On July 26 2011 00:39 DropBear wrote:
Ok I may as well cop the penalty. Mafia now knows who shot youngminii and all his abilities so I have to come out and save him now. I made the Tim Roth role.
Supersoft is Tim Roth. He only gets one kill. His kill causes his alignment and role abilities to be PMd to everyone of the opposite alignment to him. I didn't get that PM so supersoft is now 100% confirmed to be town.
His other ability is an alignment check, which activates if you get into a 3 each quote convo with him i.e. you post, he quotes, you quote the quote until there is 3 each.
I would suggest forcing people to quote him. Not everyone at once though as it would shit up the thread something shocking. What was your penalty? Good job Supersoft, I didn't get a pm telling me tackster's alignment, was that a mistake?I'm still weary of Jackal. Behaviourally i'm not noticing anything that scummy though. I'm tired of Kurumi getting away from doing jack-shit every game and doing no analysis and just trolling so i'm voting him until something better comes up. kita-iirc he played this way early on in the first ptp and was town and a lot of people(mainly mafia) jumped on him for it to get an easy lynch, I suggest someone starts quoting supersoft though. i will do it if necesssary. I suggest no one quotes supersoft and no one votes for kurumi. Based on how Kurumi is playing, his power seems to require votes instead of fistbumps like palmar from last ptp. Supersoft's power we are told operates via quote levels. how about we don't give two people access to their powers? How about we kill jackal or, each player with an item asks if they can destroy it (as well harry breaks the wand, gets rid of the stone and only keeps the cloak in the books). Letting people run loose with powers when we have no actual confirmed alignment of them is just a bad move. Limit people from acting until they are verified. Supersoft just killed mafia and another person confirmed his role. Unless you think this is some absurd gambit by mafia and they are all 3 (supersoft,dropbear,tackster) red, how can you possibly argue against supersoft using his alignment checks? Is this some posting restriction because that makes little sense Super soft is likely not red as he killed a red, you are correct. Confirm that supersoft is likely not red yet unwilling to let him use his check for some farfetched reasons. We're lynching BC today folks.
How about this curu. When I flip town you willingly submit to being lynched / vig shot. IF you are so sure in me you should easily be willing to die when you're wrong.
|
On July 26 2011 06:48 heist wrote:
Actually, this must be it.
You are purposefully being stubborn to make yourself look suspicious to make scum go. "Oh hey, BC has half the town thinking he's scum. Let's leave him alone."
/joke
but seriously your only negative is that town will be stupid and misuse the information. That is not a good reason to not use the dt checks.
thats the best reason actually. Almost every game people rely on dt checks the town follows them like they are an act of god. Normally thats not terrible as mafia don't have dts, but 3 factions could all have them.
|
On July 26 2011 06:52 sandroba wrote:
Let me say this. There is no advantage in NOT using the check. He is most likely town and will most likely end up dead at night. He wants to check you BC, why don't you oblige?
Because then I do die tonight. See I have this thing called self preservation and when I get confirmed as green by your magic dt, I get shot. As mafia / sks will want a confirmed BC dead and an angry town vig who thinks im a gf, or some other scum flavoured role immune to alignment checks will shoot me.
The check only makes sure I die.
|
On July 26 2011 06:55 Curu wrote:
How about this BC. You submit to being checked by supersoft, who you said is likely Town, and you don't get lynched today if he says you're green.
You said the exact same thing I said in WaW2 to sandroba as scum rofl. Nice gambit, worked for me there, I hope it won't work for you here. The only reason you would say that unless you think I am 100% scum is to save yourself.
I will agree only if you get lynched in my stead. You are pushing because you want me dead where if you go back and read my posts I am clearly town. You have pushed against me almost instantly behind my stance. Take the step. If i do what you ask, you get lynched / day vigi'd.
|
On July 26 2011 06:58 Curu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 06:54 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 06:52 sandroba wrote:
Let me say this. There is no advantage in NOT using the check. He is most likely town and will most likely end up dead at night. He wants to check you BC, why don't you oblige? Because then I do die tonight. See I have this thing called self preservation and when I get confirmed as green by your magic dt, I get shot. As mafia / sks will want a confirmed BC dead and an angry town vig who thinks im a gf, or some other scum flavoured role immune to alignment checks will shoot me. The check only makes sure I die. So then if you're shot we know supersoft is legit. Because if Mafia is trusting his claims then they must be legit. You wanna pull out another WIFOM argument? You think I'm scum BC? What about everyone else who has disagreed with your faulty reasoning?
Faulty? Lawl. You reason for wanting me dead is faulty. If your town and so sure I'm red then bet your life on it. Or are you afraid you're wrong.
|
On July 26 2011 07:00 sandroba wrote:
BC, I don't care if you do or don't get shot at night. You apparently don't like your role so your job as townie is to get shot for the greater good. To survive is mafia/sk job. Town only cares about not getting lynched. Maybe if you get a green result in return you will atract both a shot and a medic tonight and help us even further.
Anyway I still prefer a check on kita, on the off chance BC is being stubborn.
What would you prefer? Me being my normal self, or me being insanely handicapped. Take your choice as thats what you get. My role actually handicaps my play completely. I merely have an option of using it or not.
|
On July 26 2011 07:01 syllogism wrote:
Townies would never take that bet, that's absurd
Really? If I am mafia or sk it would be a perfect bet for them. 1 random player to take down someone almost everyone in the game would mistrust or want dead if not on their team. How isn't that a good bet. Don't take a solid stance off faulty logic if you're afraid of the backlash.
|
On July 26 2011 07:02 Curu wrote:
If I'm Town then I have no way to know you're red besides your scummy posting. Are you encouraging Townies to only push for lynches if they are 100% sure the person is red? Do you think I'm scum BC?
I honestly haven't spent solid time analyzing you. I know from seeing your play in the past you make your cases against players on gut shots using meh reasoning and sometimes they net you a red sometimes they don't. However, everyone of my arguments has a singular point, and it is actually logical based on information from multiple games on TL. You could go read through some of them and maybe it would give you a greater understanding of why I am playing as I am. As for pushing for lynches. Yes, I honestly do believe you should only push for a lynch if you believe someone is red. Doing so because you think someone might be is horrible play.
Even if you think they are red and they aren't shows you at least have convictions to stand behind the lynch, as in those cases you get suspected heavily for the bad lynch. If you are right you are a better target for reds and third parties.
If you aren't willing to stand behind the lynch you want to start, you aren't actually sure of my guilt which would mean you would be starting a terrible bandwagon.
|
On July 26 2011 07:19 Curu wrote:
Town can never be sure of your guilt. What I am sure of is you are the scummiest player thus far to me, so to me you have the highest chance of flipping red. That makes you the best lynch and that is why I am pushing for you.
If you don't think I'm scum then there's no possible Pro Town reason for proposing your bet besides to shake pressure off yourself by making yourself appear willing to die. I know your thought process, I did this exact same thing to sandroba.
Why are you so sure getting yourself checked by supersoft will get you killed? You yourself said that behavioral analysis rather than power is far more important, so by your logic scum would much rather kill the most effective scum hunters rather than someone who was "cleared' by a completely unreliable (in your words) power.
You don't want supersoft to use his power because we can't rely on it, but you also don't want supersoft to use his power because it will confirm someone as Town for Mafia to kill? Your ideas are completely contradictory.
I stand by my read that you are the best lynch today. If you really want to promote the atmosphere that Town should never try to lynch unless they are 100% sure the person is guilty, then we sit on our asses waiting for DTs to win the game for us (oh hey, but you don't want the confirmed DT to use his power either). Should we just no lynch every day then?
My ideas aren't contradictory as I have never said I believe he is 1 alignment type. The only people who have knowledge about his alignment are mafia. So you say mafia are more likely going to shoot scum hunters. Dont you think if one of those players gets confirmed by a dt they are going to shoot them? If you answer with No then you need serious thinking done.
He is unreliable for town as we don't know the legitimacy of any of his checks unless he dies / we have a confirmed dt vouch for him. As his checks would be public mafia get a far better read on all of his checks, as do sk's.
As for ever being 100% of guilt? Yes you can actually. If over the course of a game someone has been clearly anti town, links to mulitple dead reds or the like You can be 100% certain they are guilty. Peoples play can clearly paint them red for logical reasons as theyw ere furthering mafia goals realizing it or not and get lynched and still flip town. You may not know for sure they are mafia but they can still be guilty of furthering their goals.
As for no pro town reason for my bet? It tests your convictions. If you are so uneasy about believing your own instincts then why would you push the lynch anyway. Also, never assume you know my mind in how I think, I can easily say you don't.
|
On July 26 2011 07:23 heist wrote:
OK, I would really like everyone else's opinion on giving Jackal just the stone night 1 (assuming he isn't lynched). Stone gives him ability to protect 1 person at night.
To reiterate:
If jackal is town,
ADVANTAGE: He gets to protect somebody.
DISADVANTAGE: None.
If Jackal is scum,
ADVANTAGE: None.
DISADVANTAGE: He has a chance to save his scum buddy. BUT think about it. What are the chances he correctly predicts who's getting targeted by the 3rd Party? That's if the 3rd Party happens to hit mafia. Town shouldn't be shooting on whims anyway. If we all agree to night vigi someone, we can take away the stone. This is only for night 1.
I don't trust him, but if town allows him to live then I suggest we give him the protective ability. Right now the risks are very small if he's scum, and good payout if he's town.
If hes scum you just made a scum medic. If hes town he gets to protect someone. These are If's. Until you know his alignment why would you advocate giving him anything? If you have the power to potentially deny a mafia or third party a power, why would you not do it? If he is town he has the ability to mason someone which is powerful as it is.
|
On July 26 2011 07:29 Curu wrote:
Well he has to be one alignment type or the other. If Mafia is using his reads to hit confirmed Town, then that's our signal that supersoft is reliable. And we are using him to check the scummiest and most suspicious players. If Mafia wants to take them out, then so be it, they're the poorest targets for hits anyways and already the most unreliable/worst scumhunters.
how is it a signal for him to be reliable. Red him confirms me as green, mafia shoots me for now being confirmed while keeping him alive longer.
He then say confirms another big player and again says green and the guy dies. He checks a red says green red next day claims vet, or med save, etc...
a confirmed vet scumhunter is far deadly to mafia than an unconfirmed one.
Also the situation you gave again gives credit to SS to being reliable when it doesnt make him so, a forced role use does not mean legit user. Thats like saying because a mafia claims vig and you force him to shoot a red that makes him town, when it in fact just makes him a bitter resentful mafia who will stab you in the back at a moments notice.
|
On July 26 2011 07:32 sandroba wrote:
BC, let's assume ss is scum. How does an aligment check benefits him?
Also, you don't seem conviced Kita is scum. Would you oppose a aligment check on him?
-_- they benefit him by
A) giving info that regardless if you think it does or not, it helps "confirm" his legitimacy. It doesnt
B) It lures town into false control of a role
C) It sets up a slope of trusting someone we shouldn't trust
D) It allows mafia to control general thoughts on rolechecks / lets them manipulate town as a whole
There are more reasons but you should get the idea. An unconfirmed aligned dt's checks could be legit or not when he gives us the answers but if 1-2 of those checks turn up legit people will assume that dt is town when it does not mean that at all. There is far to much emphasis put on dt's and giving the mafia a potential tool to control town is terrible.
As such, why would I want him to check anyone?
|
On July 26 2011 07:34 Curu wrote:
He doesn't choose who he's checking. We pick the targets for him out of the most suspect players.
Oh, so now when he checks and fails to find reds for instance he is no longer responsible and all liablity that goes with his role is on someone else? Even better.
|
On July 26 2011 07:43 chaos13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 07:36 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 07:32 sandroba wrote:
BC, let's assume ss is scum. How does an aligment check benefits him?
Also, you don't seem conviced Kita is scum. Would you oppose a aligment check on him? -_- they benefit him by A) giving info that regardless if you think it does or not, it helps "confirm" his legitimacy. It doesnt B) It lures town into false control of a role C) It sets up a slope of trusting someone we shouldn't trust D) It allows mafia to control general thoughts on rolechecks / lets them manipulate town as a whole There are more reasons but you should get the idea. An unconfirmed aligned dt's checks could be legit or not when he gives us the answers but if 1-2 of those checks turn up legit people will assume that dt is town when it does not mean that at all. There is far to much emphasis put on dt's and giving the mafia a potential tool to control town is terrible. As such, why would I want him to check anyone? Hmm...this is interesting. So what you're saying is that we would basically have to let him live if we want him to check people, but have to lynch him if we wanted to confirm his checks. That's something of a dilemma... Your entire theory is based on him actually being mafia though. On the one hand, we let him live while "checking" people's alignment. On the other, we let him live without being put in the spotlight with his checks. Or in a third scenario, we lynch him to confirm/refute his checks. If he flips town, we have truthful checks. If mafia, we just lynched scum and we can ignore all his 'checks'. The question is, which of these scenarios benefits us the most?
And now someone isnt talking about lynching based off his checks, I think some lightbulbs might just be going on.
|
On July 26 2011 08:30 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 08:24 Foolishness wrote:Your skill of reading between the lines (and the thread for that matter) is pretty  Bogus Humor me and tell me the reasoning anyways?
On July 26 2011 05:45 deconduo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 05:42 sandroba wrote:
It is stated in the OP that post restrictions are not allowed. Does that rule stand? Some people may have added some minor ones, and I may have let them slide. Maybe.
|
I love when morons fall into place. Of the 5 people currently voting for me vigi's feel free to clear the numbers out. There will be at least 2 anti town there already. Thank you dumb tards for playing the game I call "mafia are bad".
|
On July 26 2011 11:35 Mig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 11:34 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
I love when morons fall into place. Of the 5 people currently voting for me vigi's feel free to clear the numbers out. There will be at least 2 anti town there already. Thank you dumb tards for playing the game I call "mafia are bad". BC would you say your 10 page argument was good for the town in anyway?
If you fail to see any actual reasoning out of my posts then then I feel very sorry that you exist in your small world.
Not only did it get people actually discussing the pros and cons of an unconfirmed dt, it generated discussion from multiple people. Moreso however, it prompted people to suddenly appear and jump onto a voting train with very little actual reasoning. I would say the bonus' of such an endeavour is always for the good of the town.
Discussion never hurts town, nor do arguments. Especially when you keep them firmly isolated on a singular topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
