Pick Their Power Mafia 2
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 22 2011 14:17 bumatlarge wrote: put me in as a replacement please What a bum | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 25 2011 07:53 Tackster wrote: It's my fault the messages are late - i invited our host to the movies and made him walk slowly home while explaining what horcruxes were and why severus isn't a dick... That be a mafia ploy... | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Has there ever been an instance where a mafia claimed day 1 in a game such as this? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there has. TL mafia players aren't ballsy enough to do something like that. You guys can yap all you want about these people being mafia, but while you do players like kitaman get a free ride as they make useless posts while pretending to be active. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 25 2011 13:37 chaos13 wrote: Sandroba, keeper of the wand My big question is why was he willing to hand out a KP so early on day 1? Unless he knew ON was town somehow, but with the deal of it being handed back to him, that seems highly unlikely. At first I would say he is town, because he was ready to hand the wand over to someone who flipped town instead of someone on his scum team. But then...nobody says that the keepers of the hallows and the collectors have to be on the same team. We really have no guarantee of this either way, but if we see Sand flip before Jackal, we can rest assured that they are not mafia together or Potter would have the wand now. In conclusion, I'm uncertain on him. This business has introduced a lot of wifom around Sand, and I've really got nowhere in writing out my thought process on him. In the First game, Palmar got fistpounds right off the bat. People don't really stop and think about these kinds of things.... Although considering the Batman/Joker duo in the first game, I wouldn't be surprised if we had a similar issue going on here. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 25 2011 15:02 Curu wrote: Dec stated people who failed to create roles were going to be modkilled though. And, judging from my own role, people who made up roles in five minutes are not all that uncommon . I don't see what Wiggles's issue is, can you clarify that for me Wiggles? What I said about the Hallows makes sense IMO since pure randomization really defeats the purpose of having the Hallows game sine you'd ensure they'd never be given away if they randomized into the hands of Mafia or malicious 3rd Party. Win conditions are surely not made up by the players themselves so I don't think dec would have put in an extra win condition for Voldy then made it a redundant one. @Foolishness It's already generating discussion. What behavior do we have to go off of atm? @Tackster I didn't say a thing about Jackal's claim being well founded. Can you point out to me where I ever said Jackal's claim is legit and I don't want to lynch him? All I said was I think he's 3rd Party rather than Mafia but that makes a good lynch too. And did you even bother to read OriginalName's role PM? He chooses people to Mason that changes each day, he doesn't start the game Masoned with a set someone. I don't see anyone making any arguments against Jackal based on his behavior thus far. I read through his posts and frankly there's nothing indicating that he needs to hang from the noose. I am not convinced that a mafia would roleclaim straight up on day 1, that's just an lol newbie move. Of course his responses tomorrow will greatly help us, but lynching him off of flavor text is like lynching off of day 1 clues. It never works, and inactives sit and mafia twiddle their thumbs. I decided to Start counting the number of posts where kitaman asks a question. I gave up because I was starting to run out of fingers. It would be nice to see him make a post longer than 2 lines. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 05:31 redFF wrote: I Really don't understand why you guys are arguing against a free alignment Check. Thanks for making me immune to death the rest of the game bro...I Really appreciate it | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 06:05 sandroba wrote: @foolishness do you have anything to say on the matter? I assume you want a check on kita, is that right? No. I want to use our Killer powers to lynch Kita, I want someone to vigi Kurumi, and I want the check on Lanaia or Wiggles. Probably Wiggles. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
We use the Check on someone like Wiggles, and even if it turns up mafia, we still kill Kitaman (or Jackal if he comes back and can't explain himself). We need the check's information, but we should not act upon it today. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 06:18 Curu wrote: And what's your reasoning behind that Foolishness? Why Lanaia or Wiggles, what have they done that stands out to you? Wiggles is probably an SK. Lanaia does not seeM to be posting with a pro-town state of mind. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 06:30 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Jackal claimed ON was a red in disguise via his role, whereas ON claimed he was town. ON's role included a bit stating he had to kill HP. Regardless they were fighting for the same power items. It seems unlikely both are the same alignment, although they could be. Also, kita could have a good scum role? Everyone in this game could have a good scum role, that is not a valid reason to lynch someone. He asked questions and got shafted for it. That is far less scummy than a ton of day 1 rc's into creating this chaotic mess as of right now. Jackal did not claim ON was a red in disguise. Jackal did not say ON was mafia. Jackal did not say we should lynch ON. All he said was 'don't give the wand to him'. Read his posts if you don't believe me. On July 26 2011 06:31 Kurumi wrote: Foolishness please don't make roles for me while scratching Your balls. Love, Kurumi Love you too. On July 26 2011 06:30 heist wrote: Are you kidding me? How is his argument getting better and better? SS using his check gives us NO NEGATIVES. Who cares if he just says town? If he flips green, we'll have a load of confirmed townies. Even if town argues about the dt target, if SS even checks one of them, we'll be good. ITS BETTER THAN NOTHING. See I want to use the check but not act upon it just yet. However knowing the intelligence of this town so far that possibility is probably out the window in a Flash. There are a bunch of negatives because the town will misuse the information. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 08:18 kitaman27 wrote: The OP says no posts restrictions are allowed in roles. Either 1) An exception to the rules was made for your role 2) You've created your own post restriction. If its the first, claim that you do indeed have a post restriction and if that is false, your role creator can counter claim that you are lying. If its the second, you are distracting town. Who cares what you are saying when you're posts are full of progamer names! lolz Your skill of reading between the lines (and the thread for that matter) is pretty Bogus | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 18 2011 20:26 deconduo wrote: Penalties: In additon to picking a role for the person given you can send in a penalty as well. You will not know who you are picking the penalty for. Penalties are hidden and inactive initially and will activiate under Special circumstances through out the game. For example, if you reveal who you picked your role for or details about said role your penalty will activate. There are other ways to activate it as well. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 20:16 bumatlarge wrote: I haven't read a word, someone update me? I'll try to read through this later today. Wiggles is a serial Killer, Lanaia and RedFF are good lynches but are sadly not going to get lynched. People are incapable of stepping into another persons' shoes (particularly BC's shoes) and seeing things from a different perspective. This leads to foolproof logic arguments of "you don't agree with me? you must be mafia!" which reminds me that if I don't believe in another persons' religion I'm automatically going to hell. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
In hell? Yes I bought a one Way ticket ages ago. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 20:51 DropBear wrote: In fact, what makes Lanaia and redFF good lynches? Well right now my choices are between lynching based on flavor text, lynching a guy who's only suspicious because he can't stay Calm, and a policy lynch. Might as well just flip a coin. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 21:00 DropBear wrote: ...... That isn't going to convince me to get behind you. You didn't answer my question about Wiggles. Why are you so sure he is SK? Why not? I randomly picked a person who's relatively inactive and someone who's half trolling and has barely posted anything longer than 3 lines. That's just like you right? You randomly picked between flavor text lynch, policy lynch, and anger lynch right? I mean your reasoning for your vote made a Nice bloodstain on my wall. Perhaps you can refresh my memory on why BC needs to die? I'm going to vote for the troll now, redFF. Should be obvious when you click the filter button what I mean. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
dammit I did not mean to do that THIS SHIT IS Bogus | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 21:00 DropBear wrote: ...... That isn't going to convince me to get behind you. You didn't answer my question about Wiggles. Why are you so sure he is SK? Why not? I randomly picked a person who's relatively inactive and someone who's half trolling and has barely posted anything longer than 3 lines. That's just like you right? You randomly picked between flavor text lynch, policy lynch, and anger lynch right? I mean your reasoning for your vote made a Nice bloodstain on my wall. Perhaps you can refresh my memory on why BC needs to die? I'm going to vote for the troll now, redFF. Should be obvious when you click the filter button what I mean. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 21:41 DropBear wrote: I have said before that jackal, the flavour text lynch is a bad idea. It is interesting that he is disappeared but it isn't enough of a reason to lynch him. I don't know who you mean by the policy lynch and the anger lynch but I'm assuming BC is one of them. I would like to kill BC for a few reasons. - Firstly for trying to stop supersoft using a DT check. There is no reason to do this. - Second, because he is shitting up the thread, arguing wildly about something that isn't really that important. When he was my scumcoach for XVIII he advocated this as an underused and highly effective scum strategy. - Third, because he is strongly suggesting that supersoft could be Mafia which I now know is impossible. We used this argument of "he killed his scumbuddy to buy town cred" to get Palmar lynched over bumatlarge in PTP1. And it's a ridiculous argument. If supersoft is also Mafia, then he had no need to kill Tackster. I was saying that supersoft killed him, he could have just gone "yeah sorry guys I suck and I used my ability and now Mafia knows who I am " - Fourth because of his bizarre chainsaw defence of you early on which immediately set off alarm bells for me. Additionally, if you want me to vote with you at any point in this game, why not show me some reasoning rather than casting insults? 1) When the result of the check shows up red and we lynch the person and they flip Green what are you going to do? Kill supersoft? 1a) He flips green. Great, we wasted 2 days minimum and did no scumhunting 1b) He flips red. This is fine since 1 for 1 trade. When his results turn up green, are you going to kill that person to confirm? No cause that's just silly. So are you going to leave said person alone the rest of the game? If this was a normal game that'd be dandy but this is PTP. There could be framers, roleblockers, heck the mafia may have already converted supersoft to their team by now. I am for the check but his reasons for not wanting to use it aren't an issue. Let me be clear: BC is worried about the town misusing the information (as am I, that's why I want a check on a random person instead), which is an all too common theme in mafia. His solution to the problem of "the town is going to misuse this information" is preventing the town from getting the information in the first place. Given the track record of the town so far I don't blame him. One mafia is already dead through stupidity why take the chance with a DT check in a game where people have bizarre roles when we can just analyze and let DT's do work later in the game. And speaking of analyze, redFF is acting just like in BC's game where he flipped red. Make a lot of one liner troll posts, then a 2 paragraph post to try to blend in and/or justify his post, rinse and repeat. That's what he's doing this game too. BC can be held accountable in the near future if he disappears. If he survives this lynch then goes afk we auto lynch him easy. He knows that so no matter what his role is he'll be around. (On the same note, if Jackal continues being afk we should lynch him tomorrow as well.) 2) It's very important whether the check gets used and who it gets used on. I'm banking that one of the people arguing with BC is mafia for the exact reasons you stated. 3) fine, I wouldn't rule it out as impossible since this is PTP mafia, but Occam's Razor says he's town and that's good enough for me. 4) link or it didn't happen. Wait I know this didn't happen so don't bother. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 28 2011 07:32 sandroba wrote: Wrong, he is not determined on anything. He just says someone is suspicious and doesn't explain, so people take the bait and actually start pushing one of his (predominatly wrong so far) suspicions. He sat on the sidelines through all relevant discussion we had so far. He didn't antagonize anyone who was active in the thread. He doesn't give a fuck about town. If he wanted kita lynched he would ask for a check on him, since Only a few people shared his suspicions, but instead he wants redFF(town) checked. He is scum, there's no way around it. No, I gave explanation for all my suspicions when I named them. I don't believe that trying to defend BC since nobody was capable of seeing things from his perspective qualifies as "sitting on the sideline". Rather so many people spent their posts attacking BC with redundant arguments that sitting on the sidelines in this case was blending in with all the attackers. People like Curu, redFF, chaos13, Mig, Nisani, syllogism, Dropbear and Palmar to some extent, and of course yourself. I singled out redFF at the beginning because of his troll posts, and after reading BC's game I saw remarkable similarities between his posting behavior that game to this game (and he was red in BC's game). I was ready to write an analysis of him as soon as day started but he's dead now. While we're on the subject of you, you, DropBear, and syllogism were the first people to take up what I said on Kitaman and vote for him. And as I recall the three of you responded to what I said about him as "he [Foolishness] is right let's lynch him". I brought up Kitaman because he wasn't making any posts longer than 2 lines and he didn't seem to care about the town. You, dropbear, and syllogism (among others) were the ones that took that to the next step by voting for him. Of course I'm grateful because it forced him to respond (unlike Wiggles who just ignored me). But don't go around saying that I'm laying "bait" for you guys when it's your fault for just accepting whatever I say and not thinking for yourself. That's exactly what nearly everyone did with BC, someone made an argument against him, then they immediately reposted that argument in their own words instead of trying to think why BC was saying/acting the way he did. You know what happened as a result. And I also asked for a lynch on Kitaman way before supersoft was ever revealed in the thread. A lot of you seem to have forgotten this, or you're just trying to make ends meet to accuse me. Now, before you go start writing a response with the words "chainsaw" and "defense" strewn all over it, I'm only pointing out the inconsistencies in your arguments here. Sitting here calling me useless for the town (or however you put it in a previous post) is ironic given all you've done is sheep off of my early suspicion, then stubbornly attack BC with the rest of the people you think are all 'active and contributing' town members. And you say "I didn't antagonize anyone who was active in the thread". What does that have to do with anything? Analyzing inactives is what I do best; read past games of mine if you don't believe me. I prod people like kitaman (when he was inactive in the beginning) and Lanaia because nobody else seems to give a care about what they are doing, and would rather sheep BC or Jackal with the rest of the town. I'm not going to stand by while inactives run rampant. While we're on the subject, before you say "LOL ur just as inactive Foolishness", at least I provide reasonings for my accusations that are uniquely my own. I first pointed out Kitaman's one liner patter, I noticed redFF trolling and acting like he was in BC's game, and I thought Wiggles was an SK because he seemed to have a hidden agenda (although I never directly said that). Let's look at one of your accusations: On July 25 2011 20:57 sandroba wrote: Okay, shit about jackal is getting anoying. If some vig is convinced he is scum go ahead and shoot him at night. Foolishness is right. Let's lynch kita, he been useless and been subtly pushing suspicion into everyone with his question. ##Vote: Kitaman27 That's just sad in comparison. The rest of the town's voting habits are no different. On July 28 2011 07:25 heist wrote: Ok I've read Foolishness' posts. The suspicious things that I got: 1. He is not particularly active or contributing much to town discussion. But this applies to other people in the game. In fact most of Foolishness' posts have been accusing others of this very reason. He seems determined Lanaia, redFF, wiggles, and kita are scummy. However, not too much thought has gone into it. Is he trying to reduce the attention on his own back or genuinely trying to pressure them into being more active? 2. He is on Kita the entire time for not contributing much and lurking. But he then puts his final vote on redFF for "trolling". Perhaps kita's willingness to submit to a dt check made him not so suspicious? 3. Opposed both the jackal lynch and the BC lynch.I guess this is noncommittal if you look at it that way. Or perhaps he really doesn't believe in the reasoning of either lynches. 4. Doesn't like the mass role claiming, but heavily hints at his own. Basically telling vigs that it's a bad idea to target him. Obviously a more scum oriented motivation, but really inconclusive as to determining his alignment. All in all, as you can probably tell, I'm still quite undecided on him. 1) See above 2) "the entire time"? No. Go read through my posts. 3) See above 4) I don't understand this at all. I'm heavily hinting at my own role? If you're talking about the post restriction BC had one, why all the fuss? I never told vigi's it was a bad idea to target me. If you have a specific post of mine you're referring to go quote it. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 28 2011 08:32 heist wrote: That was an attempt to stop people from randomly putting in TLPD's in their posts. These are the same people that Fistpound Palmar and hand over items through PMs without giving it a second thought. Use your head; don't be in a Fantasy world. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 28 2011 09:52 sandroba wrote: I gave you the stick curu. I don't think syllo is scummy at all, but maybe it's because he agree's with me in everything. @Foolishness Your defense is laughable. There is no going back on the previous posts you made. No matter what you say you did NOT push any of your thoughts and you did NOT defend BC to a point of making a difference and avoiding his lynch. On every major issue you were always on the sidelines or soft pushing suspicion on people when jackal was leading the wagon. Not true. I brought up the kitaman information before anyone had voted for Jackal. When I brought up my suspicions on redFF, Lanaia, and Wiggles it was when BC was leading the vote count. I came into the thread to defend BC, but nobody cared what I had to say, and BC had already dug himself a huge hole by then. I'm putting suspicion on people because they are suspicious. Let me reiterate what you have done: 1) Accused and voted for Kitaman after I said he was suspicious for asking questions, posting one liners, and general inactivity. 2) Accused and voted for BC after Curu, Wiggles, syllogism, and Chaos13 already dragged out their accusations. You then proceeded to argue with him constantly over the next few pages. In fact here's you're first post about the issue (correct me if I'm wrong and you had one earlier) On July 26 2011 05:09 sandroba wrote: Okay, disregard anything BC is saying and check kita. I won't argue with him because he's choosing to not listen to reason =). It's damn near impossible for dropbear AND SS to be mafia, so whatever is your theory it is wrong. That's just a sad excuse for a post. You seem to think that because I don't spam the thread with "THIS GUYS MAFIA LOL KILL HIM" (which is what you do) that I'm trying to subtly push people or soft defend others. As I stated before, I gave coherent reasons why I thought people were suspicious (except for Wiggles because I was trying to illicit a response out of him). I said "kitaman is suspicious because he's relatively inactive, posting one liners and asking a lot of questions". I said that redFF is suspicious because he's trolling and he was acting like he was in BC's game where he was mafia. I said that Lanaia is suspicious because of the inactivity (which were at really convenient times as well). That's a heck of a lot better than the majority of other accusations this game: "BC is arguing nonsense therefore he is mafia", "Jackal is mafia because voldemort was town", "foolishness is right let's lynch Kita". | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 28 2011 10:11 sandroba wrote: @Foolishness I know you said you were roleblocked, but if you have any sort of night action, who did you target at night? I don't think this information will bring anything great to the town | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 28 2011 11:17 sandroba wrote: And the information I'm asking is indeed helpful, please provide. You're going to have to give me more than that. Why should I reveal that information? | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 28 2011 11:42 sandroba wrote: I may or may not be able to shed some light on the situation, depending on your answer. Also, I think you are scum, so any info I can get out of you is a bonus =). I'm sure you understand when I say no then =) Unless you can provide me with direct evidence at how me releasing this information will help I'm not going to say anything. And yeah I know you probably can't for obvious reasons. I can tell you that I was roleblocked last night. If it helps, I think the cause was related to mafia selecting me to be roleblocked, versus that I was roleblocked because I did an Oops with my role. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 29 2011 03:04 sandroba wrote: @lanaia WTF? BC argued with the whole thread, while foolishness only sat on the side lines observing we mislynch. How can you compare both, when they were complete oposites? No. Where's your coherent argument against me? I want a post that's longer than 1 paragraph. The ones you did write earlier I took time to respond to. And then all you respond with is another 2 sentence paragraph of which is basically "lol ur wrong sittin on the sidelines". It's almost like your blaming me for everything that's gone bad so far. I was the first one to cast suspicion on kitaman yet you're the one (among others of course) that went and voted for him. Then even though I said BC was making sense, me not spamming the thread with DONT LYNCH HIM means I didn't care about the town. I didn't realize that me having a job and not being able to post made me mafia. You're one of the people that voted for him and made him post for 10 pages straight, take some responsibility and post some analysis against me if you think I'm mafia. You're 2 liners saying "lynch him he's scum" is exactly the kind of posts that got BC lynched since nobody really bothered to do any behavior analysis. You also seem to think that me pressuring inactives day 1 says that "I don't care about the town" and that makes me mafia, even though this is what I do every game. Look at mafia XII if you don't believe me, where I basically ignored the elections and the elected officials until day 3. I can find other games as well (I just happened to be rereading that game the other day) where I focus on the inactives the first few days and ignore all the active and contributing members. And no, before you say it, I do not think you're mafia (at least at the moment), nor am I trying to spread doubt on you for your actions. Your accusations of me are the exact thing that got BC lynched. I took time to respond to what people said about me, and your response is "@Foolishness your defense is laughable". Yet you never explained why other than the phrase "sitting on the sidelines". | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 29 2011 04:12 sandroba wrote: I've explained to people many times why you are mafia, but I'll sum it up nicely: 1)The only long posts you made so far is to defend yourself. You don't care for the discussion of who is or isn't mafia. 2)I'm not blaiming you for what's going bad, you are only doing your job. You want to look good when a mislynch happens, but not prevent it (BC's case). That's not what a townie cares about. 3)You lied in your defense to make yourself look better. You cast suspicion on kita when Jackals wagon was forming. But you did not commit to it. When asked if you wanted a check on kita you declined, even when town wasn't convinced he was scum. So really you didn't care about lynching scum, you only wanted jackal not being lynched. 4)You are not pressuring lurkers. You selectively only pressure the lurkers which turned out to be town. 5)You are distorting my actions to discredit me. I argued with BC because I disagreed with him, but I never voted for him or thought he was scum, until a DT, who was most likely town, came back with a red check. Despite that, I still tried to prevent his lynch, but it was too late. To sum it up, your behaviour fits mafia goals perfectly, which is to survive, to not look suspicious and to dissuade town from lynching your fellow scum. 1) Of course it is. I'm sorry that I work and don't have all the time to spend analyzing people. Would you rather me analyze someone that respond to your threats? Because I can. I don't have time to do everything. Jaedong 2) I definitely do not look good since 2 of my suspects died during the night. As I said I had an analysis of redFF ready to go for today but he's gone now. 3) No go read the time stamps. I responded to this in a previous post already. 4) Answered above. And until you know what Kitaman and Lanaia's alignment are you can't say that. 5) If I said you voted for him before the DT check my mistake. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 29 2011 04:16 sandroba wrote: You have only 1 vote on you (mine), and instead of hunting for scum you make a huge defense post. You don't care about town =P How does this make me mafia? I'm not supposed to defend myself? Bisu | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 25 2011 13:47 BloodyC0bbler wrote: ##vote jackal58 Post against kitaman: On July 25 2011 13:39 Foolishness wrote: Can we please stop the mass role claiming now? I'm looking at the title of the game and it clearly has the word 'Mafia' in it, and nowhere are the words 'claim'. Has there ever been an instance where a mafia claimed day 1 in a game such as this? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there has. TL mafia players aren't ballsy enough to do something like that. You guys can yap all you want about these people being mafia, but while you do players like kitaman get a free ride as they make useless posts while pretending to be active. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 29 2011 04:21 sandroba wrote: That obviously makes you mafia. You should be looking to kill scum, not to defend yourself when you have 1 vote. ... HoeJJa | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
I spent all of that game defending myself from Pyrrhuloxia who accused me just like you are. No I wasn't mafia. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 29 2011 04:34 sandroba wrote: How's that relevant to the current game? I'm not about to read a 100 pages. You signed up for this game to play to your win conditions. As of now you are not trying to win town the game, so you must be scum. If you have limited time, you should have spent it scum hunting if you were town, since you are clearly reading the thread. Because you're making similar accusations as he was; I spent the entire time defending myself and I was blue. You're clearly Always here to spam away my posts with "lol ur wrong" so reading 100 pages should be nothing to you. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 29 2011 04:33 heist wrote: As far as I'm concerned, it's meaningless comparing it to the first vote. The timing of your post would be a lot more convincing if you posted it before ON's flip. After his flip, YM, redFF, amber, and myself were all prepared to lynch/kill Jackal. This is all before your post defending him. A bunch of his arguments are that I diverted discussion away from Jackal lynched. That's not true. I said why I thought he was suspicious, then others ran around voting for him without providing just reason besides "foolishness is right". Hunting inactives is what I do best. Go read my past games I'll even find them for you if you desire. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 29 2011 04:48 heist wrote: You NEVER said he was suspicious. In fact, you did the complete opposite. You defended him saying mafia would never role claim day 1. I'm not even comprehending how you can say everyone voted for him because of you. err sorry I was referring to kitaman there. sandroba says I diverted attention away from Jackal by accusing kitaman. I posted in the thread why I thought kitaman was suspicious (before Jackal was even an issue), then others started using what I said and voted for him. And yes I defended Jackal because I didn't think a MaFia would roleclaim like that without accusing ON. I'm pretty sure I already explained this in a past post but I can clarify if you need. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
As a little back story, I was a veteran and took a hit night 1. Naturally I claimed in the thread about taking a hit (there was a missing KP that night). Pyrrhuloxia was convinced that I was the mafia GF and I purposely did not use a hit so that I could make this claim. Here are some of the posts he makes (I cannot quote it directly because the thread is locked): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=139517¤tpage=82#1636 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=139517¤tpage=89#1772 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=139517¤tpage=96#1919 Likewise here is a post I made to defend myself: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=139517¤tpage=92#1825 I'm trying to find more but there's ZerO filter button. That's how it's relevant. You are making similar arguments, and after I take time to respond you still post "nope you're mafia, you're blending in". Now shut up and stop wasting this town's time. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On June 29 2011 10:33 Nisani201 wrote: This trend of shooting down spammy players is insanely stupid; it's what lost the town in XVII. Cthasza wrote a fantastic analysis on Drazerk, and if he's right about it then there shouldn't be a reason to lynch him. I'm voting for Draserk because he is full of contradictions and slip-ups, NOT because of spam. That is all. On June 29 2011 07:59 Nisani201 wrote: I agree. I just looked through Syllogism's posts. While they may not necessarily all of opinions in them, only two of them seem somewhat pointless, which isn't enough to warrant a lynch. Cthsazsa's analysis on Drazerk seems to be correct and I definitely think that he is scum. And thus, I place my vote. ##Vote: Drazerk Notice the confident attitude. Yes the majority of his posts are short and he provides little explanation, but he's exhibiting a confident attitude about what he thinks. He blatantly calls the town stupid before casting a vote based on contradictions, which went against the town consensus at that point. Contrast this with his posts this game: On July 25 2011 12:27 Nisani201 wrote: Ugh, first I have redFF being a hero in Vigi mafia and shooting someone in the first hour of vigi mafia, and now I have this? Ugh, whatever. youngminii is probably scum, because he, you know, KILLED A TOWNIE ON THE SPOT. ##Vote youngminii Just tossing around his vote like he doesn't care, and only because youngminii killed a townie. Nothing confident, nothing about contradictions and slip ups. He also voted for BC at the same time when everyone else was placing their votes on him, and spent the rest of the day afk with the occasional post about nothing. In real time mafia, he also had a few long posts, including a defense. And as we are all aware of he's yet to have any post longer than 3 lines this game. On June 30 2011 09:03 Nisani201 wrote: Fantastic. I am so excited to hear this analysis only to find out... that it is about me. *puts on sunglasses* Defense time. My comments on the analysis are in red. + Show Spoiler + On June 30 2011 08:07 sinani206 wrote: Nisani201
Nisani201 has 36 posts in the thread, 24 of which are from after the Day 1 post. His mean post length is 2.5 sentences, his mode post length is 2 sentences, and his maximum post length is 6 sentences which he reached 2 times. Just keep these numbers in mind as I continue this analysis. Those numbers mean anything, and I don't understand why you would waste your time doing all that math and counting. Quality over quantity is what matters. Just because a post is short doesn't mean it can't be useful. Here is an example of one of Nisani201's better posts: On June 29 2011 07:59 Sinani201 wrote: I agree. I just looked through Syllogism's posts. While they may not necessarily all of opinions in them, only two of them seem somewhat pointless, which isn't enough to warrant a lynch. Cthsazsa's analysis on Drazerk seems to be correct and I definitely think that he is scum. And thus, I place my vote. ##Vote: Drazerk In this post, he simply agrees with sandroba's thoughts that syllogism is town and Cthsazsa's analysis, which showed that Drazerk was scum. He does not provide any new content. I defended Syllogism with some thoughts on his behaviour. Does that not count as new content? His other 6-sentence gem: On June 29 2011 10:33 Sinani201 wrote: This trend of shooting down spammy players is insanely stupid; it's what lost the town in XVII. Cthasza wrote a fantastic analysis on Drazerk, and if he's right about it then there shouldn't be a reason to lynch him. I'm voting for Draserk because he is full of contradictions and slip-ups, NOT because of spam. That is all. He provides one tiny piece of advice: not to kill spammy players, which is only half-right: lynch scum, shoot spammers. He re-references Cthasza's analysis and defends his vote, but he doesn't give any evidence of Drazerk's "contradictions and slip-ups."\ Right now Viscera is under fire because his analysis was supposedly a repeat of what others have said. It's implied that the contradictions and slip-ups are in Cthsasza's analysis. These are Nisani201's two longest posts, and both of them are simply parroting what others have said and stating the obvious without adding any new analysis to the table. Completely wrong, as I've stated in the red. Here are some examples of what the average Nisani201 post looks like: On June 28 2011 11:57 Sinani201 wrote: No more stupid TF2 Garry's Mod videos. This is serious business. The reason why "fluff" is so frowned upon is because it makes it hard to navigate through the thread. Fluff takes space from important things like analysis, defense, and possible scumslips. This post was at the very beginning, so it's stupid to say that it is a "fluff" post. On June 28 2011 14:15 Sinani201 wrote: Sorry, bad formatting. Please change my name on the player list to "Nisani201 (Sinani201)" as that is what I should be known as throughout the game I don't understand how this is fluff. I said it because there was a post before it where someone named me Sinani, which is what I want to avoid. On June 28 2011 14:40 Sinani201 wrote: Palmar is not in this game, he submitted /out soon before the game started. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=237124¤tpage=6#109 Though this ended up not being true, it was new content that I was bringing attention to the other players. They later thanked me for telling them. On June 29 2011 01:41 Sinani201 wrote: The roles should have been randomized, likely with random.org. I doubt that RoL "strategically" planted roles on each of us. This was in response to your post about how it would be unlikely for us to be on the same alignment. I thought that you had been mistaken on how the roles were generated. I was wrong but remember that I am a newbie so I don't know how everything works. On June 30 2011 06:35 Sinani201 wrote: When is Day over? What happens if the lynch ends up being a tie? This isn't fluff, it's a question. These are all bits of information that are not useful to the town in any way and questions that can easily be answered by reading the OP. He makes these posts because he doesn't want to have to post content, but he doesn't want to seem inactive. On June 28 2011 12:21 Sinani201 wrote: You're already voting for me? First off, I am not Sinani201. I'm Nisani201. Second of all, if you want me to make a post, you could have asked nicely. I don't have anything to contribute yet. I'm reading every single post, and when I feel like I have enough information, I will contribute. First, I pressure him into posting and he responds by saying that he will contribute when he has enough information. Let's see what he means by contribute: On June 28 2011 13:24 Sinani201 wrote: From this, it seems like you are either trying to help the Mafia, or softclaiming medic. Or perhaps trying to help the medic. This is his "analysis" of chaos13, where he points out that he is either Mafia or Medic. This contribution does not help town at all. The fact that he could be on either side is useless, and pointing out that he could be Medic helps Mafia, as GMarshal pointed out. It's not analysis, it's a comment, a contribution if you will. If I were trying to help the Mafia I would have been able to tell them in PM. His next "contribution:" On June 29 2011 09:38 Sinani201 wrote: I don't really understand how the first quote from him is a scumslip. The second one is iffy; I could see why you might think it's suspicious but it could by no means be used as a primary argument. He is referring my supposed scumslips which were posted by sandroba. He refuses to take a stance on my play. He is acting extremely safe and neutral, which is a scummy trait. [red]It's Day 1, so evidence can't always be 100%. I also don't want to be put under fire for taking a too aggressive stance on topics. A more recent post: On June 30 2011 00:40 Sinani201 wrote: Drazerk has posts that give off scumtells. For Viscera, it's a lack of posts. I don't understand why the bandwagon against Drazerk is a bad thing. A lot of people are voting for him. That just means Cthsasa's analysis against him was good. It's not OMGUS, it's just agreement. He says that a lot of people are voting for Drazerk because Cthazsa's analysis was good. I assume he was talking about himself as well when he said this. He subtly explains that he is voting because of the analysis, not because he actually thought that Drazerk was scummy. This is a major scumslip. He is basically saying he found a good analysis to hide behind. The point of an analysis is to convince other people to vote for someone. Cthazsa's analysis convinced me to vote for Drazerk. Finally, he says this in response to Drazerk's analysis of me: On June 30 2011 04:09 Sinani201 wrote: You're trying to draw attention away from the large amount of votes you have accumulated. We have pretty much established that you are scum so why should anyone trust you? This is a scummy post because Drazerk's analysis of me was good because it could have started some healthy discussion, and as scum, Nisani201 would want to stop all discussion, which he does, which proves his scumminess. My comment on the analysis did not take away any potential for discussion. I was simply stating my opinion. If anyone else has opinions on it, by all means tell us. That took an hour and a half to write. Whew. My vote will stay on VisceraEyes today, but tomorrow, I urge all of you to vote for Nisani 201. Thank you, good sirs. + Show Spoiler + On July 02 2011 09:58 Nisani201 wrote: Hello everyone. It's dissapointing to see that I am the primary lynch target. I am the Vigilante, and I was the one who killed DropBear. If anyone would like to counter that then please go ahead. As for my contribution, there is something that I've been working on. It's a node graph of everyone's actions, grouped by username. I have no idea if it will be useful or not; this is my first game and I thought it would be interesting to try. http://i.imgur.com/E1PnP.jpg Initially I wanted to color code it by blue (defending another player), teal (accusing another player), and purple (aggressive action), but I eventually gave up mid way because I didn't think it was useful. The number in the brackets is the post number (last number in the URL when pressing the # button on people's post). I now realize that you need the page number AND the post number for this to work properly. I'll be placing my vote on him in the hopes he responds. Otherwise we should put a Bisu in him. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Doesn't work quite as well but you get the point. | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
| ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
*shakes fist at Wiggles* | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On August 08 2011 03:32 Curu wrote: I love how Nisani didn't even use his role. And picked the most useless thing for Kurumi, rofl. Also wut, Wiggles saved me? I was a terrible save . But I love you man. How did you guys know I created Foolishness's role? There's a Wheel of Time topic on Team Liquid, you have some posts in there. I know not conclusive, but I still figured it was you. On August 08 2011 03:37 kitaman27 wrote: Any purpose behind that role restriction Foolishness or were you just trying to troll? :p It's just a way to hide any real posting restriction I may have had. It ended up being a nice distraction since so many people (like redFF) spent time trying to figure it out or prod me about it. That wasn't the original intention though. I was planning on doing it from the start regardless of what my role was. In these types of crazy games a fake roleclaim is incredibly powerful no matter whose side you are on (especially in the late game). So I planned to use it as a method of claiming a pro-town role in the late game. It worked out better since I ended up being the godfather so I could make up another role that made use of that. The thief role kinda made that moot though and I may have sent Deconduo an angry PM about that =P | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On August 08 2011 05:25 Curu wrote: Godamnit you really did your research huh. Wow. This is mafia ^.^ | ||
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On August 08 2011 05:32 Curu wrote: It still boggles my mind why Wiggles chose me of all people to protect. But that kinda screwed you over, lol. Haha yes. Was quite unfortunate; we sent in 3 kills and only one of them went through. But 3 townies still died so upfront it looked like nothing had happened (except Wiggles took two hits). After the day post I facepalm'd and cursed PTP games =P | ||
| ||