+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2012 05:37 Nisani201 wrote:ProtactiniumProtactinium was heavily against Ciryandor D1. So you might be wondering, would Protactinium bus one of his teammates? That is what this analysis will prove. Protactinium begins by running for mayor on the platform of lynching Ciryandor. But there is no way that Protactinium actually had a case against Ciryandor this early. Especially since, at the time Protactinium wrote that, Ciryandor only had one post in the game. So from this we can deduce that Protact is either bad town, or scum. Now look at his next post. Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 02:47 Protactinium wrote:On January 13 2012 15:22 Ciryandor wrote:On January 13 2012 14:56 Protactinium wrote:On January 13 2012 14:26 Ciryandor wrote:
/confirm
LOL I won't vote for Kitaman after XLVIII's disaster. He was an absolute derp in that. Waiting for people to put in a serious campaign with a decent policy. This is why I'm waiting for Mr. Wiggles and Cyber_Cheese to provide us with good reasons; and right now, Wiggles has the best campaign of the lot.
I of course wonder if Sandroba or Palmar will try to get to the elections again. I'm running for mayor on the platform of lynching Ciryandor. There's no way you seriously think Mr. Wiggles has the best campaign. LOL that's a good reason to get you voted in. Lynching someone for having an opinion. What does this post do? Ciryandor does not attempt to clarify his earlier position or attempt to bring us into mutual understanding. Instead, he mockingly attempts to discredit me by misrepresenting my statement and reframing it in a way that paints him in a favorable light. I never say that I want to lynch him for having an opinion, I called bullshit on his statement that Mr. Wiggles has the best campaign. Seriously, if you really believe what you said, tell us why you thought Mr. Wiggles had the best campaign. Furthermore, Ciryandor initially states that: On January 13 2012 14:26 Ciryandor wrote:
/confirm
LOL I won't vote for Kitaman after XLVIII's disaster. He was an absolute derp in that. Waiting for people to put in a serious campaign with a decent policy. This is why I'm waiting for Mr. Wiggles and Cyber_Cheese to provide us with good reasons; and right now, Wiggles has the best campaign of the lot.
I of course wonder if Sandroba or Palmar will try to get to the elections again. While Ciryandor says that he wants to hear good reasons for Wiggles/Cyber_Cheese running, he makes no attempt to draw out information from Wiggles even though it is clear that they are both online (they are both posting until page 24). Instead, he loosely dismisses my accusations as well as GGQ's, and proceeds to babble nonsense about Foolishness and Bill Murray. Ciryandor is twisting my words. Ciryandor is bullshitting that Wiggles has the best campaign. Ciryandor shows no further interest in extracting information about Wiggles' campaign despite claiming he wanted good reasons. Ciryandor continues to babble on about useless topics (Bill Murray) after giving a strange reaction to my/GGQ's accusations. I've noticed that a lot of players are omitting my campaign for mayor in their lists of people running for mayor. But I'm not trolling. I am seriously running for mayor on the platform of lynching Ciryandor. Instead of asking for reasoning on support for Wiggles' campaign, Protact immediately asserts that Ciryandor is scum. He also asserts that Ciryandor is twisting his words, which is bullshit. In addition, he is trying to discredit Wiggles' campaign, because he knew that Wiggles is town. He doesn't post until 13 pages later (understandable, since we are all in different timezones). During this 13 page period, BC claims mason and the town is abuzz with mason discussion and whatnot. In the post, he attacks BC for "contradicting himself". Afterwards, he demonstrates how BC had a consistent point of view when backing up his opinions...! He attacks BC for "subtly" wanting to shun all mason activity. So you be the judge. Do you think this is subtle? Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 05:54 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 14 2012 05:52 VisceraEyes wrote:
BC are you for or against a mass-mason claim? This is now the second time I've asked you. Please respond. I repeat, please respond to my query regarding the mass-mason claim. I am fine with either it, or having town just say "we ignore all pms that arent host pms" Making every mason accountable / making them useless to prevent manipulation seems the best play at the moment. making them all claim however is the optimal play, it may out the group of us, but it also prevents mafia from using their ability without being in the spotlight. Protact calls this mafia bias, but in reality, this is just BC giving his opinion. If you want to talk about subtlety, Protact is subtly hinting that any opinions that go against his are mafia bias. The next part of the analysis: Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 11:46 Protactinium wrote:
So what is the scenario for BC being red and pushing his mason claim? BC is in fact red, and can use the mason power (chooses it for himself early in the day). As a town mason would, BC picks a mason target and starts talking to them. Once he gets the town to agree to ban masons, he is off the hook, and doesn't have to worry about PMs anymore. More specifically, he doesn't have to worry about town PMs. Like stated before, mafia BC plays a powerhouse thread control style. By banning PMs, BC doesn't lose out on much (he admits he isn't a heavy PM user), and nerfs Foolishness, sandroba, and my abilities to play a PM centric game (which we are known for). And that's what is the difference between this game and XLII (the game he refers to when he says he dominates with only 1-2 PMs). Foolishness and I are playing in this game, and are real threats. BC wants to shut down PMs before it starts, and he doesn't have to give up much information or lie at all in order to do it. This post does not discuss the scenario in which BC is town. BC already provided good reasons as to why shunning masons is a good idea. With masons this game, there is distrust on both sides. Furthermore, he has not followed up on his campaign promise: "I will question, analyze and call out all those who play in what I view as bad town/mafia like. (I have already done this with foolishness, he knows better)." Ok, so maybe he called out Foolishness yesterday, but where is the scumhunting today? Its non-existent, because BC is too busy derailing the thread with mason discussions instead of scumhunting. What is even more interesting is the timing of his initial claim post. It comes an hourish after my second post against Ciryandor, which conveniently most people except for sandroba and sheth have ignored. In the next post, he takes some quotes from BC and asserts that he is not trying to hunt scum. But this is not true. BC was actively calling out people; Protact just didn't include it in the analysis. + Show Spoiler [superlong bc quotes] +On January 14 2012 02:23 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 21:52 Toadesstern wrote:am I the only one who thinks BC's campaign is a little weird? I'm reading page 25 right now and I can't stop thinking about it. It feels off for some reason imo. I can't really put it down to something but although he said he's going to be accountable and vocal it doesn't feel like like townie-BC from the 80 player game. I voted him back than because I thought he's townie in that game and a lot of people said it's too dangerous to vote him because it's an instant-lose if he's scum. He answered a lot he made reasonable posts and everything he posted looked townish while I got the feeling he's trying to pretend to be town this game. Just take the part about foolishness for example. Sure foolishness is weird and someone has to point that out alright but I don't like that part at all: I will question, analyze and call out all those who play in what I view as bad town/mafia like. (I have already done this with foolishness, he knows better). Sounds like "hey guys, see this? I am totally town! I put some effort in this and got pro-town things rolling". Does he really have to point out he's doing good? I'd like people to judge him on what he's doing themselves. Could be nothing at all but as mentioned I got a weird feeling when reading his posts and to me it's nothing like the last game I saw him play. Other than that: Still on page 25, still reading, still don't like palmar's post. However I actually like VE's post a lot but doubt that he's going to be mayor. He's putting some effort into this game and I don't think that that's his mafia-play at all. As you are really the only person to respond to me about my campaign I am delighted to respond and hopefully remove your doubts of me. As you point out my post is "weird". You make note of how I am "pointing out that i am good". Rather I am pointing out I will be active. There is an extreme difference and anyone who has seen responsibility will know what I mean as I pretty well was inactive and posted the bare minimum. As for the "i voted last time because people said hes took dangerous and insta lose if hes scum" you are missing the core bit of that game where I actively argued with people over fear mongering as what someones potential alignment is without a solid reason (no analysis) is not a valid reason to deny votes. This has not happened this game as everyone thus far seems to be running on their own merit as opposed to talking down fellow candidates. As for the current thread. Palmar makes Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 18:34 Palmar wrote:
I have no intentions of running for mayor or caring much about the mayor elections. I'm probably going to be voting VisceraEyes, depending on how dumb he will be through the day. statement. The last big game that was run Palmar got mayor and I got sheriff. Palmar hardcore ran that game, and invested a huge amount of his time into the game. For him to outright say "i have no intention of running for mayor" he would have been able to stop and seem like a fine post. But continuing with "or caring much about mayor elections" is where he comes off horribly wrong. He as shown in the past to care heavily about elections and the active pushing for towns to succeed. He then throws his support behind a player based on "how dumb they might be" over a reason like "I believe x is a solid candidate" or "I am voting for x because i believe they have solid scum hunting" etc.... It comes off as very curt and unlike the palmar I have personally played with in the past. Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 18:25 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On January 13 2012 16:43 bumatlarge wrote:On January 13 2012 16:32 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On January 13 2012 14:36 Foolishness wrote:+ Show Spoiler [campaign post] +This is my official campaign post!It is all very simple! No, I am not running for office. My campaign is based around voting for the one and only Bill Murray! Let's face it, there are many people (L) who are going to run on the basis of lynching Bill Murray. Do we want to make such a rash decision this early in the game? Time has shown that such policy lynches are just a distraction from our true purpose of scum hunting. In order to save Bill Murray from such an easy day 1 lynch, I propose we save him by putting him in office. Now before you go on making propositions that I have just smoked a pound of weed, consider the situation our beloved Bill Murray is in. As his first game back, we know for sure he's going to be top notch. This is his chance to prove to the old members that he's changed and proved to the new members that he's a respectable player. Thus we can expect him to bust out his A+ game. He knows that if he nails a few mafia this game he'll have turned from village idiot into village hottie. Who would you rather have in office? Someone like Bill Murray who is probably spending 14 hours a day figuring out who is mafia or someone like kitaman27 or bumatlarge who will just put forth the same normal effort we'd expect from an elected official? Bill Murray is the real deal, and we know he'll be the real deal. Who knows how much effort Cyber_Cheese really wants to put in this game. Definitely not as much as Bill Murray will! A vote for Bill Murray is a vote for the town! Now what if our esteemed actor turns out to be mafia? Don't worry, as a proven scumhunter, I will dedicate enormous amounts of my time to making sure Bill Murray is indeed town. And he has a lot of games under his belt for comparison. Of course I will also be doing my usual scumhunting, so do not fret. But we can be sure that Bill Murray will be posting frequently (hopefully not too much) and will be active in his duties, especially given what I've said above. Is kitaman only going to make 2 posts a day if he gets elected in? Maybe. Will Bill Murray? No of course not. And we all know that the more someone posts the more likely their true colors show. If Bill Murray turns out to be mafia it shouldn't be long before it becomes obvious. If he's not, we got an easily confirmed innocent in office who at the very least will make the entire mafia team facepalm. And a mafia team with their palms on their faces will be unable to type. You can make the right choice! Vote Bill Murray!+ Show Spoiler + Bill Murray hasn't even posted yet. Why are you so sure you want him elected? On January 13 2012 15:08 Adam4167 wrote:
Ill be waiting for Bill Murray to show up to the thread before I even consider him or his candidacy.
So far I'm leaning towards voting for Cheese, as he is one of the few people in this game I have experience with. I am more likely to recognize his scum play if he is scum and, lets face it, he has a flaming pony as his campaign picture.
So Cheese, since you opened the game with a vote on Wiggles, and he is now also running for mayor, will you be hanging him upon your election? No, that was a joke based on his always scum reputation. I will lynch the scummiest candidate. On January 13 2012 15:09 bumatlarge wrote:On January 13 2012 15:08 Adam4167 wrote:
Ill be waiting for Bill Murray to show up to the thread before I even consider him or his candidacy.
So far I'm leaning towards voting for Cheese, as he is one of the few people in this game I have experience with. I am more likely to recognize his scum play if he is scum and, lets face it, he has a flaming pony as his campaign picture.
So Cheese, since you opened the game with a vote on Wiggles, and he is now also running for mayor, will you be hanging him upon your election? I have successfully ruled this person out as mafia. I am good at this game. Explain. On January 13 2012 14:07 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
A couple notes about the set-up:
Elected roles gain detection immunity. This makes it worse for us if mafia get into one of these roles, as we have no way to DT check them. It also means that the GF probably won't run for office, or if he does, he'll drop out early. Between the mayor and the sheriff, the sheriff is the one who actually has power past day 1. So, one thing we can do, is vote in a player that we see as both a strong townie, and as being town in this game, into the mayor role solely for the purposes of protection. This applies to the sheriff too, but there's more responsibility on them as the game goes on due to the jailkeeper mechanic.
Also something to note, is that we can't trust vig claims, due to the possibility of mafia jack's, who would be able to shoot and not affect what KP would show up that night coming from the mafia.
We should also maybe talk about when to use our double lynches, but I don't think it's a huge deal until when the time comes that we might actually want to use them. We just need to be careful not to waste them.
Vote me into office, please. I disagree, the mayor still has a fair amount of power as the game gets closer to LYLO. On January 13 2012 15:29 GGQ wrote:On January 13 2012 13:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
Oh fail, didn't realise there was elections...
##Unvote
I'm going to run for mayor.
Lynch all lurkers/liars is standard pre-game chat, and it's mostly useless. Let's skip that.
It's all too situational, and we rarely follow through with it. This post is also bad. Rather than calling my posts bad, try adding something to the discussion. Are you running for mayor? If so, details. If not, what do you think of the candidates? Also, bum is directing blues already? planning ahead that much seems scummy... One more thing, if anyone was even considering it, don't run for mayor based on being a blue. It gives the scum too much information on day 1, and it could be scum lying. He's posting with a positive attitude and he didnt squeem at all at the prospect of lynching wiggles. Plus he took your lameness seriously :D I'm not planning ahead THAT much, and running for mayor as blue is perfectly reasonable reasoning. Unless a vanilla townie is very good, there is little reason for him to run over a townie. I find cheese's posting rather scummy so far. He seems rather content with stepping on peoples posts this game with not much regard to his own. I will review his case. I'm reading through and commenting on peoples play, yes. It was to draw out some reasons behind actions and thoughts that I'm trying to understand the motivation behind. On January 13 2012 17:10 Bill Murray wrote:
It is not Foolishness's game
I don't see how it is a moot point whatsoever
I am not going to create a huge wall post, and sound like a high school football coach
cyber_cheese is confirmed scum in my eyes. If I'm elected mayor, I'm lynching him
He's acting like I haven't posted at all, when my post is right above his. To further his agenda, he's attacking bumatlarge for coaching power roles, when in his own post, he goes on to tell power roles to not run for mayor based on being power roles. Hypocrisy, and scum skimming, are just the icing on the cake, however. I had a scum read on him the minute he tried to get a lynch pushed through on Mr Wiggles, and then took his vote back when he realized it was for mayor. He was trying to get a mislynch pushed through for his scum team in my eyes. If he's town, oh well, he didn't even read any of my posts DIRECTLY ABOVE HIS, and he has not only proven he isn't reading, but already contradicted himself. At the time I was making that post, you hadn't posted. I made a joke about lynching Wiggles. Bum looked like he was ready to focus the elections around power roles. I was discouraging that situation. On January 13 2012 17:15 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 13 2012 17:10 Bill Murray wrote:
It is not Foolishness's game
I don't see how it is a moot point whatsoever
I am not going to create a huge wall post, and sound like a high school football coach
cyber_cheese is confirmed scum in my eyes. If I'm elected mayor, I'm lynching him
He's acting like I haven't posted at all, when my post is right above his. To further his agenda, he's attacking bumatlarge for coaching power roles, when in his own post, he goes on to tell power roles to not run for mayor based on being power roles. Hypocrisy, and scum skimming, are just the icing on the cake, however. I had a scum read on him the minute he tried to get a lynch pushed through on Mr Wiggles, and then took his vote back when he realized it was for mayor. He was trying to get a mislynch pushed through for his scum team in my eyes. If he's town, oh well, he didn't even read any of my posts DIRECTLY ABOVE HIS, and he has not only proven he isn't reading, but already contradicted himself. eh? not that I want to start the first huge argument of the thread but. Do you agree that it is possible for someone to change their style? I am willing to give cheese about 20ish-30ish more minutes to respond to you before I make up my mind on him as well, I know my giant post was written as you posted 3 times. If he posts within the next bit of time badly or doesn't I will have him on a shit list. Making up your mind on someone not even a quarter of the way into the first day? Seems legit. On January 13 2012 18:02 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:I was debating what to do with my 3k but I couldn’t think up of anything fast enough so this is it  Anyway, I am running for mayor as well. At the moment, I do not most of the mayor candidates. I don’t like Cyber_Cheese because his reasoning for him being mayor is weak in my opinion. Saying that you should be elected because your scum play is bad isn’t very inspiring. His other argument is that he’ll be active (nice trait for a mayor to have but everybody should be active), also he says he’ll lynch the scummiest mayor candidate which I don’t like because one of the mayor candidates may not be the best choice. Yes, being bad at scumplay isn't inspiring. I haven't shown off my town prowess on this forum yet, so I don't have any epic winning streaks to brag about. Suffice it to say votes on me aren't misplaced. Everyone *should* be active in theory, but things can come up, and I guarentee that won't happen with me Scum will run for mayor, and more than likely they will be scummier than most of town. If we inspect the candidates closely, we can easily discern at least one. wtf is this post? Your post is nothing if not confrontational without saying anything important. You attack someone earlier for not adding things to the discussion of the thread however you fail to do so here. You want to be elected yet your primary posting style at the moment is to make a massive quote post with 1 line explaining your take on a specific quote. In some cases, 1 word. This is not the behaviour indicative of someone the town would want to lead them. To quote you "I haven't shown off my town prowess on this forum yet, so I don't have any epic winning streaks to brag about. Suffice it to say votes on me aren't misplaced" As the way you are playing now all votes on your are misplaced. You are not posting in a manner that is inherently decent. You are not posting frequently with decent contented posts to get a solid read on you. You are not actively attempting to assert a mark on the role that puts you in a spotlight for good reasons. You are in a spotlight because you are insanely shifty in the eyes of many players. EVERYONE should not be voting cybercheese unless he turns his game around now. Even if he is townie and he is insanely good he should know that his posts at the moment are terrible and are not ones that indicate the qualities someone who would be a good leader. As for my take on the other candidates. At the moment I am willing to get behind either meapak, BM, or bumatlarge. of the current people running, each of them has shown they can be active, make intelligent posts, and have clear ones that help get a general read on them. Everyone should be giving their take on who of the current candidates would make the best mayor. This way we can lower the total people "running" by taking the top 3 or 4 choices and voting as opposed to having 7-8 people running. On January 14 2012 05:01 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 04:53 Mattchew wrote:On January 14 2012 04:39 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 14 2012 04:36 Mattchew wrote:On January 14 2012 04:31 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
If i am a red mason it means whoever claims i masoned will be town, period. I would never have to mason a scumbuddy as well, im already talking to them.
WIFOM Otherwise, Do you think that all masons should claim like you have? Assuming atleast 1 mason would be mafia it could lead to a high percentage day 1 lynch how is that wifom? Why would I as red ever out myself and another mafia in the same day? Especially when if i had used my mason somewhere else i would be counterclaimed and die? It would mean i would have to hold onto my use and have a scumbuddy claim and thus waste my own power to corrupt a townie? It is pure logic, not wifom. As for masons claiming? Things like this are what my claim were supposed to generate. Forcing people to only post in the thread for instance is a huge deal as it removes a scum form of play, etc... It is WIFOM because there is no way of confirming your alignment or that of who you mason regardless of either one of your alignments. Based on what you have said the possible outcomes are You are town and die, the person you mason'd is a null read because you cant know for sure what alignment they are. You are Scum and die, you mason a town -> we think the mason'd is town You are Scum and die, you mason no one or a scum (kind of redundant) claiming to mason said scum team member -> we think mason'd is town If you are town, survive, and the person you mason dies as town, we have a null read on you If you are town, survive, and the person you mason dies as scum, we should have a town read on you If you are scum, survive, and the person you mason dies as town, we have a null read on you If you are scum, survive, and the person you mason dies as scum, we should have a town read on you. If we are to believe what you say and you survive day 1/night 1 as scum mason and you claim a teammate, you become more and more powerful because you can then start masoning townies to further confirm your role. so? I confirm my role not my alignment. I have openly said it never clears the alignment of who I mason. How is this an issue? You knew this going in. I have a confirmable role not alignment. I said that in my first fucking post on this matter. I put myself in a hotseat all to out the potential butt fucking the mafia would give. As for your WIFOM shit, i never once said you can confirm people I mason, you proposed that. You created your own argument on something I never said. Town should base their read on someone based on how they act in thread, not on the knowledge of "a mason mason'd this guy so hes legit/scum yo" You will get a town read on me based on my actions. If i mason a scum, in pms he slips up and he dies and flips red because i outed his slip up I look better than I do now but am no way confirmed. If i do it multiple times maybe. Where did I say that i am confirmable alignment? where did I say the person i mason is confirmable. My role is nothing else is. I still have to prove my alignment via posts just like everyone else. I am merely opting to fubar the mafia while im at it. On January 14 2012 15:53 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 11:46 Protactinium wrote:Ah an interesting roleclaim. However, there is much more to this than people are getting at. The PM debate is an old one. Everyone has their opinion on whether it is town or mafia favored, and even through out-of-game debates, this is a highly controversial topic. If it can' be solved out of game, there's absolutely no way we are going to come up with a consensus in game. BC defends his claim by saying that getting everyone to contribute on this polarizing topic will help us get early reads on players. But if we can't agree on anything out of game, you won't really be able to say that someone saying "PMs good!" or "PMs bad!" will tell us anything about their alignment. Anyone can pretty much say whatever they like since they are under no obligation or pressure to have an opinion one way or the other on this issue. While it is debatable whether PMs are "good" or "bad" for town, it shouldn't be too controversial to say that PMs are elitist. They inherently favor good players who can make use of the extra channel of communication. When you are talking to someone in PMs, always keep in mind what you think the other person wants from you. Are they trying to convince you of a certain point of view? Are they trying to get you to claim? As long as you can keep in mind that the PM initiator may be attempting to manipulate you and don't give away information loosely, PMs really aren't that scary. What exactly has BC been discussing? Primarily, he has divided his attention between defending his claim, responding to attacks on the potnetial that he is red, and asking for "discussion" while pushing a particularly biased point of view. More clearly stated, he proposes a seemingly open-ended question, and answers it himself to make it appear like there was a town consensus behind it. If you look at the thread, the only real contribution to the discussion that DOESN'T come from BC is sandroba's suggestion that all the masons roleclaim. And notice BC's bias when discussing the topic. In almost all his posts, BC paints PMs in a bad light. He only seriously acknowledges that town masons have the potential to catch scum, but in the same post, quickly says that "its harder than you think": On January 14 2012 06:40 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Town masons have the potential to catch scum. Dts have the potential have finding scum. Vigi's have the potential to shooting scum. Jacks could do all 3.
Of the group, masons rely on their ability to read people and read posts to get a good view of someone. Catching someone in pms is not as easy as everyone thinks it is and historically towns have town far more retarded things there than good. But lets look at a section of what BC has to say a bout PMs in his guide "TL Town Breakdown/Analysis": On January 28 2011 06:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Private Messaging
This feature has been in a fair number of TL games. It is also an amazing tool if used properly. However, if it is not used properly, the mafia will abuse it and potentially win. They are also a function if used improperly will cause people to feel left out and like they don’t matter as players. Pm’s can and do make people elitist in games. IF Pm’s are allowed in a game they should be used properly. Role fishing, small analysis groups, alignment testing.
Role fishing is straightforward so I will not go into it at this time.
Small analysis groups. These groups need not be large, as you only need a few heads to flesh out analysis on people. It also means that if a red is in your group, it is easier to catch them, and it keeps the other groups safe from infiltration.
Alignment testing. This is posting in a way to let you carefully analyze reactions. Townies are more inclined to answer in one way and mafia/blues another. Sometimes this will be obvious such as catching someone lying to you in pm’s or lying in thread. Other times this will be noticing subtle word choices.
Regardless of how you opt to use the tool, if you do not feel comfortable in your ability to use them properly do not use them and play the game via the thread. Ask for detail from Ace on this, as he dislikes the PM feature.
Quite a contradictory opinion from what he states in game. The essence of BC's out of game stance is that: "PMs are like playing with fire. Could be insanely awesome if used correctly, but could burn you if you don't. If you don't feel comfortable, don't use them". This is quite a stark contrast to his position in this game, where he seriously downplays the usefulness of town PMs, and does a bit of fear mongering in emphasizing how the mafia can screw you over with PMs. Is it possible that BC has changed his stance? I doubt it, but it certainly is possible. So lets dig deeper here. How is BC pushing his opinion? He does it subtly, and attempts to dissociate it from his personal point of view. In the beginning of his campaign to discuss masons, BC heavily uses the word "discuss" or "discussion", asks how "we as a whole" want to deal with masons, emphasizes that this is a discussion everyone should be weighing in on, and attempts to get the community involved in the discussion. He doesn't outright present his personal point of view, and frames the discussion so that it appears free and open-ended. But pretty much injects his own opinion into the discussion whenver possible. His initial point is that mafia masons are dangerous and that town needs to have a plan to deal with that. When asked for an example of PMs in action, BC drags in an example where he manipulated VE to do pro-mafia actions in just 1-2 PMs. (Reinforcing his stance on "PMs are scary") When asked behind why he thinks a mass claim will interfere with the mafia masons, he proposes in the hypothetical that if town agrees to not use PMs, then it shuts down mafia masons. A few posts later, he reemphasizes that "by making the town decide, vocally, now, we force everyone to have an opinion." While this is fine and dandy, really he is the one calling the shots here. When Cyber_Cheese suggests that we let masons use their discretion and suggests that smart town masons could cause the mafia masons to backfire, BC counters with "Mafia masons have the experience of an entire team to work manipulate someone", subtly pushing his opinion that PMs should be shunned. On January 14 2012 05:54 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 14 2012 05:52 VisceraEyes wrote:
BC are you for or against a mass-mason claim? This is now the second time I've asked you. Please respond. I repeat, please respond to my query regarding the mass-mason claim. I am fine with either it, or having town just say "we ignore all pms that arent host pms"Making every mason accountable / making them useless to prevent manipulation seems the best play at the moment. making them all claim however is the optimal play, it may out the group of us, but it also prevents mafia from using their ability without being in the spotlight. When asked about his opinion on a mason claim, he says he's fine with it, but takes the opportunity to inject more of his "ignore all PMs" idea into the conversation (notice that nobody else has been saying "lets ignore PMs"). BC is pushing the anti-PM agenda, in a way that is quite subtle. He constantly brings in reference to "the town needs to decide", or "this is a very important discussion that everyone needs to weigh in on", while he is really the one dominating the conversation. In other words, he is injecting his mafia bias into the discussion while attempting to pass it off as a town discussion or collective town decision. Here's something BC didn't tell you. As he has told me in the past (out of game): "keep in mind as red i rarely pm", and "my heavy pm use is town play". Now what about the "spotlight factor" brought up by Meapak? BC putting himself in the spotlight is nothing unusual, both for his mafia and town play. If you've read past games, think of BC's style as much the same as Ace's. As stated above, red BC doesn't use a PM heavy style. He uses a style that focuses on thread control, shutting down serious opposition through arguments and generally trashing the thread. BC claiming mason does not give him any +town points in my book. The general heuristic of "mafia want to avoid the spotlight" doesn't apply to BC, who is an experienced mafia player and has proven that he is well capable of taking the spotlight as red. So what is the scenario for BC being red and pushing his mason claim? BC is in fact red, and can use the mason power (chooses it for himself early in the day). As a town mason would, BC picks a mason target and starts talking to them. Once he gets the town to agree to ban masons, he is off the hook, and doesn't have to worry about PMs anymore. More specifically, he doesn't have to worry about town PMs. Like stated before, mafia BC plays a powerhouse thread control style. By banning PMs, BC doesn't lose out on much (he admits he isn't a heavy PM user), and nerfs Foolishness, sandroba, and my abilities to play a PM centric game (which we are known for). And that's what is the difference between this game and XLII (the game he refers to when he says he dominates with only 1-2 PMs). Foolishness and I are playing in this game, and are real threats. BC wants to shut down PMs before it starts, and he doesn't have to give up much information or lie at all in order to do it. Furthermore, he has not followed up on his campaign promise: "I will question, analyze and call out all those who play in what I view as bad town/mafia like. (I have already done this with foolishness, he knows better)." Ok, so maybe he called out Foolishness yesterday, but where is the scumhunting today? Its non-existent, because BC is too busy derailing the thread with mason discussions instead of scumhunting. What is even more interesting is the timing of his initial claim post. It comes an hourish after my second post against Ciryandor, which conveniently most people except for sandroba and sheth have ignored. 1. BloodyC0bbler derailed today's discussion onto the irrelevant, highly controversial, and unsolvable PM debate. 2. Because the community is split over the PM debate, discussing it tells us nothing about alignment even if people contribute to the discussion. In other words, BC is overexaggerating the importance of this discussion. 3. BloodyC0bbler is masking his intentions and his clear anti-PM agenda, which is inconsistent with his previous (out of game) stance on PMs).
4. BloodyC0bbler is trying to frame the discussion as an open discussion, when he is clearly injecting his personal bias.
5. BloodyC0bbler's actions are completely consistent with his mafia style, which is to spread chaos and control the thread atmoshere and discussion.
6. BloodyC0bbler's actions are not consistent with his campaign promise to analyze and call out people. He has done none of that today
BloodyC0bbler is mafia. If you vote for me I will lynch him. Hi incog, and as you didn't tag who you were I will say it again.. Hi incognito
How do I know its you? I have never talked to mystlord.
I am glad your third game post of the thread is once again a "i am running on the campaign of lynch this player" it gives nothing on yourself and yet people think you are doing something commendable. You ignore all game discussion and opt to push your own agenda to off players. I am impressed good sir. However, you fail to realize that I am not being the lazy bored me, I am actually playing.
As for your analysis? Laughable. You make the claim of "bc has said he rarely pms as read and heavy pms as town" guess what? I have talked to opz before i wandered off to work, and the person I mason'd with Sandroba. As the only current way to talk to more is by having another mason mason me I am far more active than a mafia me would who would never use my ability to begin with.
I will now quote the bit of my own words you attempted to use against me.
On January 28 2011 06:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Private Messaging
This feature has been in a fair number of TL games. It is also an amazing tool if used properly. However, if it is not used properly, the mafia will abuse it and potentially win. They are also a function if used improperly will cause people to feel left out and like they don’t matter as players. Pm’s can and do make people elitist in games. IF Pm’s are allowed in a game they should be used properly. Role fishing, small analysis groups, alignment testing.
Role fishing is straightforward so I will not go into it at this time.
Small analysis groups. These groups need not be large, as you only need a few heads to flesh out analysis on people. It also means that if a red is in your group, it is easier to catch them, and it keeps the other groups safe from infiltration.
Alignment testing. This is posting in a way to let you carefully analyze reactions. Townies are more inclined to answer in one way and mafia/blues another. Sometimes this will be obvious such as catching someone lying to you in pm’s or lying in thread. Other times this will be noticing subtle word choices.
Regardless of how you opt to use the tool, if you do not feel comfortable in your ability to use them properly do not use them and play the game via the thread. Ask for detail from Ace on this, as he dislikes the PM feature.
Notice the bolded section near the top, you know, the amazing tool if used properly? How about we continue reading to where i state it is not used properly and mafia abuse it to win.
You and I both know that discussions have occurred between yourself, myself, ver, qatol, fw, foolishness and others over a large course of time about how town fail at using pms. My ability to use the mechanic is not the issue at hand. I do not anyone outside of a small core group of players to properly use the function, as such pushing for it to be something not used in general or heavily scrutinized is by far the best play. Can you honestly say based on the current claims that you feel mathchew is a player who can competently maneuver around pms without proper guidance? (not meant at a real jab at you matt, but you are newer and as such not someone I personally would want wandering unattended in the pm land).
You and I both also know that reading people or catching people with pms is a skill that requires practice and takes time to learn. Only certain players on this site truly excel at them. Everyone else generally have proven over the last year that in most cases, town should not be in pm's period.
I do appreciate that you are gunning for people, but you know just as well as I do that masons who are only able to talk to 1 person once over 1 day cycle when unexperienced in that field is a detriment to the town, not a positive. If you refuse to admit to this then we both know your scum alignment.
As for subtle pushing against using masons? I can't decide for everyone. I have already said my bit and cant push this. By actively bringing it to the plate to even talk about I am forcing the issue
What I also find amusing is you concentrate on my mafia style play but ignore my town style play which is near identical (as you well know) where the differences are pushing mafia or town objectives. You claim that I must be mafia for I take thread control etc..
As a note incog. Are mafia really that afraid of me removing their tool from the game that they sent you of all people to deal with me? You know just as well as I do that pms in experienced hands are usually detrimental to the town and know that even with guides and performances of towns as a whole pms cause more trouble than good.
Anyone voting for protract at the moment needs to be seriously looked at. On January 14 2012 16:41 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
On January 14 2012 16:32 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 16:23 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 14 2012 16:21 Mattchew wrote:On January 14 2012 16:17 ~OpZ~ wrote:On January 14 2012 16:12 Scamp wrote:On January 14 2012 16:08 Mattchew wrote:
foolishness would have stuck with only bill murray had I not mason'd him. Now he pushes for me and bill because to him I am safe. With this post, you will not be getting my vote, unless you post something of substance really, really soon. Could not of said it better myself. But now that he mentions it, where the hell is BM? I'm not sold that any of the mayor candidate have a proper direction right now, and for all declaring they'd be active, they seem to be lacking. Please read post above. I have spoken on every issue brought up (palmar, masons, who to lynch) and I don't understand this logic of Mayor running the town / game. You get 2extra votes and a lynch and immunity. You don't have to be the most vocal to be a good mayor you just have to make decent decisions and read well. A mayor is someone players who surf by doing the bare minimum in thread follow at least early on. If you vote to off x then x will usually get sheeped. The other major reason is the player who gets mayor is someone you want to be able to hold accountable. IE is that person going to push a lynch hard, or is he going to get feedback first before deciding to push a lynch target. Forcing discussion, actively pushing lynches, etc.. are the things commonly looked for in a mayor. A. You are wrong. I think the shear volume of posts about foolishness, palmar, L (who hasn't even posted) and other vets not trying for mayor proves this. People will listen to vets and those who are most vocal, regardless of whether or not they are mayor. Also, I don't care for the people trying to scrap by doing the bare minimum, fuck them, to quote flamewheel Show nested quote +Of special importance for this game though: if you tend to "lurk" or I see that you are not putting effort into this game, despite not being modkilled you will be unable to participate in my future games.
So please don't get modkilled and put a concerted effort into playing this. You are basically giving people an excuse to sheep the mayor. What the hell is that. My priority is getting 2 town elected officials. This is by far and away the best thing we can do on day 1. The mayor basically is a 3 power jack, with a dayvig shot, 2 extra votes and 2 bodyguards. Putting a scum member (regardless of how pro-town their campaign is) is terrible for town. This is why I have done everything logically under the sun to prove that I am town. And will vote for the person I believe to be most town running alongside me.
Giving people an excuse? I am stating mere observations about previous games. You can put in a warning of how people will be punished for being inactive jerkwads and they will still do it. Shit happens in peoples lives, they get a role they dont want and skirt by doing the minimum, etc... I am not giving an excuse for them I am stating a simple observation, people sheep. People tend to sheep those in power. Do people also listen to players such as myself, L, Palmar and the like if they aren't elected? Yes, but people typically elect these players to keep them alive longer. The skillset that a vet carries is why vets more typically run for elections. Long term those skillsets if on a townie player are a huge benefit to keep around, and if it is a red there is a higher chance of catching them as the mayor is expected to be active and a good player is expected to perform at a certain level. If the person running is unable to perform at the required level it is effectively giving a townie who will just follow someone elses choice powers that they shouldnt have. If they are heavily listening to the vets, give vets the extra shite. If you want to step up and stand on your own two feet do so. Think of being the mayor the leader of a country. You must have solid thread prescense.
Keeping yourself alive with your role (a role i firmly believe you should not be using after today), is not say as good as a newer player with a dt or med role getting it. I am not condoning either of those roles claiming but you get the idea. The mason role is something an experienced player theoretically could use effectively and warrant getting elected while possessing it but I personally believe no one should sit in pms. Mafia choose who on their team gets to be a mason, whereas hosts rng who got it for town. Regardless the mafia have 10 heads to properly work on who to mason and which approach to take while a newer player has his own thoughts.
On January 14 2012 16:44 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
On January 14 2012 16:41 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 16:38 bumatlarge wrote:On January 14 2012 16:33 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On January 14 2012 16:30 bumatlarge wrote:On January 14 2012 16:19 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On January 13 2012 15:57 bumatlarge wrote:
Mason Favorite role, I kind of laugh when I see mafia masons, as they are not good at all. It's basically more work for mafia to convince people in the thread and then in PMs. Still be wary. There is a lot of mindgames in PMs, but nothing is as cool as being sure the other person is town. It's basically like a mini-game of mafia. Give each other analysis, and plan out what you will do with the other person. Better yet, mason me and we will a force to be reckoned with. On January 14 2012 04:52 bumatlarge wrote:I don't think people are understanding where BC is coming from, a town mason is more likely to just immediately get rights, but if you look at scum mason; Mason
At the beginning of every cycle, you may send a PM to me detailing who you would like to Mason with during that cycle. You may PM with that person for the full cycle. You may not choose a person you have already Masoned with for the remainder of the game. The Mafia team will have a set number of people to choose as Masons. Mafia with other roles (Roleblocker, Framer, Godfather) can double up on Mason roles. They have to pick them. Do you think mafia right off the bat is going to grab the mason role and start yapping away? I think if BC is mafia, he is doing us a favor. I think masons should claim in thread, the faster the better. It forces mafia into an awkward position, or else they can't claim at all. Why and how did your opinion completely change? Well just because I think mafia masons are bad, doesnt mean they cant be useful. I think BC's plan does a good job of stopping their use, or severely attaching scum to one another. Nice try Monsieur cheese  I'm pretty good in on-on-one situations, so I don't view mafia masons as good. But, oh yes, that is my "generic blue advice" no one needs to hear my genericly awesome mason reading powers. they'll just figure out everything I don't say on their own! Silly me. It also completely shuts down town masons, which you thought were excellent. Why are you willing to give up such an awesome protown role, where two townies could be 'a force to be reckoned with', just to cancel the abilities of the scum masons, which are 'not good at all'. Town masons claiming doesnt shut down town masons. They can get into contact with any individual they want? They are unrole-blockable, and they eventually have to release the information/analysis they find. I never say that anywhere. Did BC say that? BC was talking about ignoring PM's completely, and he's been wishy washy on whether he's keen on all the masons claiming.
On January 14 2012 05:54 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 05:52 VisceraEyes wrote:
BC are you for or against a mass-mason claim? This is now the second time I've asked you. Please respond. I repeat, please respond to my query regarding the mass-mason claim. I am fine with either it, or having town just say "we ignore all pms that arent host pms" Making every mason accountable / making them useless to prevent manipulation seems the best play at the moment. making them all claim however is the optimal play, it may out the group of us, but it also prevents mafia from using their ability without being in the spotlight.
How about you read what I say and properly reflect it. I prefer ignoring pms and deciding that masons be ignored, but in the case no one agrees with that then mass claim so town knows who to heavily watch in pms. Everyone being on the same playing field is far more advantaegous than a minority playing with a different hand. On January 15 2012 03:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
On January 15 2012 03:00 VisceraEyes wrote:
How does the fact that I pulled out of the elections make me more suspicious?
And did you completely ignore my plea for help regarding my mason situation? Or do you not care because now I'm suspicious?
You as a former candidate go out of your way to encourage people to withdraw votes based on a lie. You can say you misread my post which potentially believable due to its length I find unlikely. If people were actively waiting for a piece of information then my large posts theoretically should be read carefully for said information. You are not like jay who has been on my nuts all game.
Had you chosen to encourage people to not vote for me as I claimed mason and had solid reasons behind it then I would see you as more townlike, as it would also be discrediting another player with the same claim. By opting to instead cherry pick one candidate over the other I see an inconsistancy. I say this as you made mention before in thread that you had reservations of electing me before as my alignment with my role was not provable (minus a lynching obviously), however this issue would be near identical to another mason and had you kept with that line of thinking as two masons were in the running I would have understood.
Singling me out however, via incorrect information, is why you are on my list. On January 15 2012 03:15 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
On January 15 2012 03:06 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 02:54 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
Not to mention, BC declared his mason status 7 hours before you did, why are you a better choice than him, if the main thing confirming you as town is how quickly you declared your role? Because my posting, my logic, and the lack of cases against me (other than slippery slope highly unlikely situations) make me far more townie than BC is.
Incorrect.
We would be if nothing else equal playing ground. You used my initial claim to play off of foolishness to make a power play at an elected slot using your role. I have openly stated that I would not be surprised or expect to get in because of my claim. In short I expect if i was elected it would be off my ability, not my role. You run was purely something you did via "im a confirmed townie" because of your role.
The "cases" against you were that just because you are a mason does not make you confirmed town. You have been transparent with your pms yes, in which you have a townie who is helping you openly admit that bm is easily controllable and you are taking advice from him. IE you are also easily controllable. I am very hesitant to want someone elected that foolishness supports when his main reason admitted in a pm to you was an ability to control bm. Do you think he would support you if it was any different? Why would a vet player want someone in office he can manipulate/control instead of himself.
And jesus, I totally just stumbled across that thought in help of one of L's earlier posts. Does anyone have a solid reason why it is advantageous to have an elected official in office you can manipulate/control instead of running yourself? If you are controlling/manipulating wouldn't that suggest you are more sure of your own ability to play and should be running rather than ducking responsibility? On January 15 2012 03:18 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
On January 15 2012 03:11 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 03:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 15 2012 03:00 VisceraEyes wrote:
How does the fact that I pulled out of the elections make me more suspicious?
And did you completely ignore my plea for help regarding my mason situation? Or do you not care because now I'm suspicious? You as a former candidate go out of your way to encourage people to withdraw votes based on a lie. You can say you misread my post which potentially believable due to its length I find unlikely. If people were actively waiting for a piece of information then my large posts theoretically should be read carefully for said information. You are not like jay who has been on my nuts all game. Had you chosen to encourage people to not vote for me as I claimed mason and had solid reasons behind it then I would see you as more townlike, as it would also be discrediting another player with the same claim. By opting to instead cherry pick one candidate over the other I see an inconsistancy. I say this as you made mention before in thread that you had reservations of electing me before as my alignment with my role was not provable (minus a lynching obviously), however this issue would be near identical to another mason and had you kept with that line of thinking as two masons were in the running I would have understood. Singling me out however, via incorrect information, is why you are on my list. I just don't want you to be mayor! You're fucking scary! And you've claimed a role that if you're scum you can rape my asshole with (as proven!) Don't give me any of your "cherry-pick one candidate over another" bullshit! I know what you can do with PMs! You USED ME IN YOUR CAMPAIGN! You're NOT going to be mayor!
isn't this a complete contradiction to.
On January 14 2012 09:07 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 07:51 Foolishness wrote:On January 14 2012 00:50 Kurumi wrote:
Why would someone create a campaign for someone else without seeing him post ever? If anyone is voting for someone partly with the reason of "he's a good player" then they are doing the same thing. Don't know why you choose to call me out instead of any of the other lackluster votes. At least I have a plan and reasoning. I found Foolish's campaign to be both hilarious and appropriate and will support either BM or BC today. I still think people should vote for me, but the general consensus seems to be that I'm not experienced enough, which is totally fair. I don't think I'm totally out of the running though, so I'm not going to withdraw quite yet...but expect me to withdraw if I don't get any more support by 12 hours to deadline.
near nothing new has appeared since this post aside from potentially incogs tunnel of me in which he incorrectly states an opinion. However, you never give your opinion on that post of his, just instead say your reading it and then reading my posts. Note how he never returned to even respond to me? There are two people on one name, and neither has appeared.
You're reason to then push against me was debunked. If you don't want someone in office build a real case, dont make fake ones. On January 15 2012 03:31 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
On January 15 2012 03:26 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 03:23 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 15 2012 03:15 Mattchew wrote:On January 15 2012 03:12 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:On January 15 2012 03:06 Mattchew wrote:On January 15 2012 02:54 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
Not to mention, BC declared his mason status 7 hours before you did, why are you a better choice than him, if the main thing confirming you as town is how quickly you declared your role? Because my posting, my logic, and the lack of cases against me (other than slippery slope highly unlikely situations) make me far more townie than BC is. No actually they don't. Your only reason for being mayor is that you're a mason and that foolishness trusts you. Given foolishnesses actions so far it's pretty clear he's trolling so that's really not an endorsement. And as for your mason claim, you're no more confirmed than BC is and he's done a lot more than you. imma quote myself from earlier I want you to ask yourself, What are the real odds of about 13 hours after roles go out that a scum team elects me as mason over a vet, sends me at the best town player who already made a troll campaign, and comes up with a relatively elaborate plan to get me (A non-vet) into office.
Is it possible, yes. Is it 99% unlikely, yes. why? Heres a scenario for you. Mafia sees that I out myself as a mason. They see that I am attempting to fubar the use of the mason role completely. Mafia goes "FUUUUUUUUUUUUU" then thinks, wait, maybe we can use this to our advantage. Mafia concocts a scheme to use one of their newer members as a mason and get him elected via his claim. Foolishness could be a red or green and go along with it because he thinks that he can control you? Or, you are green, do this move and foolishness is red and goes "score and easier person for me to use than bm" and backs you to get you into office. Doing so would make him seem town in your eyes and would gain him a mayor who trusts him. A newbie mayor who would go to him for advice before making his own decisions -_-. Either situation you could be red or green, and it doesn't matter. A mafia team putting forth a member to get elected on a role that once elected's alignment can only be determined via death, or a town candidate who is controlled like a puppet via the mafia are both good scenarios for them. scenario is broken because i pm'd foolishness before you outed yourself. I don't see Foolishness as a strong town read. I would lean towards town if a gun was to my head but I still want to hear a lot more from him.
without timestamps we have your word to take for that. Is that likely? Yes, however, your run for mayor was timed AFTER my claim. You're role + my claim in open prompted you to think of running for mayor.
This is mafia, any situation is possible. Just because you can say "well im new do you think I would do that?" You know what? If you have a good player or players on your team as scum, a new player isn't going to be that bad as they can coach said player while using the "im new card" to explain minor mistakes.
My argument is that you are no more confirmed town than I am. On January 15 2012 04:52 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
On January 15 2012 04:46 Liquid`Sheth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 00:57 Toadesstern wrote:I'm visiting my sis so I'm out for a couple of hours. However I still have a couple of people I have no idea about. I'm just leaving you with a list of 5 or so names and if you see your name on that list I'd like to know who you want to vote for mayor and if you had to decide the first lynch who it would be. I'm only mentioning people I think might read this, so thx if you do: + Show Spoiler +5. risk.nuke
9. Kenpachi (you won't answer this right?)
11. EchelonTee
14. Liquid`Sheth
20. Ciryandor
49. Scamp turns out I got 6 names instead of only 5 but yeah that's it for now. I'm voting for Protactinium for Mayor at the moment. He has what I believe to have been the best case for Mayor. If I had to decide the first lynch, I'd probably make it a town affair and get everyone's opinions on who they wanted to lynch and then decide based on what that information gave me.
so the belief you have for deciding a lynch is via discussion and town consensus but you are voting for a player who has made 0 posts aside from saying he would kill ciryandor if elected or kill me if elected. so You are actually in favour of having someone lynched with 0 discussion as you are strictly following the most inactive of all the candidates who sole stance currently is lynching me.
contradiction On January 15 2012 05:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
VE, if you really are a jack, your fucking stupid unless you clarified before you claimed that jacks can dayvig. ... His next post: Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 08:45 Protactinium wrote:
On January 15 2012 08:37 rgTheSchworz wrote:
So confused at the moment. Have the feeling we're going nowhere, even worse, several of our blues have blundered.
I'm gonna vote BM, as Sandroba has the highest chance of being scum out of potential candidates.His posts have been weird enough, he runs for mayor then isnt particularly active or scum-hunting,some of his posts like the one with the eagle landing on his arm disturbed me.
I'll keep an eye on the following: Risk.nuke, Palmar.
I feel palmar still has a role to play. Don't lynch him day1, maybe day 2 if he continues like that.
The whole mason thing started by BC was useless in my opinion.50/50 chance of being mafia/town. Bollocks, they're maybe more town masons than mafia, maybe less. You can't know that, unless maybe.. you have external information.
Also, as sandro is suspicious and BC had made a sort of a deal with him, my feelings about this persona shall remain mixed at best.
When the town isn't going anywhere, look for mafia interference. I clearly have been trying to give some direction to this thread, so there isn't really the excuse that the town is just newb and doesn't know what to do.
Furthermore, this game isn't like some others where 2 mistaken townies pollute the thread by attacking each other on pretty thin grounds.
If you look at the thread as a whole, you probably will only be able to find 1 player who really sticks out of the discussion, and that's BC. If you agree that the town isn't going anywhere, the question should be why. BC has steered the course of the discussion for the most part of this day, despite only having around 5% of the total game posts. While I have no problem with someone having this few amount of posts, an examination of BC's posts shows that he has created more confusion and unanswered questions than answers and direction.
The conclusion is that the mafia are interfering with the town's attempt to find clarity. In other words, the game has a mafia-favored atmosphere. As you know, my thesis is that BloodyC0bbler is at the bottom of it. This is utter bullshit. Good discussion was going on, and Protactinium dismisses it as having "no direction" and mafia interference. The next post is an analysis on Macpo. I have a null read on Macpo; I don't think it's fair to base an analysis entirely on his tone, but he's still not off the hook. But this is more interesting: Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 10:07 Protactinium wrote:
Yes I'm lynching Macpo if elected. Protact just made a huge deal about how BC is scum. And now he wants to switch over to Macpo? This doesn't seem right. Protact doesn't post much during the night. But during the day, he says this: Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 12:25 Protactinium wrote:
HEY GUESS WHO FLIPPED MAFIA
Sandroba is obviously innocent now.
##Vote Macpo WTF? He provides no reasoning, and what he says doesn't even make sense. This means that he must have some information that town doesn't have. [b]IN CONCLUSION, Protactinium was heavily bullshitting the town in order to get a mayor spot. He is scum and should die. ##Vote: Protactinium
You have my sword.
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://steinertalent.com/media/uploads/btb_bill_murray/images/Bill_Murray_old.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Bill_Murray_you.jpg)
