EPTOn November 15 2011 04:50 GreYMisT wrote:
Not a day goes by that I Don't wish people really talked like this.
Not a day goes by that I Don't wish people really talked like this.
Double negative, so confused... =(
Steamship Liquidia (TL Mafia 46) - Page 2
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
Double negative, so confused... =( | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 15 2011 04:53 GMarshal wrote: A rejuvenating coma during which you may or may not have vivid hallucinations akin to reality during several hours, which, after emerging from the coma you may not have any recollection of. Also you may or may not lose control of your body upon the first few seconds of reemerging. Regularly the recalled hallucinations are unsettling, but my mental auditor assure me that the ultimate cause is simply distorted, repressed memories pertaining to previous encounters with your maternal progenitor. + Show Spoiler + Sorry, couldn´t resist  | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 15 2011 16:12 LSB wrote: Wtf does this mean? Are you saying you are taking Kenpachi seriously? Stop talking hypotheticals, iirc you've played with Kenpachi before. Even if you have not you can go through his posts and figure out how he plays. In addition you've played before so you know how TL mafia is in the first few hours. I honestly don't see how I´m going to step in here. DCLXVI allready caught this and posted before me, but I don´t think my reason for noticing has been discussed. Okay, to me it looks like this; LSB wants us to Lynch All Liars. Kenpachi claimed Townie, but LSB doesn´t want us to take the Kenpachi claim seriously. My problem here is that either Kenpachi lied, or he just told Scum not to nightkill him, because it would be no use. If we are going to go by the LAL policy, then either Kenpachi lied or acted Pro-Scum, so why should we back off? Kenpachi does this every game, then we can ignore his claim, but what I don´t agree with is LSB promoting LAL wanting to ignore the claim, even if it is meta. It took him about 5 posts to go back on his own policy of Lynch All Liars. If Kenpachi lied (or play Pro-Scum), why does LSB then defend him after his first policy post? FoS LSB As for lynching 1-2 lurkers and 1-2 scum, sounds reasonable, I think we should stay at about that number for now. We need to be carefull about lynching, not just because of the consequences in the setup, but if we find 5 players who seem connected, then it´s better to lynch 1-2 and see if they are scum, than lynching all 5 at once and kill 5 innocent townies at once. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 16 2011 00:22 Sabin010 wrote: I think its too early to start random lynching. I'm sure some of the lurkers are blues and have yet to get a chance to even check their role. We could get lucky and kill scum, but I have seen to many games where we lose our cop or doc first day and end up wasting our time as the mob picks us off. Was that a scumslip? Because usually it´s the mob that picks itself off. "Us" implies that you are not part of the mob. Are you scum? | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 16 2011 01:15 Nisani201 wrote: Ummm... what? I'm sure you know this. Kenpachi's townie claim means nothing. It never means anything. He does it every single game. LSB ignoring it does not imply contradiction; it implies common sense. And your FoS on him is incredibly scummy. FURTHERMORE, claiming town is not pro-scum, because it is in everyone's best interest to appear as a vanilla towie. Townies want to look green because they are green. Blues want to look green so that they are not a Mafia target. And Mafia wants to look green (most of the time) because they don't want to get lynched. Claiming Town is in the persons own best interest, but Town isn´t helped by people claiming Town, it doesn´t give us anything, except knowing that people are saying things we can´t possibly trust. Anyway I don´t much care about the claim, Kenpachi isn´t the one who said that we should lynch all liars. I understand that you want to defend LSB but I really want to hear an answer from him, not you, Nisani. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 16 2011 00:53 Zephirdd wrote: > Games where "we" lose our cop or doc first day and end up wasting our time as the mob picks us off. I assume "the mob" means "the scum", unless I'm terribly wrong at English. which would end up translating to "as the scum picks us(the town) off". Nothing wrong here imo. Yeah, I caught my mistake right after posting. I saw Mob and thought of Town on a murderous rampage lynching Town for mistakenly lynching other Town. A Mob is a large gathering of people without much direction or reason, while Scum are a small and organized group. In Mafia, Mob usually fit Town better than Scum. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
I´m not following the case on Sabin010, is it only the confusion about him playing a lot IRL but none here, or something more? | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 16 2011 12:04 LSB wrote: Bandwagoning much? I have no idea what you're trying to pretend I'm saying but from what it looks like, you didn't read my post and you are just parroting 666. What I don´t like is you advocating not lying as a general rule, but ignoring Kenpachi for doing an either useless, Pro-Scum or Anti-Town claim. If we are using LAL then why are we leaving Kenpachi alone because of his metagame, when his metagame is very unhelpfull for Town? That´s the inconsistency I have a problem with, why you want a big overarching policy but only apply it sporadically, and why specifically Kenpachi is spared your wrath. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
| ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 16 2011 17:07 prplhz wrote: If we ignore lurkers day1 then we will have 6-7 posts of theirs by day2 lynch. Then they will not be lurkers anymore and we can start discussing what they have posted. Also, arguing about lynch-all-lurkers defeats the purpose of the policy itself as it will allow people to lurk even harder. But not in this game, because by day2 lynch they will have 6-7 posts anyway. Am I getting through to you at all? prplhz, 6-7 posts during a week of play is nothing, we can´t really get a read from just that and will be forced to lynch them anyway. I can see that you want to wait with lynching, but I don´t think the end result will be any different if we do it day 2 instead. We might as well push lurkers now and get more activity. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 16 2011 17:14 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Coagulation comes to mind http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=282366&user=22673 A single post telling us to just lynch Kenpachi without thinking much about it. Right... | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
WBG, even if there are players that often lurk, metagame isn´t the issue, the issue is that lurking hurts Town. If they do this often and get away with it it´s probably because it´s harder to deal with lurkers in other games where only one player is lynched each day, them lurking in other games hurt just as much there. Having a history of lurking is no excuse. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:13 wherebugsgo wrote: My point is that you can't lynch all lurkers, and it's certainly optimal to lynch some over others. I agree that history of lurking is no excuse for lurking, but then if we're going to actually lynch a lurker today we need to figure out which one that is. The other thing I want to stress is that focusing on lurkers is going to distract us from the scum who aren't lurking. Hell, if we are fervent enough about punishing lurkers a lot of them will probably just become active and lose a lot of suspicion. Okay, we shouldn´t lynch all at once in case some of them just have a slow start. IMO the goal of lynching lurkers is to activate Town and to force scum to post or die, if scum change their playstyle then it´s actually a win for us. On the subject of this taking attention from scumhunting, unfortunate, but what else can we do? Waiting until the last few hours before the lynch will only make it harder to get enough votes on the lurkers. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 16 2011 21:29 Palmar wrote: Tyrranhey guys, I'm in a good mood today, so here's a great offer to you: I will write an alignment analysis on the first three players people ask me to do. Each player can only select one person for me to analyse, and I will provide a post for each subject on what I currently think of their alignment. Go! | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 15 2011 14:13 xsksc wrote: This is my first proper mafia game, just finished a newbie mini-game the other day. GLHF Everyone!:D Just found this little gem. Looks like a typical newbie scumpost. His filter suggest the same. FoS: xsksc | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 16 2011 22:09 xsksc wrote: Sorry, what? I posted this before the game even got going, I was breaking the ice and being friendly, what is scummy about it? It IS my first real mafia game, I'm excited about it. Several others have said it's their first game too. Can you enlighten me, why do you think it's a newbie scumpost? No, the game had allready started. You confirmed getting your role first of all players, then when people got going with discussing policy, you dropped the above post. During 2 hours people had been talking about policy, and even dropped a few weird posts that have since been called out, so the game had definetly started. And about which part is scummy about it? Everything! You excuse yourself as a new player, thereby lowering our expectations on your contribution in the game, making way for future lurking. It´s an empty icebreaker, full of forced enthusiasm. The message of the post is "I´m trying to help but will probably fail". Is that the kind of player we are going to rely on in this game, or someone who will be left until the end because noone will bother to shoot him? | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 16 2011 23:50 xsksc wrote: That's a pretty silly assumption, my post said nothing of the sort. Why does "This is my first big game" become "I'm trying to help but will probably fail"? What makes you think that because I'm new to this sort of thing, I'm just gonna be a hindrance? Sure, I don't have the same experience as some of the veterans here, but I can still be just as useful. I'm not using being new as an excuse to "lurk", I've actually posted a decent ammount already. You really seem to be over-analyzing a simple hello post, I don't know what else to say. 25% of your posts are used for defending against my FoS, so I wouldn´t call it having posted a decent amount. The posts you have is mostly policy, and a FoS on sabin010, something echoed by too many other players for my taste. You are among the players I might have put on a lurker list. Fine, I´ll give you the benefit of doubt, let´s say you don´t want to use being new as an excuse not to contribute. If so, can you give us/me your opinion of the game so far? Is there anyone apart from the usual suspects (chaoser, sabin010 and kenpachi) that you think needs our attention, or that you want to, for whatever reason, see more posts from? I want to know who you think is acting weird, but not who you think is a Town player. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:24 risk.nuke wrote: ##Vote Forumite I'm not okey with you not responding to a direct vote against you. Please clarify, do you agree with the other votes and vote for that reason, or do you think me not responding is the scummy part? | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 17 2011 02:21 risk.nuke wrote: Neither and both. You're FoSing two people on nothing. And then there is a similar thing on Sabini. Add to that letting the vote on you slip by without a hint of defense from your side. I don't know what you are doing but it is not pro-town play and that is why I vote for you. I disagree. My FoS is directed and doesn´t really involve anyone but me and my target, so I don´t disrupt the overall discussion much. I know that LSB and xsksc have to take a stand and answer when they are being called out, instead of just posting policy, one-liners and bandwagoning the latest target. I also know that since LSB responded with a long post to my FoS on him, he has posted twice, one useless spampost and one where he did a weak push on WBG and Chaoser. As for not defending from votes on me, they vote because the inital cases were kind of weak. That might be true, but that´s still not the point, I´m trying to get people talking, not getting them lynched due to one odd post. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
If Coagulation isn´t modkilled due to inactivity then he is the lurker I want lynched today. ##Vote: Coagulation | ||
| ||
