|
On November 17 2011 01:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
Yeah, chaoser is scum. He called my vote OMGUS. He doesn't remember who he is voting for. Rofl. This is EXACTLY why people should be focusing on one or, at most, two targets.
Chaoser the difference between you and Coagulation is that you are not a lurker right now. You are scum.
sure
|
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On November 17 2011 00:54 Palmar wrote:
Drazerk generally at least tries to look town when he's town
Erm wait a second...
XL - Only reason I didn't get lynched was because I spammed the thread with martyr posts
SNMM4 - Read above but a lot worse
WaW2 - LOL
AA - Bad tunnel at wiggles proceeding by telling the SK that I am the medic proceeded to acting retarded
Ressurection - Lurk day 1 - shot day 1 - resed by scum and everyone realizes it because I was looking so scummy
XL3 - Active lurked into acting scummy to get the whole scum team in a single post
LOTR - Saved the scum from a vigilante, proceeded to defend his third party claim, ROLE CLAIMED MEDIC TO SAVE SCUM, and proceeding to get role blocked / shot while spreading confusion through out the day. Hell If scum had kept me alive I would of protected Kita and let them win.
Not sure what Drazerk your talking about to be honest because it's not me 
|
On November 17 2011 01:54 Drazerk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 00:54 Palmar wrote:
Drazerk generally at least tries to look town when he's town Erm wait a second... XL - Only reason I didn't get lynched was because I spammed the thread with martyr posts SNMM4 - Read above but a lot worse WaW2 - LOL AA - Bad tunnel at wiggles proceeding by telling the SK that I am the medic proceeded to acting retarded Ressurection - Lurk day 1 - shot day 1 - resed by scum and everyone realizes it because I was looking so scummy XL3 - Active lurked into acting scummy to get the whole scum team in a single post LOTR - Saved the scum from a vigilante, proceeded to defend his third party claim, ROLE CLAIMED MEDIC TO SAVE SCUM, and proceeding to get role blocked / shot while spreading confusion through out the day. Hell If scum had kept me alive I would of protected Kita and let them win. Not sure what Drazerk your talking about to be honest because it's not me
Are you actually defending yourself by claiming bad?
How does that benefit town?
|
United Kingdom31255 Posts
I am not defending myself I have no reason to I was just pointing out you was wrong
|
On November 17 2011 00:55 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 00:53 Nisani201 wrote:
OK, one bullshit case is bad enough. But two?
Enough with the FoS. Forumite is scum.
##Vote: Forumite Which case is bullshit mr. Nisani201?
Both of them are bullshit. First we have this case against LSB, which I already mentioned:
On November 15 2011 20:44 Forumite wrote:/confirm Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 16:12 LSB wrote:On November 15 2011 15:49 DCLXVI wrote:damn I forgot people post while I'm in the middle of writing posts... ugh On November 15 2011 14:55 LSB wrote:On November 15 2011 14:19 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:On November 15 2011 12:55 LSB wrote:
come to think about it, that does seem like a nice icebreaker. So everyone! How about lets talk about how you think mafia should be played, the importance of blues, what should we do with lurkers, and what majority lynch means. LAL?For your point on LAL, unless I have misread the OP, we only know what abilities are possible, not which are actually in the game, how they may have been combined into roles, nor how many of the role there may be. So, unless we have a cop of some variety, I don't know how you intend to find liars in this game. So were you just stating that as a general "in mafia games" rule, or did you have something in mind for this game in particular? I'd be interested in hearing how you intend to determine the liars given the setup. Lying will come up and you will be able to recognize it. The most prominent example is fake claims. So LAL means no fake claims. + Show Spoiler +Or it means don't get caught lying. Kenpachi's green claim would be an example of a potentially acceptable lie (if he is blue) as this early in the game any claims are meaningless So what is your position on Kenpachi claiming townie? At first you say LAL, but then lying can be acceptable in certain situations, such as kenpachi is blue. Then you say that his claim is meaningless as it is too early in the game. Does that make his post spam/intentionally distracting? Surely he is a good enough player to realize the importance of his claim. Can you explain your opinions on the subject rather than just post vague generalizations. Is kenpachi's claim worth analyzing/what does it mean? 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 LSBAs 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.
And then we have this:
On November 16 2011 22:48 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 22:09 xsksc wrote:On November 16 2011 21:42 Forumite wrote: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 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?
He is pressuring them based on bullshit cases.
------------
In regards to chaoser, I don't think that Palmar's analysis has enough evidence to prove him guilty. Just because it's Palmar doesn't mean that we can't look at his analysees objectively.
|
On November 17 2011 01:36 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
|
On November 15 2011 23:10 Zephirdd wrote:
I'll unvote him should he provide anything useful. I guess I should be fair and say that my votes will be volatile since we can vote/unvote as much as we want.
I'll do as I said.
##Unvote: Palmar
(on an unrelated note, is it okay to quote votes? For example, the host said we shouldn't vote and unvote the same person in a post, but what about quoting the vote?)
Also, as I said, I agree with lynching lurkers. We shouldn't go apeshit over them, but at least one lurker should go.
That said,
##Vote: Kenpachi
Palmar was my lurker of choice, but he already provided lots of useful discussion; Kenpachi's turn atm.
|
On November 17 2011 01:37 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 01:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
Yeah, chaoser is scum. He called my vote OMGUS. He doesn't remember who he is voting for. Rofl. This is EXACTLY why people should be focusing on one or, at most, two targets.
Chaoser the difference between you and Coagulation is that you are not a lurker right now. You are scum. sure
Wbg be mindfull so you don't accidently start tunneling.
|
On November 17 2011 02:30 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 23:10 Zephirdd wrote:
I'll unvote him should he provide anything useful. I guess I should be fair and say that my votes will be volatile since we can vote/unvote as much as we want.
I'll do as I said. ##Unvote: Palmar(on an unrelated note, is it okay to quote votes? For example, the host said we shouldn't vote and unvote the same person in a post, but what about quoting the vote?) Also, as I said, I agree with lynching lurkers. We shouldn't go apeshit over them, but at least one lurker should go. That said, ##Vote: KenpachiPalmar was my lurker of choice, but he already provided lots of useful discussion; Kenpachi's turn atm.
I'm going to assume the answer to the questions are yes.
As a choice of lurker lynch, Kenpachi over Coagulation? What?
|
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On November 17 2011 02:34 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 02:30 Zephirdd wrote:On November 15 2011 23:10 Zephirdd wrote:
I'll unvote him should he provide anything useful. I guess I should be fair and say that my votes will be volatile since we can vote/unvote as much as we want.
I'll do as I said. ##Unvote: Palmar(on an unrelated note, is it okay to quote votes? For example, the host said we shouldn't vote and unvote the same person in a post, but what about quoting the vote?) Also, as I said, I agree with lynching lurkers. We shouldn't go apeshit over them, but at least one lurker should go. That said, ##Vote: KenpachiPalmar was my lurker of choice, but he already provided lots of useful discussion; Kenpachi's turn atm. I'm going to assume the answer to the questions are yes. As a choice of lurker lynch, Kenpachi over Coagulation? What?
Always kill Kenpachi - No exceptions
|
On November 17 2011 02:37 Drazerk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 02:34 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On November 17 2011 02:30 Zephirdd wrote:On November 15 2011 23:10 Zephirdd wrote:
I'll unvote him should he provide anything useful. I guess I should be fair and say that my votes will be volatile since we can vote/unvote as much as we want.
I'll do as I said. ##Unvote: Palmar(on an unrelated note, is it okay to quote votes? For example, the host said we shouldn't vote and unvote the same person in a post, but what about quoting the vote?) Also, as I said, I agree with lynching lurkers. We shouldn't go apeshit over them, but at least one lurker should go. That said, ##Vote: KenpachiPalmar was my lurker of choice, but he already provided lots of useful discussion; Kenpachi's turn atm. I'm going to assume the answer to the questions are yes. As a choice of lurker lynch, Kenpachi over Coagulation? What? Always kill Kenpachi - No exceptions
LOL
I'm chosing Kenpachi over Coag due to reputation. I don't know much about people's past, but Kenpachi's reputation is claiming green day 1; coag has a reputation of being a good player.
So either Coag dies to mafia, or he'll provide us something useful day 2 onwards.
|
On November 17 2011 02:21 risk.nuke wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 01:36 Forumite wrote: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? 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.
|
On November 17 2011 02:30 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 23:10 Zephirdd wrote:
I'll unvote him should he provide anything useful. I guess I should be fair and say that my votes will be volatile since we can vote/unvote as much as we want.
I'll do as I said. ##Unvote: Palmar(on an unrelated note, is it okay to quote votes? For example, the host said we shouldn't vote and unvote the same person in a post, but what about quoting the vote?) Also, as I said, I agree with lynching lurkers. We shouldn't go apeshit over them, but at least one lurker should go. That said, ##Vote: KenpachiPalmar was my lurker of choice, but he already provided lots of useful discussion; Kenpachi's turn atm.
You need to drop the lurker shenanigans and start being useful.
First mission: Vote chaoser.
|
On November 17 2011 03:21 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 02:30 Zephirdd wrote:On November 15 2011 23:10 Zephirdd wrote:
I'll unvote him should he provide anything useful. I guess I should be fair and say that my votes will be volatile since we can vote/unvote as much as we want.
I'll do as I said. ##Unvote: Palmar(on an unrelated note, is it okay to quote votes? For example, the host said we shouldn't vote and unvote the same person in a post, but what about quoting the vote?) Also, as I said, I agree with lynching lurkers. We shouldn't go apeshit over them, but at least one lurker should go. That said, ##Vote: KenpachiPalmar was my lurker of choice, but he already provided lots of useful discussion; Kenpachi's turn atm. You need to drop the lurker shenanigans and start being useful. First mission: Vote chaoser.
Waaaaaaaaay ahead of you
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=282366¤tpage=18#356
|
|
|
|
|
On November 17 2011 03:36 Nisani201 wrote:
Can we get a votecount?
you need to vote chaoser.
It is pretty clear that he's guilty.
|
On November 17 2011 03:36 Nisani201 wrote:
Can we get a votecount?
The game is being run by a bot, stop being lazy and put it together if you want it soon. Otherwise I'll make one in an hour or two I suppose.
|
I'm bored and all of my scum reads keep turning to shit before I can make a post so I'll do one now. Post in a couple mins.
|
Uh guys...check the 5th post. That's where votecounts will appear.
To clarify things: Votes within quotes are not counted. Votes not in bold are not counted. Right now votes in spoilers ARE counted - but that is NOT intended and will be changed so that they will not be counted. (It doesn't look like anyone has placed a vote in a spoiler so far.)
Votes with and without colons are both counted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
