Storm Mafia - Page 2

On February 21 2012 07:33 kitaman27 wrote:






These quotes come from couples therapy and ptp2. You were town both games. So why the change in play-style red?

On February 21 2012 07:38 chaoser wrote:


Spam the mafia subforum with one liners? I've seen one liners from you everywhere -_-

On February 21 2012 07:38 kitaman27 wrote:


Is this the standard mafia "opps I got caught in a discrepancy". Time to claim change in playstyle!

On February 21 2012 07:50 DoctorHelvetica wrote:

I hate these meta arguments. People are not automatons that play every single game as a particular alignment in the exact same fashion. Stupid question too, doesn't pressure him even if he is mafia.

I've never seen a policy lynch work on TL, not even LAL because town players here lie so often and my perspective is that TL towns are fairly gullible in general.

There have been good Day 1 cases on multiple occasions. On Day 1 in the ongoing Arkham City game both VisceraEyes/Sheth got pretty close to the chopping block.

"Bad" is a subjective term as well, who decides whether a player is good or bad? The "town"? You might as well pick a random amount of "bad" inactives and just RNG the lynch, what a waste of a Day 1 discussion.

Putting votes on inactive townies/policy lynches generates almost no real pressure on a player over whether or not they are scum but only creates arguments over whether or not a policy lynch is justified.

Mafia is designed so that the town can still win fairly easily even if they mislynch on the first day.

It is not designed to make it impossible to lynch scum on first day or so that people will not try.

You get better discussion out of people making, or being forced to make, real cases on people. When mafia have to make bad analysis, they get exposed.

You don't have to policy lynch to avoid lynching "blue radfield" or anything like that either.

Re: Spammy RedFF
Never fails to live up to expectations. Red you really don't have to comment on every little thing with a 1-liner response. My PL on you stands until I get a scum-read on someone.

I'm a proponent of "innocent until proven guilty".

On February 21 2012 08:14 Toadesstern wrote:
If this guy shows up and changes his attitude he is fine imo. If he 's not he's getting lynched if there's noone else screaming mafia.

On February 21 2012 08:13 VisceraEyes wrote:
What I'd read in the thread up to the point of my vote stood to prove you guilty of what I accused you of Red, don't "derp" me. You were spamming the thread already when I posted that and have continued to do so after I proposed a policy lynch of it. But you know, whatever.

The fact that you're so vocal about this Policy Lynch discussion tells me that you're trying to hollowly contribute to the thread, because a VI Policy Lynch, no matter how you slice it, isn't designed to lynch scum. And no matter how much you say "it generates discussion", when that's all you're discussing, it doesn't add anything constructive to the thread either.

Therefor, I'm upgrading you from a Spam Policy Lynch to a full-fledged Scum Lynch. Congratulations RedFF. Now die.

On February 21 2012 08:28 redFF wrote:

He wanted to policy lynch me because i spam, he then changed it to a scum lynch because all i was doing was talking about the policy lynch, when all he has done is push a policy lynch on me and discuss policly lynching up until the above post. That's not misrepresentation.

On February 21 2012 08:46 DoctorHelvetica wrote:

Defensively misrepresenting other players arguments seems scummy to me. You're just contributing another negative oneliner devoid of content. If you're not scum, you're really careless.

On February 21 2012 11:05 DoctorHelvetica wrote:

Yeah that's why I said if you're not scum you're acting really careless. Regardless making terrible arguments,

misrepresenting other players,

and being antagonistic as a defensive action are not helping you here.