Storm Mafia

On February 19 2012 23:23 Zephirdd wrote:
woooooooooooo sounds fun :D

Especially this part


Im /IN baby!

E: it's a "hard setup"

inb4 Palmar puts me in an extremely stacked team just to balance things out

1. Kitaman27
2. prplhz
3. Wherebugsgo
4. syllogism

On February 19 2012 21:54 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
/in

Also I'm drunk as fuck

On February 21 2012 07:27 Blazinghand wrote:
I'm just saying I don't like policy lynches

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.

On February 21 2012 11:22 VisceraEyes wrote:
Red, you misrepped me when you said I was voting you "for pushing a Policy Lynch" when that's not the reason I was voting you at all. Forget about that?

On February 21 2012 11:21 DoctorHelvetica wrote:

One good example of misrepresenting is by insinuating I'm calling you town/contradicting myself based on something I didn't say at all.

Same thing happened in resurrection : two townies got lynched because they were unable to defend themselves from the town derpwagon spearheaded by redFF, who at the time 100% believed they were scum.

he views himself so highly

I'm so tempted to make a quote montage from that game.

I remember reading your filter on day 3 and seeing that you had, at one point or another, called literally every other team in the game scum.

On February 21 2012 11:42 Jackal58 wrote:
Dear redFF and WBG
You both suck.
Sincerely,
Jackal58

On February 21 2012 11:45 VisceraEyes wrote:


No, your contributions have been hollow and useless. Your only actual "attempt" to scumhunt was casting doubt on me for "being a hypocrite".

Only the "attempting to appear pro-town" part is interpretation. The "hollowly contributing" part is accurate.

So no, you saying that I'm voting you "for pushing a policy lynch" absolutely is NOT accurate. Nice try though.

On February 21 2012 11:53 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


and yet hes better than you in near every way. What does that say about you?

On February 21 2012 12:14 wherebugsgo wrote:


Are you talking to me?

Bad news for you: Nothing you've done has made me think you're town.

Good news for you; Nothing you've done has made me think you're scum.

Bad news for you: Everything you've done so far has made me think you're bad.

On February 21 2012 12:19 wherebugsgo wrote:


maybe I should post that nice collection of couples therapy quotes

it'd probably give the thread a laugh. Whatcha think?

Oh and btw I agree with wbg on the matter that I can't read redFF properly. There's also a bunch of other players I don't think I'm capable to read that good.

On February 22 2012 00:25 kitaman27 wrote:


Without announcing it in the thread? lol you act as if I'm voting you without ever mentioning you. Who cares if I post it in the thread.

Yes, I voted tyrran in the first post of the game. I do that in most games. Do you believe that's scummy?

Yes, I attacked you for your discrepancy in opinion, does that make me scummy?

Have any of the reasons in your omgus vote pointed to me being scummy?

You pushed a policy lynch and immediately backed off an hour into the game after getting in trouble. You didn't even mention that you still wanted to lynch tyrran.

Instead it took my questioning for you to even bring it up.

If tyrran was your preferred lynch, why did you switch to me hours later? You said you dropped tyrran because you didn't think you could get him lynched.

Does that mean you're more confident that you can push my lynch? Or is it that you are simply attacking your attacker?

You discredited the ability to scum hunt on day one,

push a policy lynch because of a mafia epiphany, drop the policy lynch because you were simply generating discussion, go back to supporting the policy lynch after being questioned,

and then swap to the guy who is questioning the policy lynch.

Nap time. As much as I enjoy talking about red, I'll try to look at everyone else when I wake up.

On February 22 2012 01:30 Jackal58 wrote:

Never did.

On February 22 2012 04:19 Blazinghand wrote:
yeah thats why i voted him

On February 22 2012 06:26 Blazinghand wrote:


RoL imo. redFF may be worthless but at least he's posting

On February 22 2012 07:22 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:

Cool cool. So how do you propose this works where you claim tracker and can confirm it? You claim your tracks every night? I can't wait for the "I was roleblocked" to come out D2 like it almost certainly will, and you could also claim that you saw nothing while tracking someone which is null unless they counterclaim that they had an action, at which point you out a blue.

But lets look at it from the if-you-are-a-townie perspective. Now you need to claim your targets everyday and what you saw which will out blues and if you don't claim it we can't believe you. If you claim roleblock we can't know if you are telling the truth.

So congrats, your "easy to confirm" role screws us more than helps us. Now you put us in a kill you to keep the game straightforward scenario since we can't discern your real alignment.

On February 22 2012 07:23 redFF wrote:
Explain how everything I've done has scum motivations wbg.

On February 22 2012 07:30 wherebugsgo wrote:


I don't explain shit to scum to help them defend themselves, sorry.