|
Day One
![[image loading]](http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/7006/67731225.png)
The scientists moved about, unaware of the spy satellite watching them directly above. Their ignorance was quite fortuitous- the men were already burdened enough with knowledge of their renegade status and forthcoming fortune; in the field of nuclear engineering, momentary lapse of attention could spell disaster.
Within next few hours, one more nuclear bomb would join the ranks of approximately ten thousand active nuclear warheads unannounced. It would go on to spark crisis not known since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and - should not the terrorists be caught in time - cause unprecedented damage...
If for some reason you have not received your role, please PM me.
It is now Day 1. You have 48 hours to cast your votes. Remember that vote with incorrect format may not be counted, this is no PM setup, and no editing.
The deadline ends at March 29 2012 07:00 KST, which is 22:00 GMT (+00:00) your time-zone.
Edit: Somebody made observers QT for this game so you can PM me for one if you desire. Note those in observer QT will be ineligible for the replacement.
|
We can post now, right?
Hi people! I'm MrZentors!
I have never posted first, so I have no idea what to do.
|
Cool guys, am I really one of the only "vets" in this game?
ATTENTION SCUM! IT WILL BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO PUT ME ON THE BACK FOOT IMMEDIATELY! IF YOU ATTEMPT TO HIDE I WILL FIND YOU!
That being said, I'm in favor of lynching a lurker if we can't find a good scum candidate (fat chance) and I'm not in favor of lynching "liars". Lynching is for killing scum, not for punishing "bad play".
"But VE, isn't lynching a lurker the same thing as lynching to punish bad play?"
No kind sir, lurking isn't just bad play...lurking is a very viable strategy that scum often employ to hide.
For my part, I'll be keeping my eye on C_C and to a lesser extent BH due to them being among the only names I recognize as players who have played more than like 2 games here. This is one of the first games I've played where the average experience level is so low...so I'm probably not going to be on the offensive as much this game...but I make no guarantees.
|
On March 27 2012 07:17 VisceraEyes wrote:
Cool guys, am I really one of the only "vets" in this game?
ATTENTION SCUM! IT WILL BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO PUT ME ON THE BACK FOOT IMMEDIATELY! IF YOU ATTEMPT TO HIDE I WILL FIND YOU!
That being said, I'm in favor of lynching a lurker if we can't find a good scum candidate (fat chance) and I'm not in favor of lynching "liars". Lynching is for killing scum, not for punishing "bad play".
"But VE, isn't lynching a lurker the same thing as lynching to punish bad play?"
No kind sir, lurking isn't just bad play...lurking is a very viable strategy that scum often employ to hide.
For my part, I'll be keeping my eye on C_C and to a lesser extent BH due to them being among the only names I recognize as players who have played more than like 2 games here. This is one of the first games I've played where the average experience level is so low...so I'm probably not going to be on the offensive as much this game...but I make no guarantees.
I agree that lynching lurkers should be a last option, but I think whether we lynch the liar or not should really rely on the situation.
|
[B]On March 27 2012 07:17 VisceraEyes wrote: Lynching is for killing scum, not for punishing "bad play".
Why'd you want to lynch me in C9++ first day then?!?
Hypocrite! He's obviously scum! Lynch him!!!
|
That didn't come with a vote so I'm assuming you're joking Jdub. If you weren't, please kindly place your vote so I can respond appropriately. Thank you for your cooperation.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P7KtZ.jpg)
Alright boys, lets do this.
On March 27 2012 07:17 VisceraEyes wrote:
ATTENTION SCUM! IT WILL BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO PUT ME ON THE BACK FOOT IMMEDIATELY! IF YOU ATTEMPT TO HIDE I WILL FIND YOU!
Something about this seems suss. Compensating for some sort of guilt perhaps?
|
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I noticed that you didn't give an opinion one way or the other C_C, is there a reason you don't want to commit to a stance?
|
Hi CC ! At school bbl
Policy lynch is teh sux
|
On March 27 2012 07:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I noticed that you didn't give an opinion one way or the other C_C, is there a reason you don't want to commit to a stance?
like you would make a stance 2 posts in a game, VE?
|
Quick to jump in there with the defense Jdub. Noted. But I'll thank you to let C_C answer for himself in the future sir. He's capable of answering simple questions himself.
|
On March 27 2012 07:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I noticed that you didn't give an opinion one way or the other C_C, is there a reason you don't want to commit to a stance?
As town, it's hard to stay with a solid stance. Games change, and ultimately these little things never seem to come up anyway. As mafia, having a solid stance and sticking with it is basically a free pass.
Ultimately, 'lurking' and 'lying' are only a fraction of a persons play.
However, if it's a stance you want:
In my experience, the moment you bother lynching the lurkers is the moment you know mafia are in control of the game, especially if it's done sooner.
If we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers.
|
On March 27 2012 07:43 EchelonTee wrote:
Hi CC ! At school bbl
Policy lynch is teh sux
Howdy :D
On March 27 2012 07:44 johnnywup wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 07:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I noticed that you didn't give an opinion one way or the other C_C, is there a reason you don't want to commit to a stance? like you would make a stance 2 posts in a game, VE?
1) Why are you defending me? Buddy up much?
2) if you're going to make a stance, do it sooner rather than later.
|
On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 07:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I noticed that you didn't give an opinion one way or the other C_C, is there a reason you don't want to commit to a stance? As town, it's hard to stay with a solid stance. Games change, and ultimately these little things never seem to come up anyway. As mafia, having a solid stance and sticking with it is basically a free pass.Ultimately, 'lurking' and 'lying' are only a fraction of a persons play. However, if it's a stance you want: In my experience, the moment you bother lynching the lurkers is the moment you know mafia are in control of the game, especially if it's done sooner. If we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers.
/salute
I was really referring to your underhanded accusation of my first post, but I appreciate your opinions on the matters I brought up earlier.
I kinda disagree on the bolded statement though. While it's harder to catch scum who have conviction in their posts, the fact of the matter is that they have to fake-scumhunt...so if someone is so adamant about their opinions, it will become clear pretty quickly if it's based on actual reasoning or if it's just a show.
|
Just seems weird when there's no actual content to work with to make a judgement other than a tone of writing.
Not defending anyone, more of asking why he would expect anyone to take a stance so early.
|
Tone is everything Johnny! calling for stances isn't weird. I think you're weird mr. wup ^^
|
Hurray the game has started. Excited to be playing again.
I'm somewhat in favor of lynching liars because as it is a closed setup I'm guessing that it gives mafia more wiggle room to make up fake claims and such.
VE, could you explain why you said
On March 27 2012 07:17 VisceraEyes wrote:
That being said, I'm in favor of lynching a lurker if we can't find a good scum candidate (fat chance) and I'm not in favor of lynching "liars". Lynching is for killing scum, not for punishing "bad play".
I don't think lying falls into bad play if that is what you are saying. People don't accidentally lie that often if at all. They make perhaps poor judgements and logical fallacies but within their "logic" they adhere to the "truth" - shouldn't any inconsistencies be scrutinized and seen as suspicious?
|
Yes, lying is situational and obviously we need to scrutinze any inconsistencies we find...but lynching by policy anyone found to have been untruthful about anything? Not today sir. Not ever as far as I'm concerned. If someone is scummy because they lied, they should be scummy for other reasons. If someone's lying is the only thing that makes them "scummy", then I'm not on-board with a lynch of said person. That's what I meant by "I'm not in favor of lynching "liars". Policy lynches, on the whole, are a bad idea and allow scum to control the lynch.
|
Blabla no lynch bad blahblah
In sch post mre ltr
|
Yay game starts, but just as am going to bed  .
If my humble opinion means anything, I think lying and lurking are just two of many factors to consider when deciding on town's best lynch.
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly). I'll have some more precise questions in the morning.
TTFN
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
