|
On March 27 2012 11:24 gonzaw wrote:Got back from uni. Let's hunt some nazis. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 10:14 EchelonTee wrote:On March 27 2012 08:27 slOosh wrote:On March 27 2012 08:21 froggynoddy wrote:
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly). It shouldn't be at all different no? Actually I've been meaning to ask a similar question. Does a closed-setup in general change basic scumhunting principles or do they just allow/favor different styles of play? honestly I am treating this game like a standard Mini Mafia, with the knowledge that there is probably a few doods with nukes or powers revolving around nukes. AKA, re-skinned medics/vigs. and if there's anything I learned from minis, it's that there's always scum hiding in the lurkers. In general I'll always argue against policy lynches (because they're bad) but in a Mini, with so few people town simply cannot afford to have non-contributors whose alignment cannot be determined. People lurking scummily (yeah there's a difference between innocent lurking and scummily lurking) should be axed over someone with only a weak case on them. gonzaw! shouldn't you be spamming the thread by now? I doubt I need to ask 100 questions to everybody, considering this is a smaller game, so don't worry about that too much. I'll try not to "hurt your eyes" this time  I think it's obvious that nobody likes lurkers, but lurking alone doesn't mean they should be lynched immediately. It just means you need to call them out, make them contribute, and put them under more scrutiny than other players, since they can easily fly unnoticed. @VE: I have to agree with johnny here, why do you prod someone about taking stances 1 post into the game? Even as pressure that doesn't seem very helpful. Also, I'd recomend nobody even slightly hint what nationality they are from. As far as I know, town don't get ANY information whatsoever if someone is US or SU, but scum can use that info to try and get their alternative win-con. So no nationality claims, nor any hint to them. If you have to claim just claim your role and nothing else.
I'll prod whomever I want whenever I want for whatever reason whether you think it's helpful for you or not gonzaw. Now, let's talk about this generic/obvious advice you gave. I know why you did it (glare @ C_C) but the part that concerns me is bolded in your quote.
As a member of town, I happen to know for a FACT that I don't know what "nationality" people are. So that begs the question...why preface your "advice" with the statement "As far as I know..."? It seems to me like you're trying too hard to appear clueless.
|
Also, I work every day from at least 5pm to 10pm EST. I will post very consistently after work near 10pm.
So VisceraEyes, "what's" "with" "all" "these" "quotation" "marks" you use whenever you talk about "liars" or "scum" or "bad play"?
Several Examples
+ Show Spoiler +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. On March 27 2012 08:14 VisceraEyes wrote:
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. On March 27 2012 10:07 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 09:52 Nemesis wrote:
Yo VE why you so scum this game, I'm getting my gun ready for you. Maybe if you accompanied your question with reasoning as to why I'm "so scum this game" instead of empty threats, I'd be more inclined to answer your question fully. What part of my play so far indicates that I'm "so scum"? On March 27 2012 11:38 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 11:24 gonzaw wrote:Got back from uni. Let's hunt some nazis. On March 27 2012 10:14 EchelonTee wrote:On March 27 2012 08:27 slOosh wrote:On March 27 2012 08:21 froggynoddy wrote:
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly). It shouldn't be at all different no? Actually I've been meaning to ask a similar question. Does a closed-setup in general change basic scumhunting principles or do they just allow/favor different styles of play? honestly I am treating this game like a standard Mini Mafia, with the knowledge that there is probably a few doods with nukes or powers revolving around nukes. AKA, re-skinned medics/vigs. and if there's anything I learned from minis, it's that there's always scum hiding in the lurkers. In general I'll always argue against policy lynches (because they're bad) but in a Mini, with so few people town simply cannot afford to have non-contributors whose alignment cannot be determined. People lurking scummily (yeah there's a difference between innocent lurking and scummily lurking) should be axed over someone with only a weak case on them. gonzaw! shouldn't you be spamming the thread by now? I doubt I need to ask 100 questions to everybody, considering this is a smaller game, so don't worry about that too much. I'll try not to "hurt your eyes" this time I think it's obvious that nobody likes lurkers, but lurking alone doesn't mean they should be lynched immediately. It just means you need to call them out, make them contribute, and put them under more scrutiny than other players, since they can easily fly unnoticed. @VE: I have to agree with johnny here, why do you prod someone about taking stances 1 post into the game? Even as pressure that doesn't seem very helpful. Also, I'd recomend nobody even slightly hint what nationality they are from. As far as I know, town don't get ANY information whatsoever if someone is US or SU, but scum can use that info to try and get their alternative win-con. So no nationality claims, nor any hint to them. If you have to claim just claim your role and nothing else. I'll prod whomever I want whenever I want for whatever reason whether you think it's helpful for you or not gonzaw. Now, let's talk about this generic/obvious advice you gave. I know why you did it (glare @ C_C) but the part that concerns me is bolded in your quote. As a member of town, I happen to know for a FACT that I don't know what "nationality" people are. So that begs the question...why preface your "advice" with the statement "As far as I know..."? It seems to me like you're trying too hard to appear clueless.
|
On March 27 2012 11:48 Sinensis wrote:Also, I work every day from at least 5pm to 10pm EST. I will post very consistently after work near 10pm. So VisceraEyes, "what's" "with" "all" "these" "quotation" "marks" you use whenever you talk about "liars" or "scum" or "bad play"? Several Examples + Show Spoiler +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. On March 27 2012 08:14 VisceraEyes wrote:
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. On March 27 2012 10:07 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 09:52 Nemesis wrote:
Yo VE why you so scum this game, I'm getting my gun ready for you. Maybe if you accompanied your question with reasoning as to why I'm "so scum this game" instead of empty threats, I'd be more inclined to answer your question fully. What part of my play so far indicates that I'm "so scum"? On March 27 2012 11:38 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 11:24 gonzaw wrote:Got back from uni. Let's hunt some nazis. On March 27 2012 10:14 EchelonTee wrote:On March 27 2012 08:27 slOosh wrote:On March 27 2012 08:21 froggynoddy wrote:
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly). It shouldn't be at all different no? Actually I've been meaning to ask a similar question. Does a closed-setup in general change basic scumhunting principles or do they just allow/favor different styles of play? honestly I am treating this game like a standard Mini Mafia, with the knowledge that there is probably a few doods with nukes or powers revolving around nukes. AKA, re-skinned medics/vigs. and if there's anything I learned from minis, it's that there's always scum hiding in the lurkers. In general I'll always argue against policy lynches (because they're bad) but in a Mini, with so few people town simply cannot afford to have non-contributors whose alignment cannot be determined. People lurking scummily (yeah there's a difference between innocent lurking and scummily lurking) should be axed over someone with only a weak case on them. gonzaw! shouldn't you be spamming the thread by now? I doubt I need to ask 100 questions to everybody, considering this is a smaller game, so don't worry about that too much. I'll try not to "hurt your eyes" this time I think it's obvious that nobody likes lurkers, but lurking alone doesn't mean they should be lynched immediately. It just means you need to call them out, make them contribute, and put them under more scrutiny than other players, since they can easily fly unnoticed. @VE: I have to agree with johnny here, why do you prod someone about taking stances 1 post into the game? Even as pressure that doesn't seem very helpful. Also, I'd recomend nobody even slightly hint what nationality they are from. As far as I know, town don't get ANY information whatsoever if someone is US or SU, but scum can use that info to try and get their alternative win-con. So no nationality claims, nor any hint to them. If you have to claim just claim your role and nothing else. I'll prod whomever I want whenever I want for whatever reason whether you think it's helpful for you or not gonzaw. Now, let's talk about this generic/obvious advice you gave. I know why you did it (glare @ C_C) but the part that concerns me is bolded in your quote. As a member of town, I happen to know for a FACT that I don't know what "nationality" people are. So that begs the question...why preface your "advice" with the statement "As far as I know..."? It seems to me like you're trying too hard to appear clueless.
What a perfectly useless "question"! Perhaps I have "quotation tourettes" and can't help "myself". Perhaps I'm "communicating" with my "scum-team" in code, in spite of the fact that if I were scum I'd have a "quicktopic" or something to "communicate" with them in.
Perhaps you're trying to appear to be helpful.
Perhaps you can comment on something useful.
Perhaps not. <3
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
/confirm
Good morning, gentlemen.
First off, regarding our discussion of policy lynches: I personally apply a soft "lynch all lurkers" and "lynch all liars" policy to all the games in which I play. My first goal is always to lynch scum. Scum likes to lurk, and scum likes to lie. I am highly suspicious of lurkers and liars, but I will not automatically lynch every lurker and every liar-- this is too easily abused by scum. That being said, I have lynched lurkers and liars in the past and am not afraid to do so in this game. Nobody can convince me to modify my personal stance and I will not do so.
Secondarily, regarding setup: This is fairly simple. This is a closed setup with 10 town and 4 scum. Scum can win by either the traditional fashion, or by destroying 5 specific players or the other 5 specific players as an alternative wincon. It is immediately obvious that we should not share our alignment. Anarcy fo life
On March 27 2012 10:13 Nemesis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:19 zelblade wrote:
Blabla no lynch bad blahblah
In sch post mre ltr Do you mind posting something coherent? Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote: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. WIFOMIf we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers. Thanks for stating the obvious. This is a rather crappy post. Town SHOULD always take a stance. If your stance change throughout the game, then you just have to explain why it changed. Scum are the only one who should fear taking stances, as they can get caught when their explanation doesn't match with their stance.
The town should not take a unified stance. If we rigidly follow a unified stance scum will just crap on us. We must always adapt to the situation at hand. The idea that you're somehow gonna catch scum because of their thoughts on a POLICY LYNCH is so utterly preposterous as to be asinine in character. Policy lynches are the last resort of a lost town, not some vital centerpiece for scumhunting. I hope you can understand that.
![[image loading]](http://i.minus.com/iUBP2UtMo1zk2.gif)
In this image: Blazinghand and Nemesis.
|
On March 27 2012 11:51 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 11:48 Sinensis wrote:Also, I work every day from at least 5pm to 10pm EST. I will post very consistently after work near 10pm. So VisceraEyes, "what's" "with" "all" "these" "quotation" "marks" you use whenever you talk about "liars" or "scum" or "bad play"? Several Examples + Show Spoiler +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. On March 27 2012 08:14 VisceraEyes wrote:
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. On March 27 2012 10:07 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 09:52 Nemesis wrote:
Yo VE why you so scum this game, I'm getting my gun ready for you. Maybe if you accompanied your question with reasoning as to why I'm "so scum this game" instead of empty threats, I'd be more inclined to answer your question fully. What part of my play so far indicates that I'm "so scum"? On March 27 2012 11:38 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 11:24 gonzaw wrote:Got back from uni. Let's hunt some nazis. On March 27 2012 10:14 EchelonTee wrote:On March 27 2012 08:27 slOosh wrote:On March 27 2012 08:21 froggynoddy wrote:
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly). It shouldn't be at all different no? Actually I've been meaning to ask a similar question. Does a closed-setup in general change basic scumhunting principles or do they just allow/favor different styles of play? honestly I am treating this game like a standard Mini Mafia, with the knowledge that there is probably a few doods with nukes or powers revolving around nukes. AKA, re-skinned medics/vigs. and if there's anything I learned from minis, it's that there's always scum hiding in the lurkers. In general I'll always argue against policy lynches (because they're bad) but in a Mini, with so few people town simply cannot afford to have non-contributors whose alignment cannot be determined. People lurking scummily (yeah there's a difference between innocent lurking and scummily lurking) should be axed over someone with only a weak case on them. gonzaw! shouldn't you be spamming the thread by now? I doubt I need to ask 100 questions to everybody, considering this is a smaller game, so don't worry about that too much. I'll try not to "hurt your eyes" this time I think it's obvious that nobody likes lurkers, but lurking alone doesn't mean they should be lynched immediately. It just means you need to call them out, make them contribute, and put them under more scrutiny than other players, since they can easily fly unnoticed. @VE: I have to agree with johnny here, why do you prod someone about taking stances 1 post into the game? Even as pressure that doesn't seem very helpful. Also, I'd recomend nobody even slightly hint what nationality they are from. As far as I know, town don't get ANY information whatsoever if someone is US or SU, but scum can use that info to try and get their alternative win-con. So no nationality claims, nor any hint to them. If you have to claim just claim your role and nothing else. I'll prod whomever I want whenever I want for whatever reason whether you think it's helpful for you or not gonzaw. Now, let's talk about this generic/obvious advice you gave. I know why you did it (glare @ C_C) but the part that concerns me is bolded in your quote. As a member of town, I happen to know for a FACT that I don't know what "nationality" people are. So that begs the question...why preface your "advice" with the statement "As far as I know..."? It seems to me like you're trying too hard to appear clueless. What a perfectly useless "question"! Perhaps I have "quotation tourettes" and can't help "myself". Perhaps I'm "communicating" with my "scum-team" in code, in spite of the fact that if I were scum I'd have a "quicktopic" or something to "communicate" with them in. Perhaps you're trying to appear to be helpful. Perhaps you can comment on something useful. Perhaps not. <3
I'm sorry you feel it's a useless question. I wondering if there were any more clarifications coming on what the words you are quoting mean to you, or if it was just this post below.
On March 27 2012 08:14 VisceraEyes wrote:
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.
|
In general, the quotations are there to emphasize that I doubt the words are sincere. For example, in the post you quoted, the word "scummy" is quoted because I don't feel like catching someone in a minor lie is enough to make them scummy alone, so I quoted the word scummy.
I have a conversational style of posting, so if you see a word in quotes, you should envision me making finger-quotes around any single words that are in quotes...if that helps.
|
On March 27 2012 12:01 VisceraEyes wrote:In general, the quotations are there to emphasize that I doubt the words are sincere. For example, in the post you quoted, the word "scummy" is quoted because I don't feel like catching someone in a minor lie is enough to make them scummy alone, so I quoted the word scummy. I have a conversational style of posting, so if you see a word in quotes, you should envision me making finger-quotes around any single words that are in quotes...if that helps.
It helps. So if I'm understanding you're just trying to make your posts more subjective and less specific? Right?
|
I think if I wanted to make unclear, nonspecific posts I could do better than I'm doing.
So no, that's not the intent at all. If it bothers you, I can try to tone it down, but I make no guarantees. I have a style of posting that works for me.
|
On March 27 2012 11:38 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 11:24 gonzaw wrote:Got back from uni. Let's hunt some nazis. On March 27 2012 10:14 EchelonTee wrote:On March 27 2012 08:27 slOosh wrote:On March 27 2012 08:21 froggynoddy wrote:
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly). It shouldn't be at all different no? Actually I've been meaning to ask a similar question. Does a closed-setup in general change basic scumhunting principles or do they just allow/favor different styles of play? honestly I am treating this game like a standard Mini Mafia, with the knowledge that there is probably a few doods with nukes or powers revolving around nukes. AKA, re-skinned medics/vigs. and if there's anything I learned from minis, it's that there's always scum hiding in the lurkers. In general I'll always argue against policy lynches (because they're bad) but in a Mini, with so few people town simply cannot afford to have non-contributors whose alignment cannot be determined. People lurking scummily (yeah there's a difference between innocent lurking and scummily lurking) should be axed over someone with only a weak case on them. gonzaw! shouldn't you be spamming the thread by now? I doubt I need to ask 100 questions to everybody, considering this is a smaller game, so don't worry about that too much. I'll try not to "hurt your eyes" this time I think it's obvious that nobody likes lurkers, but lurking alone doesn't mean they should be lynched immediately. It just means you need to call them out, make them contribute, and put them under more scrutiny than other players, since they can easily fly unnoticed. @VE: I have to agree with johnny here, why do you prod someone about taking stances 1 post into the game? Even as pressure that doesn't seem very helpful. Also, I'd recomend nobody even slightly hint what nationality they are from. As far as I know, town don't get ANY information whatsoever if someone is US or SU, but scum can use that info to try and get their alternative win-con. So no nationality claims, nor any hint to them. If you have to claim just claim your role and nothing else. I'll prod whomever I want whenever I want for whatever reason whether you think it's helpful for you or not gonzaw. Now, let's talk about this generic/obvious advice you gave. I know why you did it (glare @ C_C) but the part that concerns me is bolded in your quote. As a member of town, I happen to know for a FACT that I don't know what "nationality" people are. So that begs the question...why preface your "advice" with the statement "As far as I know..."? It seems to me like you're trying too hard to appear clueless.
There may be a hidden town role out there that functions depending if its target is US or SU, or depending on how many there are of each.
Maybe there's a mason that can only recruit US players. Maybe there's a medic that can only save SU ones.
How would I know if I wasn't one of these roles myself?
The point is that I doubt there may be a role like that out there, and if there is it won't do us much good, at least to counteract the advantages scum get by nationality-claiming.
|
On March 27 2012 12:09 VisceraEyes wrote:
I think if I wanted to make unclear, nonspecific posts I could do better than I'm doing.
So no, that's not the intent at all. If it bothers you, I can try to tone it down, but I make no guarantees. I have a style of posting that works for me.
I don't care how you post. I just think lots of quotes is suspicious, because it leaves room for:
"But this is what I meant when I quoted this..." or
"But THAT is what I meant when I quoted that..."
Just don't do that.
|
On March 27 2012 11:52 Blazinghand wrote:/confirm Good morning, gentlemen. First off, regarding our discussion of policy lynches: I personally apply a soft "lynch all lurkers" and "lynch all liars" policy to all the games in which I play. My first goal is always to lynch scum. Scum likes to lurk, and scum likes to lie. I am highly suspicious of lurkers and liars, but I will not automatically lynch every lurker and every liar-- this is too easily abused by scum. That being said, I have lynched lurkers and liars in the past and am not afraid to do so in this game. Nobody can convince me to modify my personal stance and I will not do so. Secondarily, regarding setup: This is fairly simple. This is a closed setup with 10 town and 4 scum. Scum can win by either the traditional fashion, or by destroying 5 specific players or the other 5 specific players as an alternative wincon. It is immediately obvious that we should not share our alignment. Anarcy fo life Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 10:13 Nemesis wrote:On March 27 2012 08:19 zelblade wrote:
Blabla no lynch bad blahblah
In sch post mre ltr Do you mind posting something coherent? On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote: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. WIFOMIf we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers. Thanks for stating the obvious. This is a rather crappy post. Town SHOULD always take a stance. If your stance change throughout the game, then you just have to explain why it changed. Scum are the only one who should fear taking stances, as they can get caught when their explanation doesn't match with their stance. The town should not take a unified stance. If we rigidly follow a unified stance scum will just crap on us. We must always adapt to the situation at hand. The idea that you're somehow gonna catch scum because of their thoughts on a POLICY LYNCH is so utterly preposterous as to be asinine in character. Policy lynches are the last resort of a lost town, not some vital centerpiece for scumhunting. I hope you can understand that. In this image: Blazinghand and Nemesis.
Lol, ok one last post before I go to sleep.
Stop misrepresenting what I said to defend your scummate:
1. I never said that town should take a unified stance. Just that they should take a stance on important things.
2. I never said we shouldn't adapt. In fact, I explicitly said that stances do change, and you just need to explain it when they change.
3. I never said that discussing policy lynches are important.
Sinensis, would you please stop inflating useless topics?
|
On March 27 2012 12:22 Nemesis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 11:52 Blazinghand wrote:/confirm Good morning, gentlemen. First off, regarding our discussion of policy lynches: I personally apply a soft "lynch all lurkers" and "lynch all liars" policy to all the games in which I play. My first goal is always to lynch scum. Scum likes to lurk, and scum likes to lie. I am highly suspicious of lurkers and liars, but I will not automatically lynch every lurker and every liar-- this is too easily abused by scum. That being said, I have lynched lurkers and liars in the past and am not afraid to do so in this game. Nobody can convince me to modify my personal stance and I will not do so. Secondarily, regarding setup: This is fairly simple. This is a closed setup with 10 town and 4 scum. Scum can win by either the traditional fashion, or by destroying 5 specific players or the other 5 specific players as an alternative wincon. It is immediately obvious that we should not share our alignment. Anarcy fo life On March 27 2012 10:13 Nemesis wrote:On March 27 2012 08:19 zelblade wrote:
Blabla no lynch bad blahblah
In sch post mre ltr Do you mind posting something coherent? On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote: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. WIFOMIf we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers. Thanks for stating the obvious. This is a rather crappy post. Town SHOULD always take a stance. If your stance change throughout the game, then you just have to explain why it changed. Scum are the only one who should fear taking stances, as they can get caught when their explanation doesn't match with their stance. The town should not take a unified stance. If we rigidly follow a unified stance scum will just crap on us. We must always adapt to the situation at hand. The idea that you're somehow gonna catch scum because of their thoughts on a POLICY LYNCH is so utterly preposterous as to be asinine in character. Policy lynches are the last resort of a lost town, not some vital centerpiece for scumhunting. I hope you can understand that. In this image: Blazinghand and Nemesis. Lol, ok one last post before I go to sleep. Stop misrepresenting what I said to defend your scummate: 1. I never said that town should take a unified stance. Just that they should take a stance on important things. 2. I never said we shouldn't adapt. In fact, I explicitly said that stances do change, and you just need to explain it when they change. 3. I never said that discussing policy lynches are important. Sinensis, would you please stop inflating useless topics?
Just as soon as you are in a position to tell me what to do. I will ask whatever questions I want of whoever I want. Deal with it.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On March 27 2012 12:22 Nemesis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 11:52 Blazinghand wrote:/confirm Good morning, gentlemen. First off, regarding our discussion of policy lynches: I personally apply a soft "lynch all lurkers" and "lynch all liars" policy to all the games in which I play. My first goal is always to lynch scum. Scum likes to lurk, and scum likes to lie. I am highly suspicious of lurkers and liars, but I will not automatically lynch every lurker and every liar-- this is too easily abused by scum. That being said, I have lynched lurkers and liars in the past and am not afraid to do so in this game. Nobody can convince me to modify my personal stance and I will not do so. Secondarily, regarding setup: This is fairly simple. This is a closed setup with 10 town and 4 scum. Scum can win by either the traditional fashion, or by destroying 5 specific players or the other 5 specific players as an alternative wincon. It is immediately obvious that we should not share our alignment. Anarcy fo life On March 27 2012 10:13 Nemesis wrote:On March 27 2012 08:19 zelblade wrote:
Blabla no lynch bad blahblah
In sch post mre ltr Do you mind posting something coherent? On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote: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. WIFOMIf we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers. Thanks for stating the obvious. This is a rather crappy post. Town SHOULD always take a stance. If your stance change throughout the game, then you just have to explain why it changed. Scum are the only one who should fear taking stances, as they can get caught when their explanation doesn't match with their stance. The town should not take a unified stance. If we rigidly follow a unified stance scum will just crap on us. We must always adapt to the situation at hand. The idea that you're somehow gonna catch scum because of their thoughts on a POLICY LYNCH is so utterly preposterous as to be asinine in character. Policy lynches are the last resort of a lost town, not some vital centerpiece for scumhunting. I hope you can understand that. In this image: Blazinghand and Nemesis. Lol, ok one last post before I go to sleep. Stop misrepresenting what I said to defend your scummate: 1. I never said that town should take a unified stance. Just that they should take a stance on important things. 2. I never said we shouldn't adapt. In fact, I explicitly said that stances do change, and you just need to explain it when they change. 3. I never said that discussing policy lynches are important. Sinensis, would you please stop inflating useless topics?
1) the idea that the town should take a stance is not good. Individually, we should make our own stances and developed them with the discussion
3) discussion of policy lynches implies they are important. I believe they are important insofar as we use them in an appropriate faction.
It seems to me that your statements are unnecessarily aggressive and are hurting the town atmosphere. Your removal will help the town greatly and improve our discourse.
In any case, I think this will be appropriate:
##Vote: Sinensis
When you wake up I expect some actually helpful posts. Actually, I expect an OMGUS, but ideally you'd make some helpful posts.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FIZjv.gif)
come at me bro
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On March 27 2012 12:39 Blazinghand wrote:
In any case, I think this will be appropriate:
##Vote: Sinensis
ROFL OOPS TYPIOO
##Unvote
##Vote: Nemesis
NOTHING TO SEE HERE MOVE ALONG
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On March 22 2012 10:43 Hesmyrr wrote:Voting rules: 1. Voting is done in this thread. Do not PM me your vote.
I cannot find the thread. It appears to be an underline rather than a hyperlink. Help?
|
Also, there's only been one topic. It's topic. Not "topics [sic]." VisceraEyes using quotes. You weren't even part of that conversation.
|
Ok this might be where you misunderstood what I said.
1. By town making stances. I mean townies, now town as a whole.
3. I was discussing policy lynches to move discussion along. We have to start discussion from somewhere.
Also, I'm being unnecessary aggressive, what do you call those gifs? Maybe you can take your own advice, you hypocrite.
1) the idea that the town should take a stance is not good. Individually, we should make our own stances and developed them with the discussion
You just agreed with me right here. Cyber_cheese was saying that we shouldn't take a clear stance on anything because we might change our view later on. I pointed out how that is bad for town, tell me do you agree with what he is saying then?
|
EBWOP
1. 1. By town making stances. I mean townies, not town as a whole.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 27 2012 12:39 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 12:22 Nemesis wrote:On March 27 2012 11:52 Blazinghand wrote:/confirm Good morning, gentlemen. First off, regarding our discussion of policy lynches: I personally apply a soft "lynch all lurkers" and "lynch all liars" policy to all the games in which I play. My first goal is always to lynch scum. Scum likes to lurk, and scum likes to lie. I am highly suspicious of lurkers and liars, but I will not automatically lynch every lurker and every liar-- this is too easily abused by scum. That being said, I have lynched lurkers and liars in the past and am not afraid to do so in this game. Nobody can convince me to modify my personal stance and I will not do so. Secondarily, regarding setup: This is fairly simple. This is a closed setup with 10 town and 4 scum. Scum can win by either the traditional fashion, or by destroying 5 specific players or the other 5 specific players as an alternative wincon. It is immediately obvious that we should not share our alignment. Anarcy fo life On March 27 2012 10:13 Nemesis wrote:On March 27 2012 08:19 zelblade wrote:
Blabla no lynch bad blahblah
In sch post mre ltr Do you mind posting something coherent? On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote: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. WIFOMIf we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers. Thanks for stating the obvious. This is a rather crappy post. Town SHOULD always take a stance. If your stance change throughout the game, then you just have to explain why it changed. Scum are the only one who should fear taking stances, as they can get caught when their explanation doesn't match with their stance. The town should not take a unified stance. If we rigidly follow a unified stance scum will just crap on us. We must always adapt to the situation at hand. The idea that you're somehow gonna catch scum because of their thoughts on a POLICY LYNCH is so utterly preposterous as to be asinine in character. Policy lynches are the last resort of a lost town, not some vital centerpiece for scumhunting. I hope you can understand that. In this image: Blazinghand and Nemesis. Lol, ok one last post before I go to sleep. Stop misrepresenting what I said to defend your scummate: 1. I never said that town should take a unified stance. Just that they should take a stance on important things. 2. I never said we shouldn't adapt. In fact, I explicitly said that stances do change, and you just need to explain it when they change. 3. I never said that discussing policy lynches are important. Sinensis, would you please stop inflating useless topics? 1) the idea that the town should take a stance is not good. Individually, we should make our own stances and developed them with the discussion 3) discussion of policy lynches implies they are important. I believe they are important insofar as we use them in an appropriate faction. It seems to me that your statements are unnecessarily aggressive and are hurting the town atmosphere. Your removal will help the town greatly and improve our discourse. In any case, I think this will be appropriate: ##Vote: SinensisWhen you wake up I expect some actually helpful posts. Actually, I expect an OMGUS, but ideally you'd make some helpful posts. come at me bro
preface: this aint no chainsaw
blzinghand, I feel that you're being the unnecessarily aggressive one here. first you say it's bad that nemesis is using policy as a centerpiece for lynching, then you state it's bad that nemesis says policy lynch discussion isn't important? your arguement doesn't flow. and dude, you misread his original post; he's saying "town should take stance" as in townies should each have their own stance. ur being all flashy and stuff. is this normal BH?
+ Show Spoiler +where do you get your gifs?
|
On March 27 2012 12:43 Sinensis wrote:
Also, there's only been one topic. It's topic. Not "topics [sic]." VisceraEyes using quotes. You weren't even part of that conversation.
new topic! sinensis do you think blzinghand's vote on nemesis is resonable or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
