EPTOn April 08 2012 09:35 GMarshal wrote:
OP edited to clarify the stealthy trait ^_^
OP edited to clarify the stealthy trait ^_^
Lol got ninjad hard. Point still stands, mechanics are useless atm. Leave that for the night.
TL Mafia LI - Page 12
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
Lol got ninjad hard. Point still stands, mechanics are useless atm. Leave that for the night. | ||
|
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
|
Grackaroni
United States9846 Posts
On April 08 2012 09:46 Mattchew wrote: If anyone mentions seal in a negative light again the wrath of god will look like Childs play Yeah... that brought him back. | ||
|
Janaan
United States381 Posts
Only things that have really stood out to me so far: I like VE's initiative to get rid of lurking in a proactive way. My town games have pretty much been ruined by just a couple people lurking, and I imagine with more people playing, that problem could potentially be even worse. Sl0osh, I know you're a pretty smart guy, I find it interesting that you didn't understand the Stealthy mechanic, at least well enough to have a basic understanding of it. The first thing that came to my mind when you asked for clarification? You could need more information because you ARE stealthy. I've got my eye on you. Other than that, so far it seems to be mostly people posting fluffy first hour of Day 1 statements as people often do. God Save the Queen! | ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
Hmm... I wonder how we can remedy that .... I'm trying to start discussion. If you don't like the topic, then change it; don't just say you don't like it and go off lurking some more. I'm going to be very busy Easter, so I'm trying to kickstart things off (especially with this 3hr boon) and make day 1 productive. Janaan - You found it pertinent to point out to the thread that I'm pretty smart but suspiciously stupid for not understanding the stealth mechanic. You don't think we can get role info from a direct PM to hosts? You call most people fluffy - what do you want to talk about? Zephirdd - Same for you. What do you want to talk about? | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
On April 08 2012 10:03 slOosh wrote: Ok. Let's do some analysis right now. Oh wait you can't because no one has posted anything? Hmm... I wonder how we can remedy that .... I'm trying to start discussion. If you don't like the topic, then change it; don't just say you don't like it and go off lurking some more. I'm going to be very busy Easter, so I'm trying to kickstart things off (especially with this 3hr boon) and make day 1 productive. Janaan - You found it pertinent to point out to the thread that I'm pretty smart but suspiciously stupid for not understanding the stealth mechanic. You don't think we can get role info from a direct PM to hosts? You call most people fluffy - what do you want to talk about? Zephirdd - Same for you. What do you want to talk about? I already started the discussion I wanted to generate. Day 1 is always boring so I shouldnt expect much from the very first few minutes. I find it useless to talk about a night only mechanic. I find it scummy that janaan instantly accused you of having stealth abilities when scum can pretty much ask their allies for that. oh and in case it wasnt clear, the "scum" on my post was more of a joke towards all the first few BS posts. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
come at me. | ||
|
Grackaroni
United States9846 Posts
the plot thickens.... | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
 mattchew defiant until the end lolI kind of wish there was an election. elections = good for generating discussion. @sloosh lurkers can be a pretty big problem, but in a bigger game you have more time to call them out and get them to put forth some content that can reveal their alignment. Instead of us reaching lylo in 2 days with tons of scummy lurkers, we have some time to do stuffz. Another important thing in big games is thread readability. If possible, instead of responding with one liners back and forth with people over random topics, consolidating multiple points within a few posts goes a long way in making the atmosphere pro-town. Also means that it's easier to follow who is contributing genuinely and who is just posting fluffy shiz. WBG I'm counterclaiming you; I'm the real vanilla town. nice try fake claiming mr. scum. | ||
|
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
I'd like to add contribute something to the thread right now, but there's not too much I can say. Lynching lurkers is fine, lynching people who aren't playing is not, mechanics should be discussed during the night, and seeing Mattchew being crushed by robots gave me a weird feeling that I'm not willing to talk about with anyone other than a licensed therapist. Presently, I'm on vacation for Easter. I'll be back tomorrow night. To those of you who celebrate Easter, happy Easter! To those of you who do not, happy Easter!  | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
 is everyone watching IPL or something.On April 08 2012 12:13 ghost_403 wrote: I'd like to add contribute something to the thread right now, but there's not too much I can say. Lynching lurkers is fine, lynching people who aren't playing is not, mechanics should be discussed during the night, and seeing Mattchew being crushed by robots gave me a weird feeling that I'm not willing to talk about with anyone other than a licensed therapist. While I agree with most of what is said here, that "mechanics should be discussed during the night" is a dangerous idea. While true that discussing mechanics during the day can be pointless/waste of time (especially in a standard game like this), if you're not careful about how you discuss mechanics at night, Mafia gets the chance to WIFOM nigh actions based on what people say. AKA, avoid blue directing kthxbai @Zealos, I find it ironic that you say jdub's posts are useless, when you've made several posts this game that have absolutely no content. Any opinions on what's been said so far? | ||
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On April 08 2012 11:41 EchelonTee wrote: finally rolled town mattchew defiant until the end lolI kind of wish there was an election. elections = good for generating discussion. @sloosh lurkers can be a pretty big problem, but in a bigger game you have more time to call them out and get them to put forth some content that can reveal their alignment. Instead of us reaching lylo in 2 days with tons of scummy lurkers, we have some time to do stuffz. Another important thing in big games is thread readability. If possible, instead of responding with one liners back and forth with people over random topics, consolidating multiple points within a few posts goes a long way in making the atmosphere pro-town. Also means that it's easier to follow who is contributing genuinely and who is just posting fluffy shiz. WBG I'm counterclaiming you; I'm the real vanilla town. nice try fake claiming mr. scum. I don't like this guy. Your smiley face is suspect. Why talk about something isn't going to impact this game at all? That's post game talk. It's funny that you mention fluff since that's all your post is. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
I was responding to sloosh. Would you rather the thread be full of one liner accusations, as that seems to be your playstyle for this game? | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On April 08 2012 13:08 EchelonTee wrote: Smiley face is suspect? Damn you're really stretching what you find suspicious, if you find internet expressions to be suspicious. I'm referencing the fact that I've rolled scum like 5 out of 7 times in the games I've played, and I've gotten tired of it. I was responding to sloosh. Would you rather the thread be full of one liner accusations, as that seems to be your playstyle for this game? I didn't accuse you of anything in that post. ##vote EchelonTee | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
you posted On April 08 2012 13:02 Risen wrote: Your smiley face is suspect. So I said On April 08 2012 13:08 EchelonTee wrote: Smiley face is suspect? Damn you're really stretching what you find suspicious, if you find internet expressions to be suspicious. You said my smiley face is "suspect". I said that it's a stretch to say a smiley face is suspicious. I didn't claim you "accused" me of anything specific. You're vote is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY nonsensical. Are you just REALLY REALLY bad at logic, or are you actively trying to cause chaos? | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On April 08 2012 13:19 EchelonTee wrote: ........What? you posted So I said You said my smiley face is "suspect". I said that it's a stretch to say a smiley face is suspicious. I didn't claim you "accused" me of anything specific. You're vote is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY nonsensical. Are you just REALLY REALLY bad at logic, or are you actively trying to cause chaos? Is there a reason you're editing my quotes in your posts? Is it so when someone goes through your filter they don't see the entire quote? You stated that all I was posting were one-liner accusations. If I wasn't accusing "you" in my post that upset you then who was I accusing? The air? You're my vote for the time being. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
| ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
On April 08 2012 13:24 Risen wrote: 1.Is there a reason you're editing my quotes in your posts? Is it so when someone goes through your filter they don't see the entire quote? 2.You stated that all I was posting were one-liner accusations. If I wasn't accusing "you" in my post that upset you then who was I accusing? The air? You're my vote for the time being. 1.Those quotes that you are directly implying that I am mispresenting are literally on this same page. if anyone looks out our filters, they will see the pertinent quotes right above the post I already made. I'm not being unclear at all in that post. 2.This group of sentences doesn't make any logical or semantic sense. 1st: Yes, I stated that all you are posting are one-liner accusations. You are still doing that, but making progressively less sense. Laughably enough, this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with your next sentence. 2nd: You earlier said "I didn't accuse you of anything in that post". Yet here you are saying "If I wasn't accusing 'you' whoI"? Your statement here contradicts your earlier statement. Did you accuse me of anything in that earlier post or not? I stated that I didn't comment on whether you did or did not specifically accuse me of something, because it's really unclear of why you voted me in the first place. That can happen when you post 1 unexplained unsubstantiated line, and then a vote. You still haven't explained why my actions are scummy. Give it a try soon, your fake case is becoming less and less amusing to respond to. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
| ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On April 08 2012 13:40 EchelonTee wrote: just for you I'll put your whole quote here, so that no one thinks I am, egads, maliciously editing -_- 1.Those quotes that you are directly implying that I am mispresenting are literally on this same page. if anyone looks out our filters, they will see the pertinent quotes right above the post I already made. I'm not being unclear at all in that post. 2.This group of sentences doesn't make any logical or semantic sense. 1st: Yes, I stated that all you are posting are one-liner accusations. You are still doing that, but making progressively less sense. Laughably enough, this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with your next sentence. 2nd: You earlier said "I didn't accuse you of anything in that post". Yet here you are saying "If I wasn't accusing 'you' whoI"? Your statement here contradicts your earlier statement. Did you accuse me of anything in that earlier post or not? I stated that I didn't comment on whether you did or did not specifically accuse me of something, because it's really unclear of why you voted me in the first place. That can happen when you post 1 unexplained unsubstantiated line, and then a vote. You still haven't explained why my actions are scummy. Give it a try soon, your fake case is becoming less and less amusing to respond to. I have two options in my mind here. 1) you're an idiot 2) you're scum trying to throw dust into the air In case you're 1. There's nothing contradictory when I said I wasn't accusing you of anything followed by calling you out for saying I was accusing you. One does not follow the other. This isn't hard. | ||
| ||
