EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XVI - Page 6
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
| ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
| ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On June 09 2012 11:00 grush57 wrote: Yeah, but absolutely nothing to talk about right now. There is no mayor vote so really nothing to talk about right now. You are trying to get people to believe that there is nothing to talk about on day 1. If people don't talk, there is no need for mafia to talk either, and this eliminates their chances of making scumslip. Then the night actions occur, where we can assume someone dies. But we still have "nothing" to talk about because no one talked on day 1 and we can't use the death to the town's advantage. Then another night action, more silence, ... , until the whole town is dead. This doesn't help the town, therefore On June 09 2012 11:51 Release wrote: grush57 must be scum because one of the rules of this game is "play to win" and well, he clearly isn't. | ||
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
On June 09 2012 12:04 Release wrote: You are trying to get people to believe that there is nothing to talk about on day 1. If people don't talk, there is no need for mafia to talk either, and this eliminates their chances of making scumslip. Then the night actions occur, where we can assume someone dies. But we still have "nothing" to talk about because no one talked on day 1 and we can't use the death to the town's advantage. Then another night action, more silence, ... , until the whole town is dead. This doesn't help the town, therefore That was when there were 2 posts? 3? | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On June 09 2012 12:02 grush57 wrote: Also, do you really think that I'm scum? Why the hell would a scum even post right now when 80% of people didn't even post yet. As far as i can tell, your agenda is to get a lurker lynch , you want to exclude yourself from the pool or lurkers. | ||
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
| ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
There are many things to talk about though and your defeatist, lets-not-talk attitude does not help town. Those 2/3 posts at least had content in them. Yours was simply trying to discourage discussion. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On June 09 2012 12:07 grush57 wrote: Yeah, but I'm not a lurker. Therefore, in your agenda, you won't be lynched. Pretty funny how logic works isn't it? | ||
|
KtheZ
United States813 Posts
Just a couple suggestions of mine. My two cents on the grush debate unfolding: grush has given a minor scumtell but it doesnt hurt to keep discussing the situation. Once we get enough opinions we could probably have enough information (hopefully) to decide an educated day 1 lynch. | ||
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
On June 09 2012 12:09 Release wrote: Therefore, in your agenda, you won't be lynched. Pretty funny how logic works isn't it? Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker. However, if there are no clear scum then a lurker lynch would be best. | ||
|
KtheZ
United States813 Posts
On June 09 2012 12:12 grush57 wrote: Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker. However, if there are no clear scum then a lurker lynch would be best. What kind of criterion is "clear scum"? A majority? | ||
|
KtheZ
United States813 Posts
| ||
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
On June 09 2012 12:14 KtheZ wrote: What kind of criterion is "clear scum"? A majority? When someone is very suspicious and someone makes a very solid case on them that is very reasonable. Someone who is probably going to flip scum. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On June 09 2012 12:12 grush57 wrote: Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker. However, if there are no clear scum then a lurker lynch would be best. ! Something to talk about. Guess you were lying earlier. | ||
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
On June 09 2012 12:21 Release wrote: ! Something to talk about. Guess you were lying earlier. WTF man. lol | ||
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
On June 09 2012 12:21 Release wrote: ! Something to talk about. Guess you were lying earlier. So you don't want to lynch a scum. You want to lynch a lurker that will give no information. Ah, that isn't scummy. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On June 09 2012 12:22 grush57 wrote: So you don't want to lynch a scum. You want to lynch a lurker that will give no information. Ah, that isn't scummy. Actually, you're right; that is scummy. It is a response to "Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker" and it should have been "No shit we want to lynch a scum." I'm sure you could have figured that out, and i'm pretty sure the others did and that's why they didn't feel the need to bring it up. | ||
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
On June 09 2012 12:25 Release wrote: Actually, you're right; that is scummy. It is a response to "Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker" and it should have been "No shit we want to lynch a scum." I'm sure you could have figured that out, and i'm pretty sure the others did and that's why they didn't feel the need to bring it up. How would I know if it was a typo or not. And find me a post that said that. | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
Lynching lurkers is still risky, but the chance of hitting scum is definitely there. As I said, the stakes are high, as every mislynch is painful. If the lurker in question flips green, then at least we have rid ourselves of a useless townie. This is why I still advocate it. People who are talking give us content to work with, and in the absence of a compelling case, we could do a lot worse than lynching a crappy townie/maybe get lucky hitting scum. That said, it's a worst case scenario. The onus is on us to smoke out the scum so we don't have to resort to the policy lynch. | ||
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
| ||
| ||
