On June 09 2012 10:39 Release wrote: Low activity levels and lurkers are Town-Killers. Start talking, or i will find you, and i will shove a dirty sock up you anus.
Yeah, but absolutely nothing to talk about right now. There is no mayor vote so really nothing to talk about right now.
On June 09 2012 11:47 KtheZ wrote: Er not roll call, that's not the word i was looking for. I mean look for at least 1 or 2 posts from each person 4-5 hours before the voting period.
Yeah, you should always check people's filters and make analysis on them.
On June 09 2012 11:38 grush57 wrote: (What case?) Whats to talk about, seriously give me something lol. People are lurking? Yeah mlg is on and it's not even 3 hours.
my bad. The case against you
Provide some analysis to prove your case.
Also, the first thing to do as town is to prove your innocent so people don't tunnel you all day.
On June 09 2012 10:39 Release wrote: Low activity levels and lurkers are Town-Killers. Start talking, or i will find you, and i will shove a dirty sock up you anus.
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 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?
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.
Now your helpi No shit we want to lynch a lurker. Thank you for repeating points that have already been made.
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.
How would I know if it was a typo or not. And find me a post that said that.
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?
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.
Now your helpi No shit we want to lynch a lurker. Thank you for repeating points that have already been made.
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.
How would I know if it was a typo or not. And find me a post that said that.
You would know because of the tone. I responded as if it were dead obvious. Your "Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker" was something that was dead obvious. Therefore, the two are likely to be linked.
That said what? "i'm pretty sure the others did and that's why they didn't feel the need to bring it up." means that there won't be other posts to say "that"
How stupid of me for me to think what you mean by what you type.
On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote: Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me.
i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching.
Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing?
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote: Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol.
"Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!!
Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread.
On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote: Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me.
i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching.
Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing?
Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote: Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol.
"Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!!
Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread.
On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote: Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me.
i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching.
Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing?
Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum.
On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote: I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen
I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that.
Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote: Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol.
"Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!!
Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote: Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me.
i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching.
Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing?
Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum.
On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote: I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen
I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that.
Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ.
Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content.
Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker."
I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts.
I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important.
I posted before them and I answered their questions of what I said, I'm not just blindly echoing their thoughts. Plus, with all the lurkers the only thing to talk about is lynching policy and the lurkers.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote: Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol.
"Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!!
Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote: Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me.
i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching.
Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing?
Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum.
On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote: I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen
I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that.
Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ.
Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content.
Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker."
I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts.
I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important.
Oh, and please contribute of how you want to lynch please I want to see.
On June 09 2012 23:09 ha236 wrote: As a first time player I probably would have made the same mistake grush did (I don't know if this is his first time but w/e) and say that there is nothing to talk about on the first day, but as Release said that obviously puts us in a bad situation when no one is posting at all. Also the content of grush's posts has been pretty lackluster but again, seeing as this is a noob-game I think that's something we have to expect.
This is a soft defense of grush, based on the sentiment that a first time player makes mistakes, yet you don't care enough to check if this really is his first game? How is that 'w/e' when your defense of him relies on qualifying the mistakes he is making as first time player mistakes?
On June 09 2012 11:51 Release wrote: Depending on how many people are lurking and how many people appear scummy, we have to adjust our strategy. Right now, Grush is appearing incredibly scummy, but we can't let the lurkers off the hook.
Grush, pick up your game. To be honest, grush57 must be scum because one of the rules of this game is "play to win" and well, he clearly isn't.
On June 09 2012 10:39 Release wrote: Low activity levels and lurkers are Town-Killers. Start talking, or i will find you, and i will shove a dirty sock up you anus.
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.
That was when there were 2 posts? 3?
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.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote: Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol.
"Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!!
Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote: Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me.
i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching.
Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing?
Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum.
On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote: I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen
I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that.
Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ.
Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content.
Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker."
I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts.
I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote: Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol.
"Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!!
Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote: Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me.
i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching.
Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing?
Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum.
On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote: I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen
I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that.
Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ.
Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content.
Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker."
I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts.
I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important.
I posted before them and I answered their questions of what I said, I'm not just blindly echoing their thoughts. Plus, with all the lurkers the only thing to talk about is lynching policy and the lurkers.
subtle, very subtle, but see how you're avoiding me?
On June 09 2012 13:31 grush57 wrote: You just posted exactly what I posted 2 pages ago. Seriously, stop saying stuff every townie sais.
"Yeah, and that's why i haven't posted until this moment. But since you insist to not read what i have already said, i feel that you need to read this in order to see how i want to lynch "
You told me to write that did you not? I told you that everyone (who wants to appear townie) will post the same thing did I not? That why i included the bolded phrase, to show that only you wanted to read what i wrote. That only you wanted me to make the extra post that would inevitably clog up the thread.
Answer me this: Why is it only you who wants me to make a post to answer a question that has already been answered?
On June 10 2012 05:14 Release wrote: lazermonkey, you were putting words in grush's mouth. Stop it.
Grush, i find it incredibly convenient that in all of this time, you have not answered to me.
On June 09 2012 11:51 Release wrote: Depending on how many people are lurking and how many people appear scummy, we have to adjust our strategy. Right now, Grush is appearing incredibly scummy, but we can't let the lurkers off the hook.
Grush, pick up your game. To be honest, grush57 must be scum because one of the rules of this game is "play to win" and well, he clearly isn't.
On June 09 2012 12:08 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:05 grush57 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:04 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 11:00 grush57 wrote:
On June 09 2012 10:39 Release wrote: Low activity levels and lurkers are Town-Killers. Start talking, or i will find you, and i will shove a dirty sock up you anus.
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.
That was when there were 2 posts? 3?
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.
On June 09 2012 13:11 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:56 grush57 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:51 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote: Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol.
"Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!!
Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote: Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me.
i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching.
Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing?
Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum.
On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote: I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen
I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that.
Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ.
Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content.
Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker."
I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts.
I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important.
On June 09 2012 13:19 grush57 wrote:
On June 09 2012 13:11 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:56 grush57 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:51 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote: Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol.
"Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!!
Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote: Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me.
i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching.
Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing?
Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum.
On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote: I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen
I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that.
Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ.
Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content.
Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker."
I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts.
I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important.
I posted before them and I answered their questions of what I said, I'm not just blindly echoing their thoughts. Plus, with all the lurkers the only thing to talk about is lynching policy and the lurkers.
subtle, very subtle, but see how you're avoiding me?
On June 09 2012 13:40 Release wrote:
On June 09 2012 13:31 grush57 wrote: You just posted exactly what I posted 2 pages ago. Seriously, stop saying stuff every townie sais.
"Yeah, and that's why i haven't posted until this moment. But since you insist to not read what i have already said, i feel that you need to read this in order to see how i want to lynch "
You told me to write that did you not? I told you that everyone (who wants to appear townie) will post the same thing did I not? That why i included the bolded phrase, to show that only you wanted to read what i wrote. That only you wanted me to make the extra post that would inevitably clog up the thread.
Answer me this: Why is it only you who wants me to make a post to answer a question that has already been answered?
Still no answer
LOL, my answer was the sarcastic remark...
That is you answer to why discouraging discussion is playing to win for town? Why your post of the first 3 or 4 was the only one to lack content? Why you lied about my post (labelling them as 1-liners)? Why you insist on repeating obvious generic pro-town words in your posts? Why you literally wanted me to post crap so you could call it crap?
And ofc, i don't believe for a second that the sarcastic remark counts as a response to all those, why you have been avoiding answering these for such a long time?
Thanks for making a post with all the questions in them. I'll get to them.
On June 10 2012 05:47 s0Lstice wrote: Grush, the best way to defend yourself is to hunt scum. Spend your time doing that, not wasting all of your time responding to Release.
Should that go in the Mafia QT?
But if he does turn out to be scum, we shouldn't be giving him advice. That's what the post game is for.
That post was useless. Don't give information to the enemy? Wow, never thought of that.
On June 10 2012 04:54 s0Lstice wrote: Very happy to see that the discussion has picked up.
Now I want to talk about ha236
Let's look at his post on grush and LazerMonkey.
On June 09 2012 23:09 ha236 wrote: As a first time player I probably would have made the same mistake grush did (I don't know if this is his first time but w/e) and say that there is nothing to talk about on the first day, but as Release said that obviously puts us in a bad situation when no one is posting at all. Also the content of grush's posts has been pretty lackluster but again, seeing as this is a noob-game I think that's something we have to expect.
This is a soft defense of grush, based on the sentiment that a first time player makes mistakes, yet you don't care enough to check if this really is his first game? How is that 'w/e' when your defense of him relies on qualifying the mistakes he is making as first time player mistakes?
Then you talk about LaserMonkey..
On June 09 2012 23:09 ha236 wrote: After this discussion ended we tasted some new blood in the thread - Lazermonkey and Zen man. While not being able to get a good "read" on any of you two (you not having posted much yet) some of Lazermonkey's comments on the Release-grush discussion seemed strange to me.
On June 09 2012 11:38 grush57 wrote: (What case?) Whats to talk about, seriously give me something lol. People are lurking? Yeah mlg is on and it's not even 3 hours
So your third post is this. Now you changed your mind. It's fine if people lurk.
He does not say that it is "fine if people lurk". My interpretation of the sentances is that he does not know what to post about and then proposes the subject of why people are not posting and offers his explanation (being that the game just started, people might not be by the computer and even if they are they may be watching MLG).
On June 09 2012 13:55 grush57 wrote: K well it's hard to do with half the people didn't even post yet. I wouldn't be suprised if the 2 mafia are in those lurkers.
So now you are once again really suspicious of people not posting. Also if there are two mafia among the lurkers it means that you have a townread on s0Lstice, KtheZ and Release. Correct?
In this paragraph Lazermonkey is trying to make the rest of us believe that grush said something he has not, that he is "suspicious of people not posting". Grush says he "wouldn't be surprised if the two mafia are in those lurkers" and from this Lazermonkey believes him to have a town read on the rest of the posters at that time.
Lastly, I like the way Lazermonkey explained his stance on lurkers (two different kinds) however I don't think you can justifiably apply the one about posting stuff with no actual content so early on in the game and I ultimately agree that grush has been changing his stance on whether it is good or not to lynch lurkers.
Very loud contradiction. If Lazermonkey's comments are strange then why are you agreeing with them? Why did you defend grush if you think Lazermonkey has something there?
##FoS: ha236
To check if this really is Grush's first game is a tremendous waste of time. There are far too many game to check. (i believe we have 55 regular mafias and 15 newb ones.) To me it looks like he is trying to buddy up to grush but i can't be sure of that. I agree; playing the noob card as reasoning is too much assumptions.
It looks more like the two quoted posts are strange (and putting words in grush's mouth) but the agreement is that grush has been wishy-washy.
I think ha is setting himself to jump on the bandwagon if there is one, or to avoid starting one if there isn't.
How is checking me if that was a noob mistake or not a tremendous amount of time?
On June 10 2012 05:47 s0Lstice wrote: Grush, the best way to defend yourself is to hunt scum. Spend your time doing that, not wasting all of your time responding to Release.
Should that go in the Mafia QT?
But if he does turn out to be scum, we shouldn't be giving him advice. That's what the post game is for.
That post was useless. Don't give information to the enemy? Wow, never thought of that.
Solstice clearly didn't think of that.
Another sarcastic remark? What happened to answering those questions? Why aren't you hunting scum? Why haven't you provided any analysis?
On June 10 2012 16:23 KtheZ wrote: ha: I've looked through his posts and, besides a soft defense of grush, he doesn't appear that scummy to me.
Personal risk analysis: chance ha is mafia: 22-25% chance ha is mafia given grush flips:44-55%
All of these percentages are based on "as of now"
K, we all know ha is mafia and that post pretty much tells who the scum team is. Besides defending a suspicious player and being very suspicious, he isn't scummy to me. Random ass numbers. He isn't making a bold move and a clear opinion on things. Very scummy. As town you have to stick to your guns like Release.That's why Release is my only 100% town read. Also, all the people somewhat defending me right now are town as well, as I know I'm town. The mafia are going to push me as I'm the most suspicious and somewhat defending Ha like KtheZ is.
On June 10 2012 16:23 KtheZ wrote: ha: I've looked through his posts and, besides a soft defense of grush, he doesn't appear that scummy to me.
Personal risk analysis: chance ha is mafia: 22-25% chance ha is mafia given grush flips:44-55%
All of these percentages are based on "as of now"
K, we all know ha is mafia and that post pretty much tells who the scum team is. Besides defending a suspicious player and being very suspicious, he isn't scummy to me. Random ass numbers. He isn't making a bold move and a clear opinion on things. Very scummy. As town you have to stick to your guns like Release.That's why Release is my only 100% town read. Also, all the people somewhat defending me right now are town as well, as I know I'm town. The mafia are going to push me as I'm the most suspicious and somewhat defending Ha like KtheZ is.
Very bad logic here. If scum smell that a lynch is going your way they could easily put up defense in favor of you. Then if we still misslynch you(assuming you are town now...) they gain town cred for defending you. Also this post contain contradiction. You say Release is 100% town read for you but also that scum would push you because you look suspicous. Release have been the one pushing you hardest this far. How can you have 100% townread on him then?
Because he is actually bold and knows how to play town. Town makes mistakes too.
Okay, so KtheZ is town as I doubt a mafia would fake it, I'm town, Release is town, Lazermonkey is town,so basically the 2 mafia are out of: Shiapo, Vivax and ha236.(3 people left)
On June 14 2012 04:37 ShiaoPi wrote: Lazer, right now I am more or less just waiting for the flip of grush. Nothing more to say right now, as he will be our lynch today, even if he is a townie his play is soo ridiculously anti-town that we are probably better off without him
ShiaoPi is confirmed mafia, the question is who else? Probably ha, he doesn't care if a town gets lynched EXCEPT THAT HE WILL LOSE (If he is town(he isn't though)) if a townie gets lynched.
EPT
