|
VE, you have been sheeping votes, never provided original play, demanded others contribute and convince you to kill sylencia or hopeless. In the end after saying you wouldn't kill Sylencia you are the one who hammers him.
Scummy.
However, if you choose to hammer Risk right now I will not accuse you have sheeping and will legitimately try to reevaluate not just you, but every player and the game in its entirety.
You have my solemn word!
|
Russian Federation140 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
SOMEONE DROP THE FUCKIN' HAMMA
Risk still lurkin' after so many got the discussion back into rolling, I suppose I'll treat it as definitive surrender.
Gogogo
##Unvote
##Vote risk.nuke
|
Russian Federation140 Posts
One thing first, medic protection pls ^_^
|
Russian Federation140 Posts
And if I still die and risk flips red, remember this one:
On April 09 2013 01:25 Ghor wrote:This looks like early "playful" interaction between scumbuddies. Casual pressure vote, no serious questions, no serious answers. Risk doesn't feel threatened, CC is fine that he doesn't answer, so his own question doesn't seem to really matter to him. More importantly, after risk gained two votes, he refers to CC's vote as being "fine, it's just a pressure vote" before Cheese even came back to the thread to unvote. He had no way of knowing how Cheese would react to what had been posted about risk and visibly didn't take that vote as serious even before Cheese came back. He does say it's odd that Cheese was still voting him and completely disappeared after the initial phase, but when Cheese comes back, risk ignores him and proceeds to pushing for hopeless. When Cheese came back, he even said he has no idea about why people voted risk, without commenting on the evidence or even acting consistently with the fact that he noticed risk lurking in early game already. In summary, I sense a whole lot of acting and carelessness about finding each other's alignment between the two, despite acting like they're both an early focus of each other initially. Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On April 02 2013 08:29 Lazermonkey wrote:On April 02 2013 07:58 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On April 02 2013 07:46 Lazermonkey wrote:On April 02 2013 07:40 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Blah blah blah policy blah blah On April 02 2013 07:36 Lazermonkey wrote:On April 02 2013 07:30 VisceraEyes wrote:
Okay, but policy-lynching them? That seems a little over-the-top in a 9 player game. Policy-lynching anyone in a 9 player game just seems like a bad idea. It's certainly something to factor in, but not killing someone over. In my experience, townies are more likely to lolhammer than scum are. Scum are generally much more careful in how they vote and if they hammer someone are much more likely to explain why thoroughly.
I don't support your policy. My problem is this: if we don't establish a HARD policy then we might end up in a really hairy situation where someone hammers a guy in a completely retarded way, and everyone will start defending him using the argument "but scum wouldn't be THAT dumb and suspicious". If everyone simply agrees with the policy then we will avoid stuff like that. Policy: Don't go full retard mode if you're town. Savvy? You'd think this would be common sense by now. Define retard mode. Isthat hammering someone too fast? Or something else? Do you agree with my points or not? Be sensible about your hammer vote and explain it yada yada yada. You're policy lynch proposal is bullshit, because half the thread wouldn't follow through with it. How someone goes about voting and hammering is what should be looked at, not just "lol he emotionally hammered the townzorz must be scum" Listen to the Mafia scumcast (Hapa had a bunch of stuff to say about British II in it pertaining to instant majority). Has a bunch of goodies in it. I never claimed that ignoring normal scum tells is the way to go but w/e. So you are saying that my policy is bullshit because noone would follow it but I think that is a very bad reasoning. Either you think my policy is bullshit because the reasoning is bullshit or you think the policy is good but that it will be hard for everyone to follow it and therefore quite useless policy ( or you simply agree with it but that doesn't seem to be the case ^^). I do think it is a useless policy if half of the players in the game simply disagrees with it. But in theory, if we could guarantee that everyone would follow the policy, would you agree with the points I made? No. I generally think policy lynches suck. And i dont think ive ever seen one work out for the best. Meanwhile ##vote: risk.nuke because said hi but doesnt wanna be nice and talk with us. Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 08:39 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On April 02 2013 08:37 risk.nuke wrote:
Worst vote ever. On the contrary, best vote ever. Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 08:44 risk.nuke wrote:On April 02 2013 08:39 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On April 02 2013 08:37 risk.nuke wrote:
Worst vote ever. On the contrary, best vote ever. I would argue that putting your vote on a townie is greatly suboptimal. Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 08:46 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:
Sooo risky, what say you to lazers policy shenannies? Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 08:52 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On April 02 2013 08:48 risk.nuke wrote:
You want me to spoil the ending and hand you the key to the test? Well i sure don't feel like studying. Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 20:21 risk.nuke wrote:
Glad you're capable of discussing anything at all without me.
Cheesecakes early vote on me was a pressure-vote. It was completely fine, What's weird and not fine is he doesn't follow it up or does anything when the person he pressure-voted gains additional votes.
People are asking me about the Kenpachi rule, I actually thought more people knew about it. Ghor, It was discussed in a post game I played one or two years ago, I don't think there were statistics but I remember people praised it's accuracy (before it got outed) Either way I know the post detailing the kenpachi rule was edited out because I tried to find it once.
I'll talk about Hapa after breakfast. Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 22:28 iamperfection wrote:Perfect count Risk.Nuke ( 3 ): Mr. Cheesecake, VisceraEyes, RebirthOfLeGenD VisceraEyes ( 0 ): RebirthOfLeGenD Sylencia ( 0 ): AxleGreaser Mr. CheeseCake ( 1 ): Sylencia Not Voting ( 5 ): AxleGreaser, Risk.Nuke, Ghor, Hopeless1der, LazerMonkey With 9 alive it takes 5 to lynch. This is instant majority lynch. If you see a mistake please notify us. Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 00:42 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Jesus you guys are active while I'm asleep. ##UnvoteI don't think we should lynch Risk today. How I got +2 to my pressure vote is beyond me. In regards to Sylencia's vote, cool -- Good to see you're paying attention. Nothing was happening so I slapped down a vote on Risk. 20 minutes passed and nothing from him so I went to bed. Now we have shit to work with. What alarmed me the most was RoL's vote. He explains it here. On April 02 2013 16:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
No, I explained with my vote why I had been doing it. I expanded on my reasoning in my last post. The last post showed risk.nuke continuing to do what I originally outlined. Like I said, it was like he was looking for someone to pick up the slack of the kenpachi tell. This seems a far cry to think someone is scum. Oh, it looked like he was waiting for someone to sheep the Kenpachi tell... really? I'm not a fan "it looked like he was doing something potentially scummy" instead of "yeah, this is scummy" I can't clearly read a thing Axle posts, at least Ghor I understand... On April 02 2013 22:32 Lazermonkey wrote:On April 02 2013 22:27 AxleGreaser wrote:On April 02 2013 22:15 Lazermonkey wrote:
Howdy folks!
@Axle: I take L-1 as one vote from lynch, am I correct?
Regarding risk: I'm not confident in voting him at the moment. While I agree that the "kenpachi-incident" makes him look kinda bad, he defended himself in a way I'm not sure scum would. I'd say that this could just as well be a strange town play rather than scum and it really comes down to WIFOM to figure out which one it is. + Show Spoiler + TBMK: in general use, L-1 = Lynch -1 = 1 more vote to Lynch. We are currently at L-2. So if you are "not confident in voting him at the moment.".... what do ? I'd actually not talk about my (potential)scum read just yet. I want a certain interaction to be happening first. Most probebly, that will occour later today. Lazer I want you to answer this question. Why do you use the parenthetical (potential)? How is somebody your potential scumread... scum have potential scumreads, town just have scumreads or town reads. Were you just waiting for somebody to slip up so you could call them out?
|
Wait, was that the hammer? o.O
|
|
|
Russian Federation140 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:39 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
VE, you have been sheeping votes, never provided original play, demanded others contribute and convince you to kill sylencia or hopeless. In the end after saying you wouldn't kill Sylencia you are the one who hammers him.
Scummy.
However, if you choose to hammer Risk right now I will not accuse you have sheeping and will legitimately try to reevaluate not just you, but every player and the game in its entirety.
You have my solemn word!
This is a pretty weird thing to say, you know. We don't even know if risk will flip red and it almost feels like you're offering VE a townread just cause he'd lynch him, no matter what alignment he is?
|
We shouldnt talk anymore.
|
HAMMER Count:
VisceraEyes ( 1 ): RebirthOfLeGenD, LazerMonkey
hopeless1der ( 0 ): risk.nuke, Ghor
risk.nuke ( 4 ): hopeless1der, Ghor, RebirthOfLeGenD, Mr. Cheesecake, Hopeless1der , Ghor
RebirthOfLegend ( 0 ): LazerMonkey, VisceraEyes, Hopeless1der
Mr. Cheesecake ( 1 ): VisceraEyes, risk.nuke, LazerMonkey
Ghor ( 1 ): Mr. Cheesecake, risk.nuke, LazerMonkey
Not Voting ( 0 ):
Hammer has fallen! No more talking until the next Daypost!
Please PM all night-actions to the host. Day will start on a random time delay after all actions are received.
|
Twilight:
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-02D7nDTVkng/UA-UIbmbXuI/AAAAAAAAA_s/2xEXRmxsJ8w/s1600/Noose.png)
risk.nuke...
+ Show Spoiler +
...has died!
Day will begin once I receive all night-actions, with a random time-delay to protect identities.
|
Day 3:
![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2008/12/04/gun460.jpg)
VisceraEyes has died!
Day 3 start. This day will end when someone is lynched.
|
|
|
On April 09 2013 05:49 Ghor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:39 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
VE, you have been sheeping votes, never provided original play, demanded others contribute and convince you to kill sylencia or hopeless. In the end after saying you wouldn't kill Sylencia you are the one who hammers him.
Scummy.
However, if you choose to hammer Risk right now I will not accuse you have sheeping and will legitimately try to reevaluate not just you, but every player and the game in its entirety.
You have my solemn word! This is a pretty weird thing to say, you know. We don't even know if risk will flip red and it almost feels like you're offering VE a townread just cause he'd lynch him, no matter what alignment he is?
I never said I would view him as town if he did it. I said that I would reevaluate things and try again.
|
Wow...
Nobody vote until we're absolutely-friggen-sure who we want to kill. Doctor, I suggest you claim.
I need a drink.
|
I wouldn't be opposed to the doctor claiming. It's mylo anyway so it's not like it matters.
|
Lazermonkey are you the doctor?
|
If doctor claims then 2 of the 3 remaining people are scum. I like dem odds.
|
Well, I'm not doctor at least..
On April 09 2013 08:40 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:
If doctor claims then 2 of the 3 remaining people are scum. I like dem odds. 2 of the 4.
|
Okay, so I'll be very busy today, though I may be able to post a bit arounf 16.00 CEST but I'm not certain.
Remember.
1.Don't vote untill we all know who we want to kill.
2.DON'T VOTE
3. -
|
On April 09 2013 16:21 Lazermonkey wrote:Well, I'm not doctor at least.. Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 08:40 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:
If doctor claims then 2 of the 3 remaining people are scum. I like dem odds. 2 of the 4.
You know your own alignment, so assuming you aren't the doctor it only leaves 2/3 other people who can be scum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
