EPTAnyway, I was going to throw my vote right back at nobodywonder, but I feel VayneAuthority is slightly suspicious. Wrong lynching is obviously bad but mafia can use the extra, safe time to more effect I think.
Time to get breakfast and ponder.
Newbie Mini Mafia XLI - Page 8
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Sugarfluff
Sweden132 Posts
Anyway, I was going to throw my vote right back at nobodywonder, but I feel VayneAuthority is slightly suspicious. Wrong lynching is obviously bad but mafia can use the extra, safe time to more effect I think. Time to get breakfast and ponder. | ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
What makes VayneAuthority suspicious to you? | ||
|
Sugarfluff
Sweden132 Posts
| ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
On May 04 2013 17:23 Sugarfluff wrote: For me it's the attitude towards not lynching on the first day. I do think we should lynch, cause as I said I think mafia can use the extra time more, as well as the serial killer. This is my first game though so I'm not sure if not lynching on day 1 is a common strategy, if so I'd love to hear the reasons behind it. Where does he show his intentions of a no-lynch? | ||
|
Sugarfluff
Sweden132 Posts
| ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
| ||
|
Sugarfluff
Sweden132 Posts
Feels kind of weird that you'd make an argument against Vayne, line up all the possible ways to interpret his first two posts and then question me when I'm basically agreeing with you. But I was gonna chalk that up to you wanting to get the ball rolling, which I suppose is working, so good job on that. | ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
| ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
On May 04 2013 18:30 Targe wrote: I have to agree with jampidampi on Vayne, both of his posts are general comments, neither contribute to important discussion on day 1. Does that make him scum in your eyes? | ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
You cannot base someone being scum off two posts, but he isn't off to a good start if he's trying to prove he's not, he's no.1 scum for me for now. | ||
|
shirokami
Finland107 Posts
So about the LAL. It's good for the reason that there are zero reasons to lurk in a thread-only game. Also I will only have my phone until tomorrow, so my posts today may lack some. | ||
|
Spicydinosaur
United States382 Posts
On May 04 2013 15:08 jampidampi wrote: Like this post of yours? I'm not sold on policy lynching. If we agree to policy lynch, it creates an easy way for scum to mask themselves in the town. And if we agree on a policy, scum can just avoid doing whatever we policy lynch for. Like just posting a bit more than the lurkiest lurker. What I suggest is leaving lurkers for our blues to handle. Scummy lurkers are shot by vigis, null lurkers are checked by cops, towny lurkers are not are a big concern. I would argue that my statement is isnt a waste and adds value. This a game for new players, some of whom may not know a lot about lurking and such. This my first game so i had to do a some reading up on it and i doubt im alone on that. Making others aware of it encourages deeper reading of posts because scum will be posting. Why do you jampidampi, think it doesn't add anything? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
@VayneAuthority - On May 04 2013 14:09 VayneAuthority wrote: Not Enough information to know whether we should policy lynch lurkers? The whole point of the policy vote is to get information. Saying that you want to see votes before you decide whether you want lynch lurkers sounds pretty bad. Like you're giving yourself an out in case your scum teammates starts to gather votes.Not enough information yet to know whether I want to lynch lurkers or not. I need at least a post from everyone first, as well as some votes to come in. then we'll see @jampidampi - On May 04 2013 15:08 jampidampi wrote: Yes, rolled town again. Why post something like this instead of trying to create discussion? Like this post of yours? I'm not sold on policy lynching. If we agree to policy lynch, it creates an easy way for scum to mask themselves in the town. And if we agree on a policy, scum can just avoid doing whatever we policy lynch for. Like just posting a bit more than the lurkiest lurker. What I suggest is leaving lurkers for our blues to handle. Scummy lurkers are shot by vigis, null lurkers are checked by cops, towny lurkers are not are a big concern. First of all, what's the point of telling us you rolled town? Now, to answer you about scum masking themselves w/ policy: the point of LaL is not to actually lynch the lurkers. It's to make it so there are no lurkers. We want everyone putting as much information and opinions out there. But the wierd thing about you saying that you're not sold on policy lynching lurkers is that you then vote a lurker. This is your next post: On May 04 2013 17:20 jampidampi wrote: Seems like you got sold on it pretty quickly.My votes on you to pile up the pressure. Many votes on one lurker makes all lurker fear for their life. Even better if the vote is on an scummer. The only way to make use of day one is to make scummers fear for their life. What makes VayneAuthority suspicious to you? | ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
On May 04 2013 22:45 Spicydinosaur wrote: I would argue that my statement is isnt a waste and adds value. This a game for new players, some of whom may not know a lot about lurking and such. This my first game so i had to do a some reading up on it and i doubt im alone on that. Making others aware of it encourages deeper reading of posts because scum will be posting. Why do you jampidampi, think it doesn't add anything? Anyone with a brain would first get an idea how to play, not just jump into a game. You're statement, when thought about a little, reads: "scum don't scumhunt". Isn't that like the first thing everyone tells you is a scumtell when they start playing? Even if they didn't read any guides on how to play, with a little bit of thinking they would arrive at similiar scumtells: scum don't contribute/fake contrinutions. And your original statement talks about posts adding little to discussion. Not about adding nothing to the discussion. In your post you just went along with the thread sentiment of policy lynching lurkers while adding something of little value that didn't advance the discussion, unless of course it was your intention all along to get called out for that post. | ||
|
Spicydinosaur
United States382 Posts
On May 04 2013 23:03 jampidampi wrote: Anyone with a brain would first get an idea how to play, not just jump into a game. You're statement, when thought about a little, reads: "scum don't scumhunt". Isn't that like the first thing everyone tells you is a scumtell when they start playing? Even if they didn't read any guides on how to play, with a little bit of thinking they would arrive at similiar scumtells: scum don't contribute/fake contrinutions. And your original statement talks about posts adding little to discussion. Not about adding nothing to the discussion. In your post you just went along with the thread sentiment of policy lynching lurkers while adding something of little value that didn't advance the discussion, unless of course it was your intention all along to get called out for that post. Insults are not a productive way to get information. Your post just continues your overall assumptions of this game and apply them to everyone. As for the remaining lurkers, it seems that a votes on a lurker gets them posting. Should we continue this trend until all are posting? Ie: vote for a lurker, then when they start posting unvote them? | ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
On May 04 2013 22:51 JarJarDrinks wrote: @jampidampi - First of all, what's the point of telling us you rolled town? Ooh, I called myself town, I must be scum. /sarcasm Now, to answer you about scum masking themselves w/ policy: the point of LaL is not to actually lynch the lurkers. It's to make it so there are no lurkers. We want everyone putting as much information and opinions out there. LAL = Lynch All Lurkers. How is the point of LAL not lynching the lurkers? It doesn't matter how hard you state that you will lynch all lurkers, unless you actually lynch them all there will always be lurkers. Policy lynching aims to remove a certain type of behaviour or a certain type of action from the game. If you don't enforce the policy, it may as well not be. But the wierd thing about you saying that you're not sold on policy lynching lurkers is that you then vote a lurker. This is your next post:Seems like you got sold on it pretty quickly. At this early stage, the only purpose of votes is to pile them up on someone to pile up the pressure. One or two votes mean nothing. But pile four to five on a player? He's gonna feel the pressure and do something about it. No one likes to be on the chopping block. Especially scum. They tend to slip up when under heavy pressure. At this stage, if you have no purpose for your vote, you should just put it onto someone, who already has votes. Which is what I did. And you failed to tell anyone how any of this would make me suspicious. How does anything you said point to me being scum? | ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
On May 04 2013 23:27 Spicydinosaur wrote: Insults are not a productive way to get information. Your post just continues your overall assumptions of this game and apply them to everyone. When was the last time you played a game without having an idea about how to play? And nice strawman. | ||
|
Sugarfluff
Sweden132 Posts
[B]On May 04 2013 23:27 Spicydinosaur wrote:[B] As for the remaining lurkers, it seems that a votes on a lurker gets them posting. Should we continue this trend until all are posting? Ie: vote for a lurker, then when they start posting unvote them? For record I was asleep when the game started  The votes had nothing to do with why I started posting when I did, but the tactic might still be viable I suppose.LAL = Lynch All Lurkers. How is the point of LAL not lynching the lurkers? It doesn't matter how hard you state that you will lynch all lurkers, unless you actually lynch them all there will always be lurkers. Policy lynching aims to remove a certain type of behaviour or a certain type of action from the game. If you don't enforce the policy, it may as well not be. Obviously you have to enforce it, that doesn't change what its intended purpose it. If you could use the policy to actually get people to post rather than just lynching them and getting rid of inactivity that way, wouldn't that be the better scenario? | ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 04 2013 23:55 Sugarfluff wrote: For record I was asleep when the game started The votes had nothing to do with why I started posting when I did, but the tactic might still be viable I suppose.I was asleep too! You're only like 2 hours ahead of me :p Jokes aside I still think we should put pressure on lurkers though, I'll put my vote on Flowcaster for now. | ||
|
jrkirby
United States1510 Posts
| ||
| ||
