|
On October 17 2013 01:06 SagaZ wrote:
God damnit mitt, we already went over this, this is not how it works. If you make an accusation you explain your reasoning behind it, you don't make us guess. If you have a problem with any post, point it out, it helps us, or me at least to understand how you think.
Pls you dont need to curse.
I just want you guys to try & look at things that are scummy rather than getting in big rants about how people don't post enough.
ggtemplar is talking about how its a good thing to lynch someone you think is town (hint: it never is) & this is from someone who has been convinced I'm scummy all game. He then justifies that "if I am town" (hint: he has been saying that he thinks I'm scum all game) that I'm still a good lynch. Basically, he's pushing a lynch on someone a lot of people think is town & then preparing for when I flip town but justifying it as a good lynch. Basically, he's going to get a townie lynched but no worries, it was a good thing for a town!
I think ggtemplar knows I'm town & is trying to hedge his position for when I flip town.
Well, see ya.
|
On October 17 2013 02:56 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:42 istandwithmitt wrote:On October 17 2013 01:06 SagaZ wrote:
God damnit mitt, we already went over this, this is not how it works. If you make an accusation you explain your reasoning behind it, you don't make us guess. If you have a problem with any post, point it out, it helps us, or me at least to understand how you think. Pls you dont need to curse. I just want you guys to try & look at things that are scummy rather than getting in big rants about how people don't post enough. ggtemplar is talking about how its a good thing to lynch someone you think is town (hint: it never is) & this is from someone who has been convinced I'm scummy all game. He then justifies that "if I am town" (hint: he has been saying that he thinks I'm scum all game) that I'm still a good lynch. Basically, he's pushing a lynch on someone a lot of people think is town & then preparing for when I flip town but justifying it as a good lynch. Basically, he's going to get a townie lynched but no worries, it was a good thing for a town! I think ggtemplar knows I'm town & is trying to hedge his position for when I flip town. Well, see ya. Question: GGTeMpLaR posted that in response to a post I made suggesting we vote for SagaZ or July617. If you think GGTeMpLaR was scum, do you think he was trying to deflect the vote away from other scum or do you think he was simply sowing discord?
Maybe. There's no point in conjecturing a bunch of "what ifs." I think his line of thinking is really scummy & it's independent of July or SagaZ possible alignments. If he flips scum, it would be worth looking at but considering neither is in serious of danger of being lynched atm, I think it's just as likely that he might have just been deflecting off town onto a townie he's been pushing for a while.
|
On October 17 2013 05:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:42 istandwithmitt wrote:On October 17 2013 01:06 SagaZ wrote:
God damnit mitt, we already went over this, this is not how it works. If you make an accusation you explain your reasoning behind it, you don't make us guess. If you have a problem with any post, point it out, it helps us, or me at least to understand how you think. Pls you dont need to curse. I just want you guys to try & look at things that are scummy rather than getting in big rants about how people don't post enough. ggtemplar is talking about how its a good thing to lynch someone you think is town (hint: it never is) & this is from someone who has been convinced I'm scummy all game. He then justifies that "if I am town" (hint: he has been saying that he thinks I'm scum all game) that I'm still a good lynch. Basically, he's pushing a lynch on someone a lot of people think is town & then preparing for when I flip town but justifying it as a good lynch. Basically, he's going to get a townie lynched but no worries, it was a good thing for a town! I think ggtemplar knows I'm town & is trying to hedge his position for when I flip town. Well, see ya. When did I ever say I thought you were scum all game? I was initially suspicious of both you and SagaZ based on your one initial post and then several pages of silence. When you made your reappearance, I was pretty convinced whether you were town or mafia, you were the safest lynch for the town because you were making poor contributions without any reasons behind them. I'd disagree that it's never safe play to lynch a weak town and I gave my reasons for why lynching a horrendously weak town is safe play on Day 1.
Yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If you look at his post history, almost all of his stuff is about how I'm scum until he started convincing whoever that I was a good lynch even if I was town. In this post he seems to disagree with his stance & says he doesn't care what alignment I am but that I should be lynched either way & then makes a justification for if I flip town.
Basically, this dude is distancing himself more & more from his reads & setting up if/when I flip town. The fact that he keeps steering closer & closer to how it's good to lynch me if I'm town rather than why we should because I'm scum, makes it pretty evident that he knows what I'm going to flip & that it's town.
For real, this guy should be lynched tomorrow.
ggtemplar if you'd be so kind I'd like to know what your thoughts on playerboy345 is. Thanks in advance!
|
On October 17 2013 07:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
istandwithmitt you seem to be getting at the notion that you think playerboy345 and myself are mafia together.
Who do you think is the 3rd mafia with us and why?
I haven't said that at all.
I also don't know why you would quote a post where I literally call someone out as mafia as being worthless but so vOv
|
You guys need to seriously start making shorter posts. Who was the guy who scumslipped at the beginning of the day? We should lynch him.
|
On October 18 2013 13:55 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 13:43 Balla24 wrote:
However, on a note more in favor of my defense: I do want to try to get you guys to put more weight into the fact that lurking IS a legitimate scum tactic for these forum games. Hell, that's why literally every game starts with a discussion on policy lynching lurkers or afkers as a scare tactic against it. It's hard to combat. I am totally okay with murdering SagaZ based on this principle. Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 13:46 istandwithmitt wrote:
You guys need to seriously start making shorter posts. Who was the guy who scumslipped at the beginning of the day? We should lynch him. Welcome back. Who do you think scumslipped?
The guy who was like "woah there has to be an SK because playerboy died" when there's no way to differentiate scum/SK or a vig kill. Obviously knew that the other kill was from the mafia. I can go back & look but~~
|
@Balla: there's no reason to blindly believe a roleblock claim. It's weird that he would claim in the first place (do vanillas get roleblocked??). I think his slipping wrt claim is the scummiest thing to happen in the game so far & I don't get it if you guys don't agree.
##unvote
##vote: Bereft
|
There's no reason to think that Bereft is town because he was roleblocked. There can be town roleblockers too it might clear him from potentially being an SK (which isn't certain) but the way he knew which kill was the mafia kill at start of day is a huge slip & I can't believe you guys lynched anyone else.
|
Hey look who was right about ggtemplar~
|
Can someone link me to the case on July?
|
Actually everyone should just link me to any case on anyone they think is scum & I'll tell you if they are. This is the best way.
|
|
|
That should be a mafia win not a draw. If number of mafia = number of other players during a day that's the end of the game for mafia.
Also sorry I got modkilled. The rule that you have to vote every day is really dumb so I'm not that sorry. I was posting that day & was busy before the deadline but I still got modkilled? I don't know what that's set up to avoid because it's obviously not just people who don't post.
An okay game mod should learn how to call games in the end & fix modkill rule & maybe it would be better than okay.
|
On October 23 2013 22:19 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 22:00 istandwithmitt wrote:
That should be a mafia win not a draw. If number of mafia = number of other players during a day that's the end of the game for mafia. That's not how the win conditions were worded. Additionally, your suggested win condition does not work with a Serial Killer. Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 22:00 istandwithmitt wrote:
Also sorry I got modkilled. The rule that you have to vote every day is really dumb so I'm not that sorry. I was posting that day & was busy before the deadline but I still got modkilled? I don't know what that's set up to avoid because it's obviously not just people who don't post. Voting is required because we don't want the choice to abstain to be a tactical decision for the mafia team. I think 48 hours is a more than reasonable amount of time. If you anticipate that you may be busy at the deadline, then it is suggested that you vote before the deadline.
Does SK not win if he's in a 1:1 situation then? Because that's dumb.
Also I don't see any point in deterring a mafia player from abstaining. It's not like it's a good decision or something town can't see. It would be one thing to modkill someone for not posting during a day but in this situation you modkilled someone for forgetting to vote & that was stupid.
You don't have to take my criticism but all I'm trying to do is help the mod run a better a game in the future.
|
On October 23 2013 22:24 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 22:00 istandwithmitt wrote:
That should be a mafia win not a draw. If number of mafia = number of other players during a day that's the end of the game for mafia.
I actually posted this then edited it out because I realised I was wrong. owb was a multi-shot vigilante and so could have shot mafia at the time he was shot by mafia. People worry way too much about the exact wording in the OP, when using common sense to work out what would happen is almost always the right way. The only reason there's the # of mafia = # of town rule is to rule out stupid vote races based on who's online when.
Exactly. If its 2:1 town:mafia, then town isn't actually encouraged to vote for mafia nor is mafia to kill the following night in the case of a NL. That should 100% be a mafia victory.
|
On October 23 2013 22:25 marvellosity wrote:
This forum has run dozens and dozens of games, and we are very happy with our voting rules.
Cool ty for your thoughtless response
|
On October 23 2013 22:27 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 22:26 istandwithmitt wrote:On October 23 2013 22:24 marvellosity wrote:On October 23 2013 22:00 istandwithmitt wrote:
That should be a mafia win not a draw. If number of mafia = number of other players during a day that's the end of the game for mafia.
I actually posted this then edited it out because I realised I was wrong. owb was a multi-shot vigilante and so could have shot mafia at the time he was shot by mafia. People worry way too much about the exact wording in the OP, when using common sense to work out what would happen is almost always the right way. The only reason there's the # of mafia = # of town rule is to rule out stupid vote races based on who's online when. Exactly. If its 2:1 town:mafia, then town isn't actually encouraged to vote for mafia nor is mafia to kill the following night in the case of a NL. That should 100% be a mafia victory. What are you talking about? Town is obviously encouraged to vote in a 2:1 situation, otherwise a 2:1 situation becomes a 1:1 situation. Literally the *only* situation that mafia does NOT win in this 1:1 situation is the EXACT situation that occurred in this game - where the remaining townie has bullets to shoot at the mafia.
Not very. In a 2:1 situation, town could vote, mislynch, & have the other townie killed off resulting in a mafia victory. All things equal that's a 67% chance of happening & resulting in a scum win. If they no lynch & one of them is killed off the next day, the vote race (while dumb) results in a 50% chance of a scum win.
That's why 1:1 situations are resolved as scum wins. Not to mention that usually in a 1:1 situation it wouldn't be possible to have a majority vote but I think we were playing plurality which is usually also bad.
|
On October 23 2013 22:49 LoneMeow wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 22:00 istandwithmitt wrote:
That should be a mafia win not a draw. If number of mafia = number of other players during a day that's the end of the game for mafia.
Technically, it would have been a vote race because of the tiebreaker rule, and the winner would've been the one that dropped a vote on the other first. Since vote races are dumb we decided we prefer to end the game with a draw. Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 22:00 istandwithmitt wrote:
Also sorry I got modkilled. The rule that you have to vote every day is really dumb so I'm not that sorry. I was posting that day & was busy before the deadline but I still got modkilled? I don't know what that's set up to avoid because it's obviously not just
people who don't post.
However dumb you think it is, it was the rule. You don't like the rules, then don't play. Personally, I believe the rule makes sense from a game theory perspective, but that's not the issue here. Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 22:00 istandwithmitt wrote:
An okay game mod should learn how to call games in the end & fix modkill rule & maybe it would be better than okay. I'm glad you appreciate the effort we put into this... Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 22:36 kitaman27 wrote:
There is a grey area between whether or not a single no-vote should be a modkillable offense. Some hosts will wait until you break a rule twice, others will enforce it right away. While I don't think the voting rule should change, we should probably try to be more consistent with how it is punished. If we consistently let single no-voters get by with a warning, that becomes a strategic option in itself (although one of questionable morality)...
I realize it was a rule which is why I said it was a "dumb rule" & not a "dumb mod." Abstaining is a silly thing to deter especially since the reason seems to be that it's a "scum tactic." You wouldn't deter bussing so why does it make sense to deter abstaining? Both can confuse the town but apparently one is legitimate & one illegitimate in a game based on lying.. okay..
It just seemed silly to modkill someone who was active in the game clear up to a deadline & then modkilling them for something inconsequential.
It is the mod's decision & if that's a common rule around here, everyone should consider reconsidering it. 
|
On October 23 2013 23:09 WaveofShadow wrote:
More often than not I find that rule more visibly affects people who fuck off for most of a game and don't care enough to vote.
In which case I support it wholeheartedly.
A better rule would be not posting for a whole day = modkill then in my imo
|
On October 23 2013 23:11 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 23:03 istandwithmitt wrote:On October 23 2013 22:27 marvellosity wrote:On October 23 2013 22:26 istandwithmitt wrote:On October 23 2013 22:24 marvellosity wrote:On October 23 2013 22:00 istandwithmitt wrote:
That should be a mafia win not a draw. If number of mafia = number of other players during a day that's the end of the game for mafia.
I actually posted this then edited it out because I realised I was wrong. owb was a multi-shot vigilante and so could have shot mafia at the time he was shot by mafia. People worry way too much about the exact wording in the OP, when using common sense to work out what would happen is almost always the right way. The only reason there's the # of mafia = # of town rule is to rule out stupid vote races based on who's online when. Exactly. If its 2:1 town:mafia, then town isn't actually encouraged to vote for mafia nor is mafia to kill the following night in the case of a NL. That should 100% be a mafia victory. What are you talking about? Town is obviously encouraged to vote in a 2:1 situation, otherwise a 2:1 situation becomes a 1:1 situation. Literally the *only* situation that mafia does NOT win in this 1:1 situation is the EXACT situation that occurred in this game - where the remaining townie has bullets to shoot at the mafia. Not very. In a 2:1 situation, town could vote, mislynch, & have the other townie killed off resulting in a mafia victory. All things equal that's a 67% chance of happening & resulting in a scum win. If they no lynch & one of them is killed off the next day, the vote race (while dumb) results in a 50% chance of a scum win. That's why 1:1 situations are resolved as scum wins. Not to mention that usually in a 1:1 situation it wouldn't be possible to have a majority vote but I think we were playing plurality which is usually also bad. The 1:1 situation this game is a special situation because the townie has a gun pretty sure i already explained this. I think we're done here.
That's still dumb. Town has a 33% chance of winning, tying, or losing in LYLO lmao. In MYLO, it's a 25% chance of winning , 50% chance of a vote race, or a 25% chance of a tie. Allowing vote racing OR calling things a tie "because a townie has a gun" is dumb & favors town way over scum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
