|
On October 14 2013 11:26 SagaZ wrote:
As a disclaimer early, I think we should all agree on something.
We are all newbies here, so if you fuck up or say something dumb, don't play the "oh sorry, I am new I didn't know".
Seuss is our confirmed town, we should try to organize around him.
For a day 1 lynch, I think lynching some1 innactive is the best way to go. Having innactive players around just give mafia the opportunity to sit back and do nothing while town runs around screaming at each other.
So give information about yourself if you can, so that others will be able to read you easy.
My stance this early is easy: I will vote for people that post nothing worthy or nothing at all, unless some1 slips. I am also more likely to vote for people that say suspicious stuff and then say "sorry I didn't know I am new"
Ok, your first sentence I like.
We know what to expect coming into this game.
Everyone here is "Relatively" new.
This is not really an excuse.
If you let this be an excuse for town,
what makes you think the scum won't abuse it twice fold?
The only way to solve this problem is to hold EVERYONE to a higher expectation.
I like your comment about Monte (AKA SUESS!!! DAMMIT MONTE!!)
This calls us town-folk in the right direction.
Sadly, it was announced on the beginning of day 1.
So odds are, the scum are going to kill Suess early on.
They know he's town.
Who else do they know is town?
How would they know any of the blue roles?
Who's better target for them than him?''
The point on "Having in-active players around just give the mafia opps"
mean literally nothing.
They already have a mod confirmed target.
|
On October 14 2013 16:09 Vonthin wrote:
QUOTE]On October 14 2013 15:52 OdinOfPergo wrote:
Well, I read through my last post,
And then decide how bad that thought is.
Judging by what you just said July,
a 100% GUESS at a "afk lynch" is better than
a 40% chance to land a scrum roll on the first day within the first 4 hours.
My only question is;
Are you being serious right now?
Because trying to throw off town that hard would seem pretty scummy to me.
I'll hold my vote for 2 hours for you to respond. After that I will have to start thinking about going to sleep since I have to work real early. I'm already staying up late for this.
How is July's thought a bad idea, it is unsafe, while you have a 40% chance to land a scum you have a 60% chance to blame an innocent townie like myself. Police detectives just don't take a group of people then choose one of them at random and arrest them. Don't even understand how you think he is throwing off the town when you are a danger wanting to pick random people to lynch, that is what seems scummy to me.[/QUOTE]
Yes. The difference between his and my idea,
Is mainly, I have a strong chance to land scum.
He has a penny in a hay bail.
More over, my idea leaves me the entire rest of D1 to ALTER my vote.
While he is claiming, regardless of what happens in the next FORTY hours, that we should waste our votes on "in-active" members that may or may not be mod-killed and replaced anyway.
|
On October 14 2013 13:17 OdinOfPergo wrote:
Oh, to clarify - If lynching an in-active is our only option, I'm not entirely against it.
I merely don't want to waste our votes on someone we can't possibly know anything about (Because they don't post.)
This option only makes any sort of sense closer to the end of day 1.
Right now, as it stands, we have the next 45-46ish hours to gather/draw conclusions from any information presented.
Agree with this post 100%. We have to keep people talking and find oddities, it's our best chance at catching scum (and something they say might bite them in their ass later).
On October 14 2013 14:38 istandwithmitt wrote:
##vote: SagaZ
Lynching lurkers gives us no information for future days & keeps scum from having to lay down a real vote. The way he's trying to guide the town is really scummy too & makes him look town without contributing anything.
Well, see ya
That is a ballsy move, what makes you think it's a good idea to go ballsdeep on him because of his ONE post?
On October 14 2013 15:29 July617 wrote:
You're going to randomly tag someone who could be potential town and marking them as scum?
Doesn't sound like a safe way to play to me .
Makes a good point, but would it really be all that smart for scum to play risky?
I don't necessarily agree with his post but I don't see it as scummy.
|
Also Vonthin,
How does that work into what I said at all?
July didn't even post a counter argument.
He just disagreed with what I suggested.
|
On October 14 2013 15:29 July617 wrote:
You're going to randomly tag someone who could be potential town and marking them as scum?
Doesn't sound like a safe way to play to me .
Makes a good point, but would it really be all that smart for scum to play risky?
I don't necessarily agree with his post but I don't see it as scummy.
[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with this at all.
How exactly is lynching a afk/lurker at this point better than taking stronger odds chance of a RNG I posted earlier better?
I just don't get it.
|
At least you realize how bad that sort of thinking is , I don't feel comfortable lynching anyone just yet .
|
On October 14 2013 16:24 playerboy345 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 13:17 OdinOfPergo wrote:
Oh, to clarify - If lynching an in-active is our only option, I'm not entirely against it.
I merely don't want to waste our votes on someone we can't possibly know anything about (Because they don't post.)
This option only makes any sort of sense closer to the end of day 1.
Right now, as it stands, we have the next 45-46ish hours to gather/draw conclusions from any information presented.
Agree with this post 100%. We have to keep people talking and find oddities, it's our best chance at catching scum (and something they say might bite them in their ass later). Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 14:38 istandwithmitt wrote:
##vote: SagaZ
Lynching lurkers gives us no information for future days & keeps scum from having to lay down a real vote. The way he's trying to guide the town is really scummy too & makes him look town without contributing anything.
Well, see ya That is a ballsy move, what makes you think it's a good idea to go ballsdeep on him because of his ONE post? Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 15:29 July617 wrote:
You're going to randomly tag someone who could be potential town and marking them as scum?
Doesn't sound like a safe way to play to me . Makes a good point, but would it really be all that smart for scum to play risky? I don't necessarily agree with his post but I don't see it as scummy.
LOL Screw it. EBWOP. I obviously can't quote things worth nothin'.
So, in case of future reference I'm re-quoting so we have a 100% un-altered chat log for me to reference.
|
On October 14 2013 16:28 OdinOfPergo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 15:29 July617 wrote:
You're going to randomly tag someone who could be potential town and marking them as scum?
Doesn't sound like a safe way to play to me . Makes a good point, but would it really be all that smart for scum to play risky? I don't necessarily agree with his post but I don't see it as scummy.
I don't agree with this at all.
How exactly is lynching a afk/lurker at this point better than taking stronger odds chance of a RNG I posted earlier better?
I just don't get it. [/QUOTE]
I never said we lynch anyone .
let's just let people talk for a bit.
|
On October 14 2013 13:17 OdinOfPergo wrote:
Oh, to clarify - If lynching an in-active is our only option, I'm not entirely against it.
I merely don't want to waste our votes on someone we can't possibly know anything about (Because they don't post.)
This option only makes any sort of sense closer to the end of day 1.
Right now, as it stands, we have the next 45-46ish hours to gather/draw conclusions from any information presented.
On October 14 2013 16:28 OdinOfPergo wrote:
How exactly is lynching a afk/lurker at this point better than taking stronger odds chance of a RNG I posted earlier better?
I just don't get it.
You are contradicting yourself. First you say you don't want to waste your vote on someone who doesn't post and then you proceed to push for a RANDOM lynch.
|
Well, that was sort of my point.
We can force early conversation with a RNG.
Best case scenario;
We rid ourselves of a scum role.
Worst case scenario;
We have to change our votes because a townie defends himself.
This is the entire reason I found the previous post twards this questionable.
|
On October 14 2013 16:25 OdinOfPergo wrote:
Also Vonthin,
How does that work into what I said at all?
July didn't even post a counter argument.
He just disagreed with what I suggested.
He was just saying he disagreed with your methods, he didn't say anywhere(unless I missed something which i don't think i did) that we waste our votes lynching inactive members which you said he did in one of your earlier posts. Both lynching RNG/getting the inactive person is both sorta stupid
|
Could you maybe quote what post you are reffering to? Or atleast a link to it, would be much easier to keep track of things that way.
|
Odin, you basically have 50% of all posts since the game began. Curb your enthusiasm.
|
On October 14 2013 16:38 playerboy345 wrote:
Could you maybe quote what post you are reffering to? Or atleast a link to it, would be much easier to keep track of things that way.
This was Julys first post when he responded to the RNG thing
On October 14 2013 15:29 July617 wrote:
You're going to randomly tag someone who could be potential town and marking them as scum?
Doesn't sound like a safe way to play to me .
The bottom of this post is when OdinOfPergo said that July told us to waste our votes
On October 14 2013 16:20 OdinOfPergo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 16:09 Vonthin wrote:On October 14 2013 15:52 OdinOfPergo wrote:
Well, I read through my last post,
And then decide how bad that thought is.
Judging by what you just said July,
a 100% GUESS at a "afk lynch" is better than
a 40% chance to land a scrum roll on the first day within the first 4 hours.
My only question is;
Are you being serious right now?
Because trying to throw off town that hard would seem pretty scummy to me.
I'll hold my vote for 2 hours for you to respond. After that I will have to start thinking about going to sleep since I have to work real early. I'm already staying up late for this. How is July's thought a bad idea, it is unsafe, while you have a 40% chance to land a scum you have a 60% chance to blame an innocent townie like myself. Police detectives just don't take a group of people then choose one of them at random and arrest them. Don't even understand how you think he is throwing off the town when you are a danger wanting to pick random people to lynch, that is what seems scummy to me. Yes. The difference between his and my idea, Is mainly, I have a strong chance to land scum. He has a penny in a hay bail. More over, my idea leaves me the entire rest of D1 to ALTER my vote. While he is claiming, regardless of what happens in the next FORTY hours, that we should waste our votes on "in-active" members that may or may not be mod-killed and replaced anyway.
|
On October 14 2013 16:30 July617 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 16:28 OdinOfPergo wrote:On October 14 2013 15:29 July617 wrote:
You're going to randomly tag someone who could be potential town and marking them as scum?
Doesn't sound like a safe way to play to me . Makes a good point, but would it really be all that smart for scum to play risky? I don't necessarily agree with his post but I don't see it as scummy. I don't agree with this at all. How exactly is lynching a afk/lurker at this point better than taking stronger odds chance of a RNG I posted earlier better? I just don't get it.
I never said we lynch anyone .
let's just let people talk for a bit.
[/QUOTE]
Do not edit your posts
|
I think between SagaZ and istandwithmitt, at most one of them is mafia. SagaZ's first post is somewhat suspicious but istandwithmitt instantly going so hard on him is just as suspicious because it seems like such an easy target at that point.
There's no way they're both mafia together. It's possible both are town, but if we gain information that one of them is mafia, it would clear the other as town I'd say.
|
It was an edit for the quote mark i wanted to fix.
|
OdinOfPergo seems to be playing very pro-town though.
|
this is an official warning
anyone who edits their post will be [insert disciplinary action here]. If you want to correct something you say, please use the phrase 'EBWOP'
Edit by way of post. Just post twice and include the change you want to see.
Using the edit function is strictly not allowed.
|
On October 14 2013 16:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
There's no way they're both mafia together. It's possible both are town, but if we gain information that one of them is mafia, it would clear the other as town I'd say.
Clarify this please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
