|
Message Blazinghand if you request a ban please ^_^
Also when the game you're sitting out is over! |
On May 20 2016 22:41 raynpelikoneet wrote:Like you and me don't agree with each others train of though at times. Does it make me unallowed to have an "illogical" train of thought? Or you? Or Slam here? You should know that... Again, what is wrong with this: Show nested quote +I am known to be a wild card. If I had made it to Lylo, there is no way I would not have been lynched before JAT. Beyond that, anyone else in that game who would have been scum could have simply said that I somehow avoided being lynched by being slam and therefore must be scum because I hard defended palmar. It basically says "i am a liability to the town and i will get lynched over other people if i go to LYLO" (unlike you say, he doesn't just single out YOU but also explains himself on other people too).
It still makes 0 sense because it isn't worse to be mislynched in LYLO compared to before LYLO. A mislynch is a mislynch regardless of when it happens. The rules say you should try to win. If you lynch yourself you do not try to win.
|
On May 20 2016 22:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 22:42 justanothertownie wrote:
Noone lynches someone despite KNOWING that he is town.
At least i do at times. Because those townies will literally lose the game if they are not lynched. I think you do too at times...
No, I never do that. And you don't either unless I missed something. The reason you lynch those people is that besides being a liability if they are town there is a good chance that they are mafia. I never lynch someone I really think is town.
|
So can i repeat my question. If a mafia player / team concedes how is that not playing against their wincondition?
|
On May 20 2016 22:47 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 22:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On May 20 2016 22:42 justanothertownie wrote:
Noone lynches someone despite KNOWING that he is town.
At least i do at times. Because those townies will literally lose the game if they are not lynched. I think you do too at times... No, I never do that. And you don't either unless I missed something. The reason you lynch those people is that besides being a liability if they are town there is a good chance that they are mafia. I never lynch someone I really think is town.
An example of this is coolTLname in Drams. I literally believed he is 100% town by the end of the day. As i think did all the other players who voted for him.
|
On May 20 2016 22:47 raynpelikoneet wrote:
So can i repeat my question. If a mafia player / team concedes how is that not playing against their wincondition?
The big difference here is that if mafia concedes they are doing that because they don't see the possibility to win AS A TEAM. That is never the case for town which makes it a completely different story.
The reason the "you have to try and win" rule exists is so that you don't drag down your teammates.
|
On May 20 2016 22:48 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 22:47 justanothertownie wrote:On May 20 2016 22:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On May 20 2016 22:42 justanothertownie wrote:
Noone lynches someone despite KNOWING that he is town.
At least i do at times. Because those townies will literally lose the game if they are not lynched. I think you do too at times... No, I never do that. And you don't either unless I missed something. The reason you lynch those people is that besides being a liability if they are town there is a good chance that they are mafia. I never lynch someone I really think is town. An example of this is coolTLname in Drams. I literally believed he is 100% town by the end of the day. As i think did all the other players who voted for him.
Well then you are right and you played against your wincon. But I never did that.
|
On May 20 2016 22:47 raynpelikoneet wrote:
So can i repeat my question. If a mafia player / team concedes how is that not playing against their wincondition?
Let me take a real example. What do you think of the mafia team conceding in Drams regarding this discussion?
|
On May 20 2016 22:50 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 22:48 raynpelikoneet wrote:On May 20 2016 22:47 justanothertownie wrote:On May 20 2016 22:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On May 20 2016 22:42 justanothertownie wrote:
Noone lynches someone despite KNOWING that he is town.
At least i do at times. Because those townies will literally lose the game if they are not lynched. I think you do too at times... No, I never do that. And you don't either unless I missed something. The reason you lynch those people is that besides being a liability if they are town there is a good chance that they are mafia. I never lynch someone I really think is town. An example of this is coolTLname in Drams. I literally believed he is 100% town by the end of the day. As i think did all the other players who voted for him. Well then you are right and you played against your wincon. But I never did that.
I disagree it's playing against your wincon.
I believe that lynch was one of the key points why town won that game because we removed trash and gave people no options to talk trash instead of actually trying to find mafia, not having to deal with trash.
|
On May 20 2016 22:50 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 22:48 raynpelikoneet wrote:On May 20 2016 22:47 justanothertownie wrote:On May 20 2016 22:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On May 20 2016 22:42 justanothertownie wrote:
Noone lynches someone despite KNOWING that he is town.
At least i do at times. Because those townies will literally lose the game if they are not lynched. I think you do too at times... No, I never do that. And you don't either unless I missed something. The reason you lynch those people is that besides being a liability if they are town there is a good chance that they are mafia. I never lynch someone I really think is town. An example of this is coolTLname in Drams. I literally believed he is 100% town by the end of the day. As i think did all the other players who voted for him. Well then you are right and you played against your wincon. But I never did that.
But it's still a difference to BELIEVE someone is town than to KNOW someone is town.
|
On May 20 2016 22:50 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 22:50 justanothertownie wrote:On May 20 2016 22:48 raynpelikoneet wrote:On May 20 2016 22:47 justanothertownie wrote:On May 20 2016 22:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On May 20 2016 22:42 justanothertownie wrote:
Noone lynches someone despite KNOWING that he is town.
At least i do at times. Because those townies will literally lose the game if they are not lynched. I think you do too at times... No, I never do that. And you don't either unless I missed something. The reason you lynch those people is that besides being a liability if they are town there is a good chance that they are mafia. I never lynch someone I really think is town. An example of this is coolTLname in Drams. I literally believed he is 100% town by the end of the day. As i think did all the other players who voted for him. Well then you are right and you played against your wincon. But I never did that. But it's still a difference to BELIEVE someone is town than to KNOW someone is town.
ofc, i just dont see the difference in "someone else is a liability" <-> "i am a liability" when the argument is "is lynching people you think/know are town allowed/punishable".
|
On May 20 2016 22:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 22:50 justanothertownie wrote:On May 20 2016 22:50 justanothertownie wrote:On May 20 2016 22:48 raynpelikoneet wrote:On May 20 2016 22:47 justanothertownie wrote:On May 20 2016 22:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On May 20 2016 22:42 justanothertownie wrote:
Noone lynches someone despite KNOWING that he is town.
At least i do at times. Because those townies will literally lose the game if they are not lynched. I think you do too at times... No, I never do that. And you don't either unless I missed something. The reason you lynch those people is that besides being a liability if they are town there is a good chance that they are mafia. I never lynch someone I really think is town. An example of this is coolTLname in Drams. I literally believed he is 100% town by the end of the day. As i think did all the other players who voted for him. Well then you are right and you played against your wincon. But I never did that. But it's still a difference to BELIEVE someone is town than to KNOW someone is town. ofc, i just dont see the difference in "someone else is a liability" <-> "i am a liability" when the argument is "is lynching people you think/know are town allowed/punishable".
Because you KNOW you are town and you just BELIEVE someone else is town. I don't understand what's not to get here.
If you in that game 100 % knew that the guy was town then you should probably be punished for playing against your wincon. But you didn't.
|
And i am saying it doesn't matter if you know the person is town or if you just believe.
There is no way you can ever argue it is playing against your wincon if you lynch someone who you know is town. Never ever JAT.
It is all situational and because it is situational and different people see the game and the world in a different way there is no argument for banning those people.
I mean, in this case you can only go and look at the game rules. The rules say lynching yourself is allowed. If Damdred had a rule where self-voting is forbidden you would have a point. But by allowing self-voting you acknowledge the fact that there are situations where lynching yourself is the best play (because otherwise it would not be allowed). If you acknowledge that, you can't make an argument based on "you didn't actually think this".
|
On May 20 2016 23:05 raynpelikoneet wrote:
And i am saying it doesn't matter if you know the person is town or if you just believe.
There is no way you can ever argue it is playing against your wincon if you lynch someone who you know is town. Never ever JAT.
It is all situational and because it is situational and different people see the game and the world in a different way there is no argument for banning those people.
No, rayn this is not a matter of opinion.
It never furthers your wincon to lynch someone you know is town as town. There is no possible scenario except maybe for the one I outlined earlier.
Your wincon is to lynch mafia. Lynching a (to you) confirmed townie never brings you closer to achieving that. There is nothing to discuss here.
|
On May 20 2016 23:10 justanothertownie wrote:
It never furthers your wincon to lynch someone you know is town as town.
I heavily disagree with this.
Actually, can someone make a poll of this? 
I would be interested to see the results.
|
On May 20 2016 23:11 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 23:10 justanothertownie wrote:
It never furthers your wincon to lynch someone you know is town as town. I heavily disagree with this.
Then you are wrong and this discussion should probably end now.
|
On May 20 2016 23:13 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 23:11 raynpelikoneet wrote:On May 20 2016 23:10 justanothertownie wrote:
It never furthers your wincon to lynch someone you know is town as town. I heavily disagree with this. Then you are wrong and this discussion should probably end now.
Between us yes, it should i agree. This is not going anywhere.
|
I stick by my earlier request to blazinghand both played against their win conditions slam went as far to admit it in here.
Both cases destroyed town morale and honestly did cause the scum team to win.
And idk why you are up in arms about a warning when I'm not even saying ban them.
|
As for Sandroba well that's a tough one tbh, he replaced into a slot he should get a warning as well probably at least. I'll think about it and amend my initial post and message bh when I decide.
|
How do you, Damdred, justify giving a ban/warning to someone when your acceptable rules include what they did?
|
On May 20 2016 23:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:
How do you, Damdred, justify giving a ban/warning to someone when your acceptable rules include what they did?
Rayn, I explained this to you. The fact that the vote itself wasn't forbidden doesn't invalidate the original accusation. It's not hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
