|
On May 21 2009 10:16 Ver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 09:12 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:On May 21 2009 07:56 MTF wrote:
- This isn't really a late bandwagon. In fact, I'm more fearful of the one I feel is approaching. Namely, the one that comes right after Ver posts a novel in a few hours, just before the vote closes. Yeah, Ver's absence is unusual. It's possible he's been really, busy; he did mention defending his honors thesis or something like that. But he hasn't even popped in to just leave a remark since right after the day post Yup Mynock you know it's coming. I have been busy yes, but I've still been around plenty. I have pm'ed a lot of people I felt were innocent regularly after I realized talking in the thread was useless, and have been busy doing analysis and feeling too apathetic to deal with this awful mess. It was a real pain trying to refigure out this game after I realized a huge number of people that I considered were playing well below their normal level are simply dumb non-mafia. Yeah it was a huge mistake to run for mayor and watch it kill my motivation, sorry. But I don't care about fulfilling campaign promises if the situation changes. As mafia I have much more reason to keep suspicion off myself and stick to what I say whereas I'll do if I please if I'm innocent. Don't worry my reveal-all post will come soon. Need to write it and send some things to my coalition first.
All the reason you need to be lynched now.
Playing around in PM land ignoring the thread to try and convince people? I've demonstrated numerous times the best way to look innocent is to play in public and yet he does the most mafiaish thing.
Busy doing analysis - but too apathetic to deal with "this awful mess" as in you just don't want to defend yourself.
OK! No problem.
someone get the rope.
|
On May 21 2009 10:20 Bockit wrote:
You do realise that every day he lives, if he is mafia, there will be clues building up against him?
You realize that the longer we delay killing him, the less we're able to use our double lynch because of his pseudo veto over it and that killing quickly gives us more days for clues to build up, right?
What's more, compare him to any other player: We can't R/C him. People bandwagon behind his statements, etc.
|
Sydney2287 Posts
Holding back the double lynches because you are afraid that he might pardon them is stupid and I really hope that doesn't end up happening.
|
On May 21 2009 10:21 Bockit wrote:
I mean, you've already found 1 clue, I don't know if I agree with it yet, but if it pops up as a continuous theme then yes, I might have to re-evaluate. Again, nobody is discounting the possibility. Can you please drop the safest route plan, swap your vote to Ver so there is less chance of them controlling the vote? You have to see this is bad.
I see mafia trying to save one of their members in office as bad. I see not being able to examine how mafia voted people into office day 1 as bad.
Why would I swap my vote to Ver if the entire point of killing ace tonight is so that I can have a double called against him the next day if the vig doesn't snipe him tonight. No matter if Ace or Ver are both innocent or both guilty, we can't drop KP with a successful kill, so it doesn't really matter townwise if Ver dies right now, to vig tonight, or to double tomorrow.
|
On May 21 2009 10:25 Bockit wrote:
Holding back the double lynches because you are afraid that he might pardon them is stupid and I really hope that doesn't end up happening.
No, it just removes our ability to hit Ace during the double lynches, which makes him invulnerable until Day 5 if we do 2 back to back.
Do you understand why I'm not super peachy keen on waiting for 'clues' to build up if he's already got a bunch of suspicion on him? He's a fantastic tool to push town down the wrong paths. Its not 'oh we'll kill Ace if he's suspicious', because we simply can't kill him during a double.
|
On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote:
How? Ace would be the least scrutinizable individual in the game: he's got a group of followers that have consistently defended him since day 1, cannot be rolechecked, and cannot even be looked at during a double lynch.
You don't need a role check to identify him with time (you can't fake away clues even if you can fake behavior) and I'm quite sure that if those defending him were not Mafia, they would stop doing so in the face of clear evidence. If not, then you were right.
On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote:
This is the equivalent of the argument we made for Qatol earlier: "Well, its cool, we'll just kill him a turn later if we find out something's fishy" in the face of a mountain of evidence against him.
You're either making the assumption that there is a mountain of evidence against Ace right now that nobody is seeing except you or that there will be a mountain of evidence later with which town will do nothing with. I'm guessing the former. I don't think there's really anything constructive to say if either option is correct, though.
|
## I vote we exile L to Monkey Island
|
On May 21 2009 10:30 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 10:25 Bockit wrote:
Holding back the double lynches because you are afraid that he might pardon them is stupid and I really hope that doesn't end up happening. No, it just removes our ability to hit Ace during the double lynches, which makes him invulnerable until Day 5 if we do 2 back to back. Do you understand why I'm not super peachy keen on waiting for 'clues' to build up if he's already got a bunch of suspicion on him? He's a fantastic tool to push town down the wrong paths. Its not 'oh we'll kill Ace if he's suspicious', because we simply can't kill him during a double.
Uh.
Pardoner - You are the secondary elected role of the game; the runner up in the election. You may twice pardon a person who is to be lynched. You may use this ability on the mayor's first lynch. If you use this ability during a double lynch, each pardon use spares one player (so you must use both pardons to completely stop a double lynch). You may not pardon yourself. You show up as Pardoner for all Rolechecks.
I thought that would be common sense. At least check before you build up a worry based on it, y'know?
|
On May 21 2009 10:30 MTF wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote:
How? Ace would be the least scrutinizable individual in the game: he's got a group of followers that have consistently defended him since day 1, cannot be rolechecked, and cannot even be looked at during a double lynch. You don't need a role check to identify him with time (you can't fake away clues even if you can fake behavior) and I'm quite sure that if those defending him were not Mafia, they would stop doing so in the face of clear evidence. If not, then you were right. Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote:
This is the equivalent of the argument we made for Qatol earlier: "Well, its cool, we'll just kill him a turn later if we find out something's fishy" in the face of a mountain of evidence against him. You're either making the assumption that there is a mountain of evidence against Ace right now that nobody is seeing except you or that there will be a mountain of evidence later with which town will do nothing with. I'm guessing the former. I don't think there's really anything constructive to say if either option is correct, though.
I didn't say we needed a role check. I said he's the least scrutinizable player in the game. Is that correct or not? No rolecheck. Large bandwagon behind him. Cannot vote for him until day 5 or vig hit if we do back to back double lynches. Consistently contradictory posts. Has supported mafia players in the past. The target of a massive voteswing. I mean, 2+2. There's evidence.
|
@MTF
On May 17 2009 08:01 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 07:13 Scamp wrote:
What if a double lynch happens to two mafia members and one of them is the pardoner? Is the pardoner able to use his power to prevent the other lynch from happening even though he's getting lynched himself?
The pardoner CAN still use his ability to pardon someone who is being lynched alongside himself. He has to use his ability before the night post by definition. Therefore, he is still alive when he can send in his role and can thus pardon when he is about to be lynched. An analogous use would be a vigilante using his hit when he is also taking a hit from the mafia. Both actions go through.
|
What Mafia players have I supported in the past?
|
Ver,
I have to be up at 5 again. :/
|
On May 21 2009 10:36 Ace wrote:
What Mafia players have I supported in the past?
Obvious one? Your buddy running mate Ver.
|
Sydney2287 Posts
@showtime!
Ver's already implied what his defense is going to be in his previous post. It's going to be something along the lines of 'You all sucked, so I ignored you, and the thread', 'I'm really disappointed', 'I was too busy to try and correct misconceptions'.
If that sits with you as a legitimate defense then by all means, wait. If it doesn't, I'd recommend voting for him now.
|
On May 21 2009 10:34 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 10:30 MTF wrote:On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote:
How? Ace would be the least scrutinizable individual in the game: he's got a group of followers that have consistently defended him since day 1, cannot be rolechecked, and cannot even be looked at during a double lynch. You don't need a role check to identify him with time (you can't fake away clues even if you can fake behavior) and I'm quite sure that if those defending him were not Mafia, they would stop doing so in the face of clear evidence. If not, then you were right. On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote:
This is the equivalent of the argument we made for Qatol earlier: "Well, its cool, we'll just kill him a turn later if we find out something's fishy" in the face of a mountain of evidence against him. You're either making the assumption that there is a mountain of evidence against Ace right now that nobody is seeing except you or that there will be a mountain of evidence later with which town will do nothing with. I'm guessing the former. I don't think there's really anything constructive to say if either option is correct, though. I didn't say we needed a role check. I said he's the least scrutinizable player in the game. Is that correct or not? No rolecheck. Large bandwagon behind him. Cannot vote for him until day 5 or vig hit if we do back to back double lynches. Consistently contradictory posts. Has supported mafia players in the past. The target of a massive voteswing. I mean, 2+2. There's evidence.
First, the so-called large bandwagon behind him is pretty small to the very consistent core that voted Ver in and people can defend Ace without being die-hard about it. Like me, right now. Second, the "cannot vote for him" bit is incorrect, unless you assume that we can't vote for him because he'd pardon whoever the other person was. Which is incorrect. I haven't seen that many contradictory posts and I'm not sure what you mean by his having supported mafia players in the past, unless you somehow have them figured out already. Finally, the massive voteswing you're talking about happened because of the Nemy situation. Nemy was close to being pushed into a position and many players did not like that, so there was a movement to vote in either Mynock or Ace in behind Ver. Ace ended up being the one that got the votes.
|
On May 21 2009 10:39 Bockit wrote:
@showtime!
Ver's already implied what his defense is going to be in his previous post. It's going to be something along the lines of 'You all sucked, so I ignored you, and the thread', 'I'm really disappointed', 'I was too busy to try and correct misconceptions'.
If that sits with you as a legitimate defense then by all means, wait. If it doesn't, I'd recommend voting for him now.
It was Ace's defense last game.
I agree its a bullshit defense, but it was actually valid in the most recent example of it being used.
|
On May 21 2009 10:38 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 10:36 Ace wrote:
What Mafia players have I supported in the past? Obvious one? Your buddy running mate Ver.
You mean the Day before the bodyguards were killed right? Right.
Because after they died + the shifty PM I instantly said I think he's fishy.
Thanks for the fail.
Now what other Mafia players have I supported?
|
EBWOP: "Which is incorrect" was not to imply that he could not do it, merely to say that it is incorrect to assume that we could not kill Ace off early on (we don't need to double lynch constantly) or that we could not kill Ace off at all due to his Pardoner role.
|
On May 21 2009 10:41 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 10:39 Bockit wrote:
@showtime!
Ver's already implied what his defense is going to be in his previous post. It's going to be something along the lines of 'You all sucked, so I ignored you, and the thread', 'I'm really disappointed', 'I was too busy to try and correct misconceptions'.
If that sits with you as a legitimate defense then by all means, wait. If it doesn't, I'd recommend voting for him now. It was Ace's defense last game.I agree its a bullshit defense, but it was actually valid in the most recent example of it being used.
I got lynched last game? lol.
|
I want to hear his reasoning Bockit regardless of color. That is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
