EPTThe Sum of All Fears Mafia - Page 10
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
johnnywup
United States3858 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On March 27 2012 15:08 johnnywup wrote: aren't you full of yourself blazinghand? everythings gotta be about you huh? When nobody else is posting content, yes. Everything does have to be about me. | ||
|
Bluelightz
Indonesia2463 Posts
| ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5262 Posts
On March 27 2012 11:52 Blazinghand wrote: First off, regarding our discussion of policy lynches: I personally apply a soft "lynch all lurkers" and "lynch all liars" policy to all the games in which I play. My first goal is always to lynch scum. Scum likes to lurk, and scum likes to lie. I am highly suspicious of lurkers and liars, but I will not automatically lynch every lurker and every liar-- this is too easily abused by scum. That being said, I have lynched lurkers and liars in the past and am not afraid to do so in this game. Nobody can convince me to modify my personal stance and I will not do so. Secondarily, regarding setup: This is fairly simple. This is a closed setup with 10 town and 4 scum. Scum can win by either the traditional fashion, or by destroying 5 specific players or the other 5 specific players as an alternative wincon. It is immediately obvious that we should not share our alignment. Anarcy fo life dam, for being non-relevant topics, you DEFINITELY addressed them in your opening case. what should I think Blazinghand? 1.) you talking about them doesn't mean they are relevant. Logical conclusion! 2.) They ARE relevant topics, and you're just wrong. Can't be that! 3.) you actually know that policy/setup is relevant, but you like people railroading to your avenue of discussion, where you have control over a few hapless townie. Cruelty! Z.) I am scum for arguing with you in any shape or form, and you will twist this post to make yourself look right. Most likely response!!! I am encouraging players who have not posted yet to come in and post, and in people's opening posts they often address topics that are RELEVANT to the beginning of a game. Am I REALLY being unhelpful BH? Are you REALLY being more helpful than me, with your subversive aggression? I don't expect a logical response, I expect OMGUS. Other people can comment on this if they wish. You're making utterly no sense. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On March 27 2012 15:13 EchelonTee wrote: I am encouraging players who have not posted yet to come in and post, and in people's opening posts they often address topics that are RELEVANT to the beginning of a game. Am I REALLY being unhelpful BH? Are you REALLY being more helpful than me, with your subversive aggression? I don't expect a logical response, I expect OMGUS. Other people can comment on this if they wish. You're making utterly no sense. No subversion here; I am utterly open. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fGbjD.gif) | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5262 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On March 27 2012 14:07 johnnywup wrote: i'm absolutely flattered <3 irony? and hows it anti-town to have bad logic? it just means you're unhelpful, that doesn't mean you're anti-town.. And my logic is perfectly sound thank you. the idea that someone would play poorly meaning they're not scum is utterly preposterous and you know it. If you use bad logic like that in arguments, you create a scenario that scum can manipulate to its advantage. if you are unhelpful, you are anti-town. you can be anti-town by being a worthless or actively bad townie. I'm astonished I have to explain this to you. Bad town play hurts the town. that's you. you're hurting us. stop it. ow. ow. On March 27 2012 14:07 johnnywup wrote: One thing that really sets me off about you is your willingness to shift your vote to me after any pressure at all. You didn't have a case on Nemesis and you don't have a case on me. you didn't pressure me, you defended me, and you did so in a sloppy, bad fashion. you deserve my vote, and i see no reason to shift it off you. you have failed to adequately address my principle cliam. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
Now cut out the dramatics or I'll join the jubjubs and scum in lynching you...even if you're town. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On March 27 2012 15:25 VisceraEyes wrote: Blaze, it's only pressure if what you're saying is true. You're so blatant about your logic being ridiculous that it's not even intimidating and only serves to make you look suspicious. Now cut out the dramatics or I'll join the jubjubs and scum in lynching you...even if you're town. I daresay my logic is largely non-ridiculous. It may appear ridiculous to you, but god does not play dice with the universe. Humor me a moment, and let me seduce you with my lascivious arguments. A) Johnnywup's initial "pressure" on me was actually rather half-assed and non-comittal. I found his statement that "scum wouldn't play this bad" (or equivalent) to be an anti-town statement. B) I call him out in a typically aggressive fashion. He responds in this way: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322686¤tpage=9#171 On March 27 2012 14:07 johnnywup wrote: i'm absolutely flattered <3 irony? and hows it anti-town to have bad logic? it just means you're unhelpful, that doesn't mean you're anti-town.. And my logic is perfectly sound thank you. One thing that really sets me off about you is your willingness to shift your vote to me after any pressure at all. You didn't have a case on Nemesis and you don't have a case on me. This is generally a bad post. I really don't like this particular section: and hows it anti-town to have bad logic? it just means you're unhelpful, that doesn't mean you're anti-town. I think any marginally experienced player, or even someone who sits down and thinks about how mafia works should realize that bad logic being posted in the thread DOES hurt the town. as a town player, you want to avoid doing this. As a scum player, you are happy when you see this. bad logic hurts the town. it is anti town, then. And other than these two posts, he has had a generally underwhelming filter: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322686&user=99700 "But, blazinghand, most of JW's stuff wasn't even there during your initial accusation! what was the deal there?" Admittedly, my first post in which I voted him was grasping slightly at straws. this town is silent and there was basically no analysis happening. I needed to get things rolling. His utterly catastrophic responses to me after voting him have made me realize that this guy is scum, and deserves to be lynched. Anybody who examines his filter can look and see that there is something amiss. this is now how a town player would play. I stand by my vote, for new reasons that are stronger than the ones for which it was initially made. The evidence is there. all you need to do is open your eyes. | ||
|
cccalf
United States47 Posts
On March 27 2012 14:24 Bluelightz wrote: No Fucking Idea, I'm gonna take more looks at people, Has anyone took a look at ccalf? He has posted NOTHING! besides his /in post. IMO I find Sinensis generally unhelpful with his posts, he has only posted some useless question, and said hes gonna watch Blazinghand, I feel he needs to step up. You haven't asked or directed anything towards me so what am I supposed to say? It's only the first day, no need to get accusatory. While Blazinghand is being aggressive and a little narcissistic, it's just to stimulate conversation, I don't think he's scum. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On March 27 2012 15:36 cccalf wrote: You haven't asked or directed anything towards me so what am I supposed to say? It's only the first day, no need to get accusatory. While Blazinghand is being aggressive and a little narcissistic, it's just to stimulate conversation, I don't think he's scum. you could always ask questions of your own, or contribute to the discussion independently. Initiative isyrous to take. | ||
|
johnnywup
United States3858 Posts
##vote Blazinghand | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5262 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On March 27 2012 15:44 johnnywup wrote: just because i don't have as many posts doesn't mean I'm scum, blazing. My posts are more thought out. Your posts are yelling at anyone who directs a post at you. I don't find that particularly town-like. ##vote Blazinghand So, you have no response to my continued assertion that your statements dont' make sense and your general argumentation is anti-town? I'm not questioning the number or size of your posts, if you actually read my argument. I have questioned the CONTENT of your posts. Outside of the two that i object to, you have posted no content. In my opinion, the only content you have posted hurts town. Your posts are scummy, and your attempt to try to get a wagon started on me is laughable. wagons are started with arguments, not votes, my friend. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
If anyone is interested in lynching scum, perhaps I could interest you in a hot juicy Cyber_Cheese. On March 27 2012 07:41 Cyber_Cheese wrote: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P7KtZ.jpg) Alright boys, lets do this. Something about this seems suss. Compensating for some sort of guilt perhaps? The important part of this post is the flag. At first I thought that Cyber_Cheese was idiotically claiming his nationality. But after rereading his play in L and seeing his posting so far, I'm finding this less and less likely. If C_C were town, I feel like he wouldn't have included any kind of clue that would hint at giving scum information, as most of the first posts by other players so far have done. It just makes more sense to try and keep scum in the dark. On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote: As town, it's hard to stay with a solid stance. Games change, and ultimately these little things never seem to come up anyway. As mafia, having a solid stance and sticking with it is basically a free pass. Ultimately, 'lurking' and 'lying' are only a fraction of a persons play. However, if it's a stance you want: In my experience, the moment you bother lynching the lurkers is the moment you know mafia are in control of the game, especially if it's done sooner. If we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers. Taking this into account, this post looks terrible, and here's why: in the initial post, he had made an underhanded accusation of me trying to hide some sort of underlying guilt by a show of bravado or something, and when I called him out on it rather than continue that line of thinking any further he responds as he should have in the first place and comments on the content in my post. Which begs the question: why did he attack me in the first place? What was the point? I'd been one of the few to actually post in the game so far, what's the point of raising suspicion of someone if you're not even going to respond back when asked? My vote is going on Cyber_Cheese and if you're town, I'd go my early interactions with him and tell me what you think. ##Vote: Cyber_Cheese | ||
|
johnnywup
United States3858 Posts
On March 27 2012 15:20 Blazinghand wrote: the idea that someone would play poorly meaning they're not scum is utterly preposterous and you know it. If you use bad logic like that in arguments, you create a scenario that scum can manipulate to its advantage. if you are unhelpful, you are anti-town. you can be anti-town by being a worthless or actively bad townie. I'm astonished I have to explain this to you. Bad town play hurts the town. that's you. you're hurting us. stop it. ow. ow. you didn't pressure me, you defended me, and you did so in a sloppy, bad fashion. you deserve my vote, and i see no reason to shift it off you. you have failed to adequately address my principle cliam. bold 1: so people can't be bad? bold 2: You're playing bad. You're calling out people for absolutely 0 reason. Bad arguments=scum right? Look in the mirror, buddy. bold 3: i never defended you. I pointed out your posts were bad and I neither attacked your nor defended you at that point. I just pointed things out. But you got defensive and started attacking me. I don't understand your logic here. On March 27 2012 15:23 Blazinghand wrote: Of course, the secret is that JW isn't actually an actively bad townie, and he won't stop being bad. he's scum and should be lynched. for what reason would i be scum rather than a bad townie? just because? On March 27 2012 15:34 Blazinghand wrote: A) Johnnywup's initial "pressure" on me was actually rather half-assed and non-comittal. I found his statement that "scum wouldn't play this bad" (or equivalent) to be an anti-town statement. Anybody who examines his filter can look and see that there is something amiss. this is now how a town player would play. bold 1: me thinking you're bad makes me anti town? And I didn't intend to commit, I merely pointed out why what you said is stupid, like I've said. bold 2: please, please tell me blazing, how would a town player play? How should I play mafia, tell me! I don't understand the needless attacking of me. Please help me understand why I'm scum, blazing. I really do want to know. | ||
|
Sinensis
United States2513 Posts
On March 27 2012 15:47 EchelonTee wrote: ##Unvote So what changed? Or do you not like being in the same voting boat as johnny? You defended him earlier. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21171 Posts
| ||
| ||
