The Sum of All Fears Mafia - Page 10

On March 27 2012 15:08 johnnywup wrote:
aren't you full of yourself blazinghand? everythings gotta be about you huh?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

and hows it anti-town to have bad logic? it just means you're unhelpful, that doesn't mean you're anti-town.

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.

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.

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

On March 27 2012 07:41 Cyber_Cheese wrote:

Alright boys, lets do this.


Something about this seems suss. Compensating for some sort of guilt perhaps?

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.

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.

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.

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.