|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On March 27 2012 12:54 Nemesis wrote:
Ok this might be where you misunderstood what I said.
1. By town making stances. I mean townies, now town as a whole.
3. I was discussing policy lynches to move discussion along. We have to start discussion from somewhere.
1) then be clear about it. I don't like having to go after someone and then him saying "well, by 'town' i didn't mean 'the town' but i meant 'townies'"-- communicate precisely whenever possible.
3) well then I have a real lynch to discuss, your lynch. Much more interesting imo.
On March 27 2012 12:54 Nemesis wrote:Show nested quote +1) the idea that the town should take a stance is not good. Individually, we should make our own stances and developed them with the discussion You just agreed with me right here. Cyber_cheese was saying that we shouldn't take a clear stance on anything because we might change our view later on. I pointed out how that is bad for town, tell me do you agree with what he is saying then?
Cyber cheese can go eat a carrot. he's not the relevant party here-- you are. mr. scum.
On March 27 2012 12:54 Nemesis wrote:
Also, I'm being unnecessary aggressive, what do you call those gifs? Maybe you can take your own advice, you hypocrite.
My aggression is both a) necessary and 1) hilarious. you aggression is unnecessary and unhelpful, whereas mine is going after an obvious scum player. I also somehow was so aggressive I woke you up several minutes after you went to sleep.
Nobody else notices this? Nemesis, a "town" player, decides to go to sleep, but when he is attacked, magically awakens to defend himself? Oh, it could be coincidence, but maybe he was scum and was trying to find an excuse to lurk-- being asleep. Then, when the pressure was on, he blinked. he felt a need to defend himself, because he is scum.
He has already been caught in a lie. What say you to this, sir?
I am more confident than ever in your scumminess.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On March 27 2012 12:59 EchelonTee wrote:
preface: this aint no chainsaw
blzinghand, I feel that you're being the unnecessarily aggressive one here. first you say it's bad that nemesis is using policy as a centerpiece for lynching, then you state it's bad that nemesis says policy lynch discussion isn't important? your arguement doesn't flow. and dude, you misread his original post; he's saying "town should take stance" as in townies should each have their own stance. ur being all flashy and stuff. is this normal BH?
Yeah i'm typically rather aggressive. But it is necessary, and I will not discard my aggression, for it is a vital tool. It has already exposed that Nemesis' lies and it will do more as the game goes on. Maybe he's just a town player who didn't think things through carefully and worded his posts ambiguously (in an attack that is fundamentally about wording posts).
But the fact of the matter is, he did somehow wake up to respond to my posts. He will doubtlessly claim that he hadn't yet gone to bed... but bear in mind that his series of actions is distinctly something a scum player WOULD do.
On March 27 2012 12:59 EchelonTee wrote:+ Show Spoiler +where do you get your gifs?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 27 2012 13:01 EchelonTee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 12:43 Sinensis wrote:
Also, there's only been one topic. It's topic. Not "topics [sic]." VisceraEyes using quotes. You weren't even part of that conversation. new topic! sinensis do you think blzinghand's vote on nemesis is resonable or not?
Happy to have a new topic  . Reasonable? No. Harmful to the town? Also no. It's the beginning of day 1. A vote, some stuff about bed times, and a power rangers gif doesn't seem very suspect to me. I'll be watching though.
|
blzinghand i think you talking craAAAzzzy, and not the crazy I like. I mean just look at this nonsensical post
On March 27 2012 13:04 Blazinghand wrote:
But the fact of the matter is, he did somehow wake up to respond to my posts. He will doubtlessly claim that he hadn't yet gone to bed... but bear in mind that his series of actions is distinctly something a scum player WOULD do.
+ Show Spoiler +
Blazinghand: I thought you went to sleep.
Nemesis: I was just checking thr-
Blazinghand: He lied!! Townies never wake back up!! Lynch!!!
Jubjubs (chanting): It makes so much sense!
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On March 27 2012 13:15 EchelonTee wrote:blzinghand i think you talking craAAAzzzy, and not the crazy I like. I mean just look at this nonsensical post Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 13:04 Blazinghand wrote:
But the fact of the matter is, he did somehow wake up to respond to my posts. He will doubtlessly claim that he hadn't yet gone to bed... but bear in mind that his series of actions is distinctly something a scum player WOULD do.
+ Show Spoiler +Blazinghand: I thought you went to sleep. Nemesis: I was just checking thr- Blazinghand: He lied!! Townies never wake back up!! Lynch!!! Jubjubs (chanting): It makes so much sense!
The first line, yes. The remaining three have not happened (yet). I suspect Nemesis has realized that feigning sleep would be his best move here-- an accurate perception.
|
On March 27 2012 12:22 Nemesis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 11:52 Blazinghand wrote:/confirm Good morning, gentlemen. 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 10:13 Nemesis wrote:On March 27 2012 08:19 zelblade wrote:
Blabla no lynch bad blahblah
In sch post mre ltr Do you mind posting something coherent? On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On March 27 2012 07:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I noticed that you didn't give an opinion one way or the other C_C, is there a reason you don't want to commit to a stance? 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. WIFOMIf we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers. Thanks for stating the obvious. This is a rather crappy post. Town SHOULD always take a stance. If your stance change throughout the game, then you just have to explain why it changed. Scum are the only one who should fear taking stances, as they can get caught when their explanation doesn't match with their stance. The town should not take a unified stance. If we rigidly follow a unified stance scum will just crap on us. We must always adapt to the situation at hand. The idea that you're somehow gonna catch scum because of their thoughts on a POLICY LYNCH is so utterly preposterous as to be asinine in character. Policy lynches are the last resort of a lost town, not some vital centerpiece for scumhunting. I hope you can understand that. ![[image loading]](http://i.minus.com/iUBP2UtMo1zk2.gif) In this image: Blazinghand and Nemesis. Lol, ok one last post before I go to sleep. Stop misrepresenting what I said to defend your scummate: 1. I never said that town should take a unified stance. Just that they should take a stance on important things. 2. I never said we shouldn't adapt. In fact, I explicitly said that stances do change, and you just need to explain it when they change. 3. I never said that discussing policy lynches are important. Sinensis, would you please stop inflating useless topics?
Are you calling C_C scum here?
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On March 27 2012 13:21 slOosh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 12:22 Nemesis wrote:On March 27 2012 11:52 Blazinghand wrote:/confirm Good morning, gentlemen. 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 10:13 Nemesis wrote:On March 27 2012 08:19 zelblade wrote:
Blabla no lynch bad blahblah
In sch post mre ltr Do you mind posting something coherent? On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On March 27 2012 07:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I noticed that you didn't give an opinion one way or the other C_C, is there a reason you don't want to commit to a stance? 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. WIFOMIf we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers. Thanks for stating the obvious. This is a rather crappy post. Town SHOULD always take a stance. If your stance change throughout the game, then you just have to explain why it changed. Scum are the only one who should fear taking stances, as they can get caught when their explanation doesn't match with their stance. The town should not take a unified stance. If we rigidly follow a unified stance scum will just crap on us. We must always adapt to the situation at hand. The idea that you're somehow gonna catch scum because of their thoughts on a POLICY LYNCH is so utterly preposterous as to be asinine in character. Policy lynches are the last resort of a lost town, not some vital centerpiece for scumhunting. I hope you can understand that. In this image: Blazinghand and Nemesis. Lol, ok one last post before I go to sleep. Stop misrepresenting what I said to defend your scummate: 1. I never said that town should take a unified stance. Just that they should take a stance on important things. 2. I never said we shouldn't adapt. In fact, I explicitly said that stances do change, and you just need to explain it when they change. 3. I never said that discussing policy lynches are important. Sinensis, would you please stop inflating useless topics? Are you calling C_C scum here?
In my interpretation, yes. I believe the implication is that both C_C and I are scum.
|
wtf blazinghand?
On March 27 2012 12:39 Blazinghand wrote:
It seems to me that your statements are unnecessarily aggressive and are hurting the town atmosphere. Your removal will help the town greatly and improve our discourse.
You're the one being agressive, voting on someone with no facts to backup your vote. And the "Your removal will help the town greatly and improve our discourse" just is a retarded statement. First of all, discourse? You want discourse to improve? That doesn't make sense if you are town. And why would his removal help the town unless you're absolutely certain he's mafia, which you aren't.
On March 27 2012 13:01 Blazinghand wrote:
1) then be clear about it. I don't like having to go after someone and then him saying "well, by 'town' i didn't mean 'the town' but i meant 'townies'"-- communicate precisely whenever possible.
Then why did you go after him in the first place?
On March 27 2012 13:01 Blazinghand wrote:
Cyber cheese can go eat a carrot. he's not the relevant party here-- you are. mr. scum.
So nobody can have opinions but you? That's stupid. You're saying that only you and the person you accuse are relevant in that exchange? How about all of the town? You're trying to lynch on behalf of the town, why don't we matter?
On March 27 2012 13:01 Blazinghand wrote:
Then, when the pressure was on, he blinked. he felt a need to defend himself, because he is scum.
no comment, thats just stupid logic
I don't think you're mafia, blazing, because no mafia would be so stupid to post something so stupid. At least I think. Utterly garbage posting so far.
|
On March 27 2012 13:26 johnnywup wrote:
I don't think you're mafia, blazing, because no mafia would be so stupid to post something so stupid. At least I think. Utterly garbage posting so far.
never underestimate the depths to which people will reach.
+ Show Spoiler +never assume someone is scum or town off of logic like "scum would never do that", you'd be surprised how often that can be wrong
well mr. wup u singlepostedly changed my opinion on you. i'm out of suspects now darn
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On March 27 2012 13:26 johnnywup wrote:
I don't think you're mafia, blazing, because no mafia would be so stupid to post something so stupid. At least I think. Utterly garbage posting so far.
bad logic, anti-town to be bad logic. This kind of thinking hurts town. If you plan on using this sort of reasoning going forwards, you are either scum or worthless town.
##unvote
##vote: johnnywup
I'd say "come at me bro" but your argumentation skills are so benign I feel like any "pressure" you put on me will only serve to exonerate me.
|
i'm absolutely flattered <3
On March 27 2012 14:03 Blazinghand wrote:
bad logic, anti-town to be bad logic. This kind of thinking hurts town. If you plan on using this sort of reasoning going forwards, you are either scum or worthless town.
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.
|
TAKE ON SOMEONE YOUR OWN SIZE BUB
##vote: Blazinghand
Being good at arguing doesn't make you town. At this point you're just wildly voting people. Sowing dat chaos. Way to take the one off statement in his post and ignore the rest. You're voting people off of semantic mistakes as opposed to having any real reasoning, so thread flounders under your boot. As you might say, this kind of thinking hurts town. Scum.
|
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 13:04 Blazinghand wrote:
Maybe he's just a town player who didn't think things through carefully and worded his posts ambiguously (in an attack that is fundamentally about wording posts).
'If he's town' is good for setting up a safe escape when a mafia lead lynch goes badly, but townies shouldn't need an escape.
This is a slippery slope that scum love. Lets try to lynch scum, and settle for nothing less k?
On March 27 2012 10:13 Nemesis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:19 zelblade wrote:
Blabla no lynch bad blahblah
In sch post mre ltr Do you mind posting something coherent? Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On March 27 2012 07:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I noticed that you didn't give an opinion one way or the other C_C, is there a reason you don't want to commit to a stance? 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. WIFOMIf we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers. Thanks for stating the obvious. This is a rather crappy post. Town SHOULD always take a stance. If your stance change throughout the game, then you just have to explain why it changed. Scum are the only one who should fear taking stances, as they can get caught when their explanation doesn't match with their stance.
Ideally, yes. In practice, this kills town atmosphere because everyone is afraid to post.
Example: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=296791
|
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.
IMO I find Bluelightz generally unhelpful with his posts, he has only posted some useless question, I feel he needs to step up.
Did you notice I couldn't even mock you fully because you've managed to contribute less than me?
|
Sinensis, what do you think of Blazinghand now with his vote on Johhny? also srsly cool down we're all friends ==".
|
@C_C + Show Spoiler +dude my filter in that game is 1 page. wth LOL. good times ^^
bluelightz no one can talk a look at cccalf because he hasn't posted anything. you're doing that thing when you don't make any sense. hip hip hurrah
C_C is doing that thing where I have no idea about his alignment, mostly b/c he hasn't posted much direct opinions or cases on anyone. I hope C_C does that sometime. O_O
hey lurkers/semi-newbies who haven't posted yet! feel free to start posting, don't mind the hubbub ^^ what's your opinion on the state of town? answer soon pls!! relevant topics include 1. role of policy lynching, 2. the closed set-up 3. blazinghand vs. all contenders.
|
On March 27 2012 14:38 Bluelightz wrote:
Sinensis, what do you think of Blazinghand now with his vote on Johhny? also srsly cool down we're all friends ==".
I think he is being aggressive and unreasonable. Johhny wasn't wrong about anything he said about Blazinghand as far as I'm concerned. I don't think Blazinghand's vote possesses any substance. I think he is just trying to see who goes after him, and to what end they will continue to go after him. As of now I will be watch his vote the closest toward the vote deadline.
|
While I'm at it, here is what I think of johnnywup:
I think he is ballsy to go after BlazingHand because BlazingHand is seemingly going after anyone who will pay him any attention. I don't think a mafia player would go after BlazingHand, because doing so risks being in the spotlight; BlazingHand being a very aggressive player at the moment.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On March 27 2012 14:39 EchelonTee wrote:
hey lurkers/semi-newbies who haven't posted yet! feel free to start posting, don't mind the hubbub ^^ what's your opinion on the state of town? answer soon pls!! relevant topics include 1. role of policy lynching, 2. the closed set-up 3. blazinghand vs. all the combined forces of jubjubs and scum.
Fixed that for you. There is only one relevant topic so far. The closed setup is closed and policy lynches are what they are. Redirecting people away from addressing the topic at hand is unhelpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z8LzZ.gif)
