|
fine i'll do it this time fo real
/in
|
Voting randomly is a stupid idea. If we put pressure on people and do at least some guesswork chances are we'll glean more information out of a kill then if we simply kill someone randomly. Forcing people to talk and participate brings us closer to weeding out the scum.
|
I'm not really convinced that Cynanmachae might be mafia but since he has a tenuous connection to Pandain, at least we'd get some information from his lynching.
I'm actually a bit torn between voting for Cynanmachae or one of the completely inactive players such as JeeJee. I think I'm gonna wait on this a bit. We need to be careful not to jump into big accusations this early, nothing good ever comes of it.
|
On October 06 2010 05:56 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:40 meeple wrote:On October 06 2010 05:27 Pandain wrote:
I don't count Cynan as inactive and Nobody should vote for him because his actions thus far are in accordance with his previous play. That's not to say I'm not watching him(I am) but he's not that suspicious to me.
Whoa whoa... weird defense of cynan... the votes against him were just to bump him back into posting... which he did, so those should eventually fade away to other, more suitable targets. However, he's definitely not in enough danger for another townie to worry about him getting the chop. This makes a lot more sense if you're an anxious red protecting your buddy... o.O Forgive me then, I was under the (I now see) false impression that while the first vote was just to get him talking that the second post was either a quick bandwagon(doubt it thought) or more likely a townie who's just confused. I was worried that he might get bandwagoned just because we really don't have that many good choices. Rereading, its clear to me they were for that purpose. However, I should point out that I did not say Cynan was innocent, rather that we don't have enough evidence to lynch him.
To be fair, we don't have enough "evidence" to lynch anybody really.
|
On October 06 2010 06:26 drag_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 06:05 kingjames01 wrote:On October 06 2010 05:42 drag_ wrote:
It's a hard choice for me, because there's so many layers meaning (if unclear read the Old Man and the Sea) behind every post. However, you, Mr. Kingjames seem to be trying a little too hard in my eyes to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere. I'm a little more skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation. No, that's totally valid. However, I'm trying to play the game as best as I can with the little bit of information that has been revealed. Until I have more information, I think I will go with what I've got. Even if I'm wrong with what I'm saying, it invites a response so that we can learn more about what players are thinking, just like how it incited you to respond. What I DO find interesting, however, is that you have only posted once previous to this message. Then, with this post you claim that you apparently don't like it when people try a "little too hard ... to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere [and are] skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation." You came out of hiding just to point fingers and divert attention. Are you taking this game seriously enough to find a good reason to survive and win? If you are, then seriously consider what I have to say. If you can find a glaring logical error then say so. Don't insinuate with your slimy words just before the first vote and then disappear. This just furthers my point about you. You act as if my post was all part of your multiple phase plan, before completely changing the subject to you accusing me of lying in wait and singling you out with my 'slimy words'. Once again another clear shift of blame from yourself towards me and another accusative post.
This is a strong point. I don't really understand why you're being so aggressive kingjames especially this early in the game when we don't really have anything solid pointing to anyone being red or not. Our big goal with this day 1 lynch is to gain information on player connections while avoiding lynching a blue.
It's easy to overanalyze and assure yourself someone is mafia based on their posting this early but 99 times out of 100 it ends up NOT being the case.
|
On October 06 2010 07:34 Pandain wrote:
I still believe Infun should be lynched if anyone, based around the fact he's technically off the "inactive list" while he hasn't really posted any content at all besides a link to a site.
My main reason is that I don't think we should lynch Cynan, and Infun is the best person we have. I think we should make a stand right here, and everyone should start to vote for someone, since the way it stands now it is too easy for mafia to manipulate the votes and it will be 100% NOT a scum lynched.
What information do we really get from lynching Infund? He's been posting information to assist DT's and Medics in carrying out their role effectively, I don't think he's been totally useless at all.
|
On October 06 2010 07:49 ghrur wrote:
Speaking of lynching, I strongly suggest against group voting, or in other words
Don't agree to bandwagon onto a random vote
Don't agree to use individual RNGs and votes
If we bandwagon onto a random vote, how can we know if the person voting is or isn't mafia?
If we use a RNG, how can we be sure Mafia isn't rigging the votes and using the RNG as an out?
Also, once again, I'm against voting an inactive so early on because
A. They could get modkilled. Do we want to waste a lynch?
B. Does it put pressure on them if they can't see the votes due to a busy schedule?
C. Inactives could be very helpful later on.
D. Mafia hardly ever hides in inactives.
Personally, I'll probably read through the voting thread later and see who votes what and let that influence my choice because I'm still new. xD Learning how a veteran votes could be helpful!
This is a good point. I'm using JeeJee as a placeholder for now but we need to look for someone who has posted in the thread but said almost nothing and has avoided participating in real discussion. Usually inexperienced mafia players are afraid to get involved in discussion because they fear they will incriminate themselves so they just mindlessly agree with other players or say things that have already been said a million times.
After re-reading the thread the two best fits for that profile seem to be NukeTheBunnys and Crisis_
I'm keeping JeeJee as a placeholder for now. I'd like to see a stronger case from Pandain for the lynching of Infund, most likely I will switch my vote to crisis or nukethebunnys.
|
On October 06 2010 08:09 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:49 ghrur wrote:
Speaking of lynching, I strongly suggest against group voting, or in other words
Don't agree to bandwagon onto a random vote
Don't agree to use individual RNGs and votes
If we bandwagon onto a random vote, how can we know if the person voting is or isn't mafia?
If we use a RNG, how can we be sure Mafia isn't rigging the votes and using the RNG as an out?
Also, once again, I'm against voting an inactive so early on because
A. They could get modkilled. Do we want to waste a lynch?
B. Does it put pressure on them if they can't see the votes due to a busy schedule?
C. Inactives could be very helpful later on.
D. Mafia hardly ever hides in inactives.
Personally, I'll probably read through the voting thread later and see who votes what and let that influence my choice because I'm still new. xD Learning how a veteran votes could be helpful! While these are different reasons for why I no longer am lynching an inactive, it is the same conclusion however. I think we SHOULD make a stand on who to lynch. We hardly have any time left (what, 3 hours?) Right now mafia can manipulate the vote so easily. I'm lynching Infunidibulum because he's posted without really posting, he gave a link to a site which, while perhaps worthwhile to look at, isn't really superb. And sure, we don't really get that much info, but who else do we get info from? I mean, theres the supposed "Cynan-Pandain" connection, but of course I know it won't really amount to anything.
There are better candidates for the "posting without posting" thing, two of which I mentioned earlier. Infund has contributed by posting some information which might help some of our blues conduct themselves better and avoid being hit by the mafia. Yeah it doesn't take a whole lot of effort but it's something.
|
On October 06 2010 09:01 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On October 06 2010 08:09 Pandain wrote:On October 06 2010 07:49 ghrur wrote:
Speaking of lynching, I strongly suggest against group voting, or in other words
Don't agree to bandwagon onto a random vote
Don't agree to use individual RNGs and votes
If we bandwagon onto a random vote, how can we know if the person voting is or isn't mafia?
If we use a RNG, how can we be sure Mafia isn't rigging the votes and using the RNG as an out?
Also, once again, I'm against voting an inactive so early on because
A. They could get modkilled. Do we want to waste a lynch?
B. Does it put pressure on them if they can't see the votes due to a busy schedule?
C. Inactives could be very helpful later on.
D. Mafia hardly ever hides in inactives.
Personally, I'll probably read through the voting thread later and see who votes what and let that influence my choice because I'm still new. xD Learning how a veteran votes could be helpful! While these are different reasons for why I no longer am lynching an inactive, it is the same conclusion however. I think we SHOULD make a stand on who to lynch. We hardly have any time left (what, 3 hours?) Right now mafia can manipulate the vote so easily. I'm lynching Infunidibulum because he's posted without really posting, he gave a link to a site which, while perhaps worthwhile to look at, isn't really superb. And sure, we don't really get that much info, but who else do we get info from? I mean, theres the supposed "Cynan-Pandain" connection, but of course I know it won't really amount to anything. There are better candidates for the "posting without posting" thing, two of which I mentioned earlier. Infund has contributed by posting some information which might help some of our blues conduct themselves better and avoid being hit by the mafia. Yeah it doesn't take a whole lot of effort but it's something. Crysis is new and has even more content than Infund. Nuke the bunny actually has been contributing, and has posted 8 times. Infun, however, is an expierenced player. He's by far the best bet in this situation(albeit wouldn't be if like 7 people weren't going to be modkilled)
crisis_ hasn't contributed anything. I didn't catch Nukes first post where he does contribute a worthwhile opinion but Crisis_ hasn't done anything but agree or disagree with other people without offering anything himself.
cSc hasn't offered anything and is just asking people to think for him. however this is not something I think mafia would do, I wouldn't vote to lynch him.
Unless you can find a post where crisis_ contributed something useful I'm voting for him. What I find even more interesting is this post
On October 05 2010 14:05 Crisis_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 12:39 ~OpZ~ wrote:On October 05 2010 12:12 Bill Murray wrote:
I'm here. I just started my first day of work, so I don't know if I'll be able to be as active as I have in the past. Haven't gotten to read the thread yet, as I just worked a twelve hour day, but I promise I'll make an informed post tomorrow. Yea, uh huh. I believe it, but come on BM! On October 05 2010 12:03 Crisis_ wrote:I'm in favor of voting inactives. It forces people to talk, leading to more communication. As mentioned before, communication is a step forward in helping us to determine scum. I'd have to agree with most of this. Mafia often snipe the quiet folk as they are often medics or other good power-roles. In my first game on TL where we were mafia that was one of the tell-tale signs of the medic we sniped. I'd also agree with you on the DT building an argument but I'm against claiming at this point in time until the DT builds up a few more reports. He can't just let his reports do the work for him; he has to be a proactive townie. As for the DTs, I agree with most of this. A DT that plays the role of a proactive townie will be diffused amongst the crowd, instead of being a sitting duck to the mafia's quiet-sniping tendencies. K, I'll be voting you in a second Crisis_.... How nice of you to vote for me. Glad to know that your vote will be a waste, since: 1. I am participating in active discussion to try to help town and give advice to the DT, I wouldn't be doing this if I were scum. 2. There are better candidates to be lynched, i.e. inactives.
He insists he has been participating in active discussion and has been helping the DT
but look at his post:
On October 05 2010 12:03 Crisis_ wrote:I'm in favor of voting inactives. It forces people to talk, leading to more communication. As mentioned before, communication is a step forward in helping us to determine scum. Show nested quote +I'd have to agree with most of this. Mafia often snipe the quiet folk as they are often medics or other good power-roles. In my first game on TL where we were mafia that was one of the tell-tale signs of the medic we sniped. I'd also agree with you on the DT building an argument but I'm against claiming at this point in time until the DT builds up a few more reports. He can't just let his reports do the work for him; he has to be a proactive townie. As for the DTs, I agree with most of this. A DT that plays the role of a proactive townie will be diffused amongst the crowd, instead of being a sitting duck to the mafia's quiet-sniping tendencies.
he didn't contribute anything he just quotes another post and agrees
|
On October 06 2010 09:11 Misder wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:39 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On October 06 2010 07:34 Pandain wrote:
I still believe Infun should be lynched if anyone, based around the fact he's technically off the "inactive list" while he hasn't really posted any content at all besides a link to a site.
My main reason is that I don't think we should lynch Cynan, and Infun is the best person we have. I think we should make a stand right here, and everyone should start to vote for someone, since the way it stands now it is too easy for mafia to manipulate the votes and it will be 100% NOT a scum lynched.
What information do we really get from lynching Infund? He's been posting information to assist DT's and Medics in carrying out their role effectively, I don't think he's been totally useless at all. We shouldn't be lynching by what info we get from the lynch; most of the time, the conclusions are wrong, and the whole point of the game is to lynch the mafia. Infund only posted once this entire time, and it was a link to a guide that could have been found by googling. He didn't really post anything at all. His one quote: Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 04:39 Infundibulum wrote:You are correct, Element 91. But Amber is also right that there are ways for the detective to push lynches on reds he checks, without role-claiming. If you are a detective I suggest you get creative; only roleclaim if you feel it is necessary. If you are a detective, you should probably read this page (if you haven't already) just to get an idea of the ways in which other people (namely mafias and medics) will be trying to find you in the thread: http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=JEEP's_Tells_for_Finding_the_CopI think that's a pretty good comprehensive guide, but if there's any problems in it hopefully a more experienced player can point them out. I'm really undecided who to vote for at this point. I think right now, its pretty useless trying to lynch an inactive. Theres about 4 hrs left, and the whole point of lynching an inactive is to pressure them to vote. I'm still going to vote for XeliN because he's played many games and I dont understand why hes not here.
i don't think most people especially if they're new to the role would search for a guide, he gave DT's a useful link. that is some contribution while there are several people who haven't posted and others who have contributed literally zero original thought in their posts like crisis and cSc
infund is a vet and lynching him on a whim like this is a bad idea
|
On October 06 2010 09:27 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On October 06 2010 09:01 Pandain wrote:On October 06 2010 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On October 06 2010 08:09 Pandain wrote:On October 06 2010 07:49 ghrur wrote:
Speaking of lynching, I strongly suggest against group voting, or in other words
Don't agree to bandwagon onto a random vote
Don't agree to use individual RNGs and votes
If we bandwagon onto a random vote, how can we know if the person voting is or isn't mafia?
If we use a RNG, how can we be sure Mafia isn't rigging the votes and using the RNG as an out?
Also, once again, I'm against voting an inactive so early on because
A. They could get modkilled. Do we want to waste a lynch?
B. Does it put pressure on them if they can't see the votes due to a busy schedule?
C. Inactives could be very helpful later on.
D. Mafia hardly ever hides in inactives.
Personally, I'll probably read through the voting thread later and see who votes what and let that influence my choice because I'm still new. xD Learning how a veteran votes could be helpful! While these are different reasons for why I no longer am lynching an inactive, it is the same conclusion however. I think we SHOULD make a stand on who to lynch. We hardly have any time left (what, 3 hours?) Right now mafia can manipulate the vote so easily. I'm lynching Infunidibulum because he's posted without really posting, he gave a link to a site which, while perhaps worthwhile to look at, isn't really superb. And sure, we don't really get that much info, but who else do we get info from? I mean, theres the supposed "Cynan-Pandain" connection, but of course I know it won't really amount to anything. There are better candidates for the "posting without posting" thing, two of which I mentioned earlier. Infund has contributed by posting some information which might help some of our blues conduct themselves better and avoid being hit by the mafia. Yeah it doesn't take a whole lot of effort but it's something. Crysis is new and has even more content than Infund. Nuke the bunny actually has been contributing, and has posted 8 times. Infun, however, is an expierenced player. He's by far the best bet in this situation(albeit wouldn't be if like 7 people weren't going to be modkilled) crisis_ hasn't contributed anything. I didn't catch Nukes first post where he does contribute a worthwhile opinion but Crisis_ hasn't done anything but agree or disagree with other people without offering anything himself. cSc hasn't offered anything and is just asking people to think for him. however this is not something I think mafia would do, I wouldn't vote to lynch him. Unless you can find a post where crisis_ contributed something useful I'm voting for him. What I find even more interesting is this post On October 05 2010 14:05 Crisis_ wrote:On October 05 2010 12:39 ~OpZ~ wrote:On October 05 2010 12:12 Bill Murray wrote:
I'm here. I just started my first day of work, so I don't know if I'll be able to be as active as I have in the past. Haven't gotten to read the thread yet, as I just worked a twelve hour day, but I promise I'll make an informed post tomorrow. Yea, uh huh. I believe it, but come on BM! On October 05 2010 12:03 Crisis_ wrote:I'm in favor of voting inactives. It forces people to talk, leading to more communication. As mentioned before, communication is a step forward in helping us to determine scum. I'd have to agree with most of this. Mafia often snipe the quiet folk as they are often medics or other good power-roles. In my first game on TL where we were mafia that was one of the tell-tale signs of the medic we sniped. I'd also agree with you on the DT building an argument but I'm against claiming at this point in time until the DT builds up a few more reports. He can't just let his reports do the work for him; he has to be a proactive townie. As for the DTs, I agree with most of this. A DT that plays the role of a proactive townie will be diffused amongst the crowd, instead of being a sitting duck to the mafia's quiet-sniping tendencies. K, I'll be voting you in a second Crisis_.... How nice of you to vote for me. Glad to know that your vote will be a waste, since: 1. I am participating in active discussion to try to help town and give advice to the DT, I wouldn't be doing this if I were scum. 2. There are better candidates to be lynched, i.e. inactives. He insists he has been participating in active discussion and has been helping the DT but look at his post: On October 05 2010 12:03 Crisis_ wrote:I'm in favor of voting inactives. It forces people to talk, leading to more communication. As mentioned before, communication is a step forward in helping us to determine scum. I'd have to agree with most of this. Mafia often snipe the quiet folk as they are often medics or other good power-roles. In my first game on TL where we were mafia that was one of the tell-tale signs of the medic we sniped. I'd also agree with you on the DT building an argument but I'm against claiming at this point in time until the DT builds up a few more reports. He can't just let his reports do the work for him; he has to be a proactive townie. As for the DTs, I agree with most of this. A DT that plays the role of a proactive townie will be diffused amongst the crowd, instead of being a sitting duck to the mafia's quiet-sniping tendencies. he didn't contribute anything he just quotes another post and agrees He's new. What he considers "contributing" may be less than what you do. Point is, he gave his opinions, and at least actually helped. Also, stop twisitng his words. He had been contributing in discussion on that subject(those posts were around the same page), while Infun has not at all besides that post in the begining. In addition, Crysis is at least putting himself out there with opinions, while Infun can't be linked to having a strong opinion on anything. All he did was link a site, and if its bad info, he can just say "Oh, sorry." And we still can't tell what his views are on anything. Don't forget, just linking a site which *may* help someone isn't unknown to mafia, mafia pretend to "help" all the time. But what I find most interesting is why you are so caught up in this. You even claim yourself, "We don't have evidence on anyone really" and were inactive up until infun started getting accused. But I'll just leave that as food for thought, as a valuable townie would be contributing none the less. Still, I've got my eyes on you O.O. Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:19 Bill Murray wrote:On October 06 2010 05:40 meeple wrote:On October 06 2010 05:27 Pandain wrote:
I don't count Cynan as inactive and Nobody should vote for him because his actions thus far are in accordance with his previous play. That's not to say I'm not watching him(I am) but he's not that suspicious to me.
Whoa whoa... weird defense of cynan... the votes against him were just to bump him back into posting... which he did, so those should eventually fade away to other, more suitable targets. However, he's definitely not in enough danger for another townie to worry about him getting the chop. This makes a lot more sense if you're an anxious red protecting your buddy... I did pick up on that, but Pandain could just as easily be a Detective trying to defend someone, or a townie with a loud mouth. DT's can't investigate till night 2 Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:22 Misder wrote:
Actually, I’m just going to vote ~Opz~ right now instead of XeliN, just because of this tiny suspicion. I don’t know if I truly believe in that he is mafia, but I think he has a better chance at being mafia than XeliN. Why? At least Opz is being active, and he always posts scum like. He's like cynan, suscipcious, but playing his normal style so that must be remembered. Obviously some people are gonig to be modkilled. We should go after the people who will not, but have barely contributed(or go under the "guise" of contributing).
Why do you keep saying infund contributed nothing? That guide would be very helpful for new DT's and he contributed some helpful advice which will keep our blues alive while crisis contributed 0 original information. Infund did throw out a strong opinion which was that blues shouldn't roleclaim and that they should play outside of conventional play style while crisis just agreed/disagreed with other people
i understand he is new but to say he doesn't fit the profile of a non-contributing player masquerading as an active townie while infund does is just stupid. I don't think he's even likely mafia but you seem pretty bent on infund being scum while other people fit your reasoning better
|
On October 06 2010 10:00 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:46 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On October 06 2010 09:27 Pandain wrote:On October 06 2010 09:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On October 06 2010 09:01 Pandain wrote:On October 06 2010 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On October 06 2010 08:09 Pandain wrote:On October 06 2010 07:49 ghrur wrote:
Speaking of lynching, I strongly suggest against group voting, or in other words
Don't agree to bandwagon onto a random vote
Don't agree to use individual RNGs and votes
If we bandwagon onto a random vote, how can we know if the person voting is or isn't mafia?
If we use a RNG, how can we be sure Mafia isn't rigging the votes and using the RNG as an out?
Also, once again, I'm against voting an inactive so early on because
A. They could get modkilled. Do we want to waste a lynch?
B. Does it put pressure on them if they can't see the votes due to a busy schedule?
C. Inactives could be very helpful later on.
D. Mafia hardly ever hides in inactives.
Personally, I'll probably read through the voting thread later and see who votes what and let that influence my choice because I'm still new. xD Learning how a veteran votes could be helpful! While these are different reasons for why I no longer am lynching an inactive, it is the same conclusion however. I think we SHOULD make a stand on who to lynch. We hardly have any time left (what, 3 hours?) Right now mafia can manipulate the vote so easily. I'm lynching Infunidibulum because he's posted without really posting, he gave a link to a site which, while perhaps worthwhile to look at, isn't really superb. And sure, we don't really get that much info, but who else do we get info from? I mean, theres the supposed "Cynan-Pandain" connection, but of course I know it won't really amount to anything. There are better candidates for the "posting without posting" thing, two of which I mentioned earlier. Infund has contributed by posting some information which might help some of our blues conduct themselves better and avoid being hit by the mafia. Yeah it doesn't take a whole lot of effort but it's something. Crysis is new and has even more content than Infund. Nuke the bunny actually has been contributing, and has posted 8 times. Infun, however, is an expierenced player. He's by far the best bet in this situation(albeit wouldn't be if like 7 people weren't going to be modkilled) crisis_ hasn't contributed anything. I didn't catch Nukes first post where he does contribute a worthwhile opinion but Crisis_ hasn't done anything but agree or disagree with other people without offering anything himself. cSc hasn't offered anything and is just asking people to think for him. however this is not something I think mafia would do, I wouldn't vote to lynch him. Unless you can find a post where crisis_ contributed something useful I'm voting for him. What I find even more interesting is this post On October 05 2010 14:05 Crisis_ wrote:On October 05 2010 12:39 ~OpZ~ wrote:On October 05 2010 12:12 Bill Murray wrote:
I'm here. I just started my first day of work, so I don't know if I'll be able to be as active as I have in the past. Haven't gotten to read the thread yet, as I just worked a twelve hour day, but I promise I'll make an informed post tomorrow. Yea, uh huh. I believe it, but come on BM! On October 05 2010 12:03 Crisis_ wrote:I'm in favor of voting inactives. It forces people to talk, leading to more communication. As mentioned before, communication is a step forward in helping us to determine scum. I'd have to agree with most of this. Mafia often snipe the quiet folk as they are often medics or other good power-roles. In my first game on TL where we were mafia that was one of the tell-tale signs of the medic we sniped. I'd also agree with you on the DT building an argument but I'm against claiming at this point in time until the DT builds up a few more reports. He can't just let his reports do the work for him; he has to be a proactive townie. As for the DTs, I agree with most of this. A DT that plays the role of a proactive townie will be diffused amongst the crowd, instead of being a sitting duck to the mafia's quiet-sniping tendencies. K, I'll be voting you in a second Crisis_.... How nice of you to vote for me. Glad to know that your vote will be a waste, since: 1. I am participating in active discussion to try to help town and give advice to the DT, I wouldn't be doing this if I were scum. 2. There are better candidates to be lynched, i.e. inactives. He insists he has been participating in active discussion and has been helping the DT but look at his post: On October 05 2010 12:03 Crisis_ wrote:I'm in favor of voting inactives. It forces people to talk, leading to more communication. As mentioned before, communication is a step forward in helping us to determine scum. I'd have to agree with most of this. Mafia often snipe the quiet folk as they are often medics or other good power-roles. In my first game on TL where we were mafia that was one of the tell-tale signs of the medic we sniped. I'd also agree with you on the DT building an argument but I'm against claiming at this point in time until the DT builds up a few more reports. He can't just let his reports do the work for him; he has to be a proactive townie. As for the DTs, I agree with most of this. A DT that plays the role of a proactive townie will be diffused amongst the crowd, instead of being a sitting duck to the mafia's quiet-sniping tendencies. he didn't contribute anything he just quotes another post and agrees He's new. What he considers "contributing" may be less than what you do. Point is, he gave his opinions, and at least actually helped. Also, stop twisitng his words. He had been contributing in discussion on that subject(those posts were around the same page), while Infun has not at all besides that post in the begining. In addition, Crysis is at least putting himself out there with opinions, while Infun can't be linked to having a strong opinion on anything. All he did was link a site, and if its bad info, he can just say "Oh, sorry." And we still can't tell what his views are on anything. Don't forget, just linking a site which *may* help someone isn't unknown to mafia, mafia pretend to "help" all the time. But what I find most interesting is why you are so caught up in this. You even claim yourself, "We don't have evidence on anyone really" and were inactive up until infun started getting accused. But I'll just leave that as food for thought, as a valuable townie would be contributing none the less. Still, I've got my eyes on you O.O. On October 06 2010 09:19 Bill Murray wrote:On October 06 2010 05:40 meeple wrote:On October 06 2010 05:27 Pandain wrote:
I don't count Cynan as inactive and Nobody should vote for him because his actions thus far are in accordance with his previous play. That's not to say I'm not watching him(I am) but he's not that suspicious to me.
Whoa whoa... weird defense of cynan... the votes against him were just to bump him back into posting... which he did, so those should eventually fade away to other, more suitable targets. However, he's definitely not in enough danger for another townie to worry about him getting the chop. This makes a lot more sense if you're an anxious red protecting your buddy... I did pick up on that, but Pandain could just as easily be a Detective trying to defend someone, or a townie with a loud mouth. DT's can't investigate till night 2 On October 06 2010 09:22 Misder wrote:
Actually, I’m just going to vote ~Opz~ right now instead of XeliN, just because of this tiny suspicion. I don’t know if I truly believe in that he is mafia, but I think he has a better chance at being mafia than XeliN. Why? At least Opz is being active, and he always posts scum like. He's like cynan, suscipcious, but playing his normal style so that must be remembered. Obviously some people are gonig to be modkilled. We should go after the people who will not, but have barely contributed(or go under the "guise" of contributing). Why do you keep saying infund contributed nothing? That guide would be very helpful for new DT's and he contributed some helpful advice which will keep our blues alive while crisis contributed 0 original information. Infund did throw out a strong opinion which was that blues shouldn't roleclaim and that they should play outside of conventional play style while crisis just agreed/disagreed with other people i understand he is new but to say he doesn't fit the profile of a non-contributing player masquerading as an active townie while infund does is just stupid. I don't think he's even likely mafia but you seem pretty bent on infund being scum while other people fit your reasoning better I'm not saying he's contributed nothing, I'm saying he really hasn't contributed anything to this game. Plainly, Infun is a better and much more obvious choice than Crysis, who has at least been trying to contribute. And plainly I think he has been. Decent 3 paragraphs, but how does it help? Those who post without content are spammers, those who write essays without content are scum. Hyperbole, obviously, and I don't know for sure that infun is 100% scum. But I do know he's a better lynch in my eyes. Plainly, Infun has not contributed at all. He linked to a website, but anyone can really do that. Again, mafia will appear to help people all the time. And you don't always have to lie, or even want to lie as scum. (See: Ace's mafia guide). You're saying crysis is a better lynch than Infun. How? Crysis has at least attempted to contribute, and is new, so his posts will obviously be shorter than normal. He is adapting to this game, to accuse him and declare him mafia because he hasn't contributed "meaningfully" is the wrong conclusion. Instead, realize he is contributing, and push him to contribute more. Crysis makes 3 posts, talking about what he feels. Infun makes one in the very beginning, linking to a "helpful site." Then he disappears. Tell me which is the better choice.
Infun didn't say much but what he did say contributed. He was giving advice to blues, that's something.
I never said Crisis was mafia. If you read my post you'd know that. Crisis has posted more than infund and said less. I'm just pointing that out. I'm not declaring him mafia but for now he's the strongest candidate for my vote because he has posted several times without saying anything at all. I'm not going out on a limb and saying he's 100% red or even 50%, that would be retarded.
|
On October 06 2010 10:18 CynanMachae wrote:
##Vote Padain
I'd like to hear why. I disagree with his insistence on lynching Infund but I see no reason to believe he is mafia. Are you merely trying to distance yourself from the accusation that the two of you are in some way connected?
|
On October 06 2010 11:07 cSc wrote:
##vote bumatlarge
do you have a reason for this?
|
infinitestory, you're throwing out some really dumb arguments here. you've posted nothing until people started throwing you under suspicion, it seems a bit like you may be cracking under pressure.
on top of that you edited your post.
i would vote for you but something gives me a hunch that you're the village idiot.
|
On October 06 2010 11:59 infinitestory wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 11:49 Protactinium wrote:
To summarize, since there's more information now: if Poisoner and Roleblocker show up to a check, they are definitely that. And since they are Mafia power roles, why not reveal them? I want to say that sacks a very valuable DT, but especially to reveal poisoner that's definitely worth it. I'm not so sure about revealing roleblocker, because roleblocker's own ability is far more situational to the reds. @Divinek: The primary reason is that the mafia do not win if town dies. If town loses by VI, mafia also loses by VI. Don't say you didn't consider that. Your counterargument was stated at least twice previously, and better ones have been suggested.
the town does not win if the VI is lynched so why does that matter? town threatening to lynch VI is empty and mafia would just ignore it completely. that wouldn't even work since in order to threaten to lynch the VI they have to know who the VI is meaning the mafia will likely know as well and can just hit him at night
|
On October 06 2010 12:09 infinitestory wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 12:01 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On October 06 2010 11:59 infinitestory wrote:On October 06 2010 11:49 Protactinium wrote:
To summarize, since there's more information now: if Poisoner and Roleblocker show up to a check, they are definitely that. And since they are Mafia power roles, why not reveal them? I want to say that sacks a very valuable DT, but especially to reveal poisoner that's definitely worth it. I'm not so sure about revealing roleblocker, because roleblocker's own ability is far more situational to the reds. @Divinek: The primary reason is that the mafia do not win if town dies. If town loses by VI, mafia also loses by VI. Don't say you didn't consider that. Your counterargument was stated at least twice previously, and better ones have been suggested. the town does not win if the VI is lynched so why does that matter? town threatening to lynch VI is empty and mafia would just ignore it completely. that wouldn't even work since in order to threaten to lynch the VI they have to know who the VI is meaning the mafia will likely know as well and can just hit him at night Alright. I give up on my argument. I relent. I crack under pressure. Does that please you? What I intended was simply to get people thinking hard about how to get rid of VI, as he is a problem that must be solved through the cooperation of multiple roles. I guess you have an excellent reason for showing me up here, though. Shall we discuss something else now?
Why are you being so defensive? If bad arguments are made as the town we have to get rid of them and just move on.
The best thing to do with the VI is to have the vigilante hit him. Anyone who is a suspect for VI will likely get hit by the mafia or vigilante so all we can do is try our best to reveal him. If he comes up on a rolecheck the detective needs to roleclaim, knowing who the VI is is crucial.
|
There are a ton of non-voters. Are you going to mod kill all of them, sub, or just give out a warning? Having this many people die this early would really ruin this game.
|
On October 06 2010 12:50 Crisis_ wrote:
I'll just tell you right now, I'm not red.
that was very convincing
|
On October 06 2010 13:02 Protactinium wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 13:00 SiNiquity wrote:
I getcha, heh.
Also, Prot's headed to the gallows (bum just chimed in). Sorry buddy ~ could've thwarted this whole mess if you'd have fessed up. All is going exactly as I have planned.
the dead don't speak
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
