|
I have awakened from my slumber
/in
|
besides I need to fill out my post count AMIRITE GUYS
|
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
@Oceanic: Inactives don't pay attention to the thread and don't vote, and so the mafia can just target the active players until they have a decisive vote advantage. Most inactives that return late will have missed most of the arguments and will be too lazy to read through. And inactives that never show up are just modkilled.
|
Hesmyrr with the insubstantial "I agree" post. Let's watch out for him.
|
|
|
On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw
I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste.
|
On December 10 2010 10:23 Hesmyrr wrote:
Moreover D1 lynches are always crapshoot. It is good and fine to publicly discuss and prod one's suspects, but at least waiting until D2 so one have more actual data to support the case on him/her seems just better. This is a large setup so we cannot just afford to let all the lurkers pass-by.
They're always crapshoot because we have players that go about finding scum in a crappy way.
I suggest that everyone else vote for you as well.
|
On December 10 2010 10:28 tube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? yeah i still think we shouldn't kill them yet like i said, the inactives would be more likely to be the ones who have just started playing, and either ended up not really caring or just not having anything to say due to inexperience or something basically, there are 48+ hours left, if we do decide something about inactives, we should do it later, when more people have had a chance to not simply be labeled "inactive" i don't get how after 33 games of tl mafia somehow we now decide to be going into deep discussion over what should be done about inactives
This kind of happens every game.
|
On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check?
Seconded. That is kind of bullshit.
|
On December 10 2010 10:35 Hesmyrr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:25 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:23 Hesmyrr wrote:
Moreover D1 lynches are always crapshoot. It is good and fine to publicly discuss and prod one's suspects, but at least waiting until D2 so one have more actual data to support the case on him/her seems just better. This is a large setup so we cannot just afford to let all the lurkers pass-by. They're always crapshoot because we have players that go about finding scum in a crappy way. I suggest that everyone else vote for you as well. Chances of finding scum D2 > Chances of finding scum D1 always just purely on the basis that amount of information available will increase as the game progresses.
So let's increase the amount of information available now. Why aren't you a good lynch candidate? You've contributed virtually nothing to the thread and are encouraging us to take a passive role in finding scum.
|
On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want.
That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out.
|
On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:
[quote]
I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box.
I have no idea what that last line means.
Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town.
|
On December 10 2010 11:00 zeks wrote:
Lynch inactives or eventually they'll burn us in the ass in the end when we're fighting amongst each other
6 scum + 1 third party = 7 / 31 = 22% chance of sniping someone. I haven't played for a couple months but most the player list looks relatively foreign to me so I'm assuming theres quite a number of new players (over half?)
From what I've seen from past games newb scum tend to lurk (correct me if I'm wrong) so we shouldn't give a free pass to inactives. And with new players we don't have any material from past games to work with.
And why don't you put your money where your mouth is and vote for an inactive instead of jumping on the bandwagon some clown started?
|
On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:
[quote]
At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum  because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote.
With a game of 31 people and a little more than half the people having posted recently it's just dumb to blindvote someone for "just showing up." What do you read into the line about efficiency that I don't?
|
On December 10 2010 12:11 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 12:01 Oceanic wrote:On December 10 2010 11:57 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:44 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:34 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote:
oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote:
Pikachu - Townie
Raichu - Miller
Chansey - Medic
Cloyster - Veteran
Alakazam - Detective
Electrode - Mad Hatter
Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father
Koffing - Mafia Grunt
Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote:
yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote:
how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course  I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote:
Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. what would posting history 4 hours into the game show you? A) You dont want to be active posting B) You want to "look" active C) You read the rules but you actually dont know mafia KP? That was rare. D) You dont want to lynch inactives because that doesnt work. E) You want enlightment. F) You vote for me out of literally nowhere. I mean: i post to flip Infundibulum and you come right after me. Care to explain at least? A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. A) Well you just wrote 7 one liners and have yet to post something relevant. B) But you are NOT. It is not about how you look. Come on that is not an argument, so you post one liners to look active? what is that? Sparta? C) Well you actually read the rules because you posted the pokemon/classicmafia relation. I wonder why you just couldnt look for the mafia KP, and insisted to look clueless asking for it. D) It doesnt? well you were pretty much inactive and so was Infundibulum. Maybe it does.E) You think too much. You have again 2 posts where you "think" about this "think" about that, when it is clear that those post refer to info available in the opening rules. This heavily smells like "im not too sure, i dont know" plot. F) So you agree that you are protecting infundibulum by voting me: More reason to flip him!. This logic is flawed since the game just started. So they didn't post right at the start and their first post was later then a lot of people's. So they were inactive til their first post? What about all the other people that haven't posted yet. When they make their first post are you going to say the same thing about them? After all, they were even later and therefore must be even more suspicious? Note that Kenpachi was actually posting since the start of the thread. People is inactive because we are just starting the game but nonsense has to be pinned down as soon as it comes out. I find hilariously weird that a guy posting one liners comes right after i vote Infundibulum (with a reason that may or may not be strong for other players) and simply votes Gabriel because he doesnt like my vote on Infundibulum. What do you think? Is that normal? He didnt even posted that.
So is this your first game?
|
On December 10 2010 12:19 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 12:12 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 12:11 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 12:01 Oceanic wrote:On December 10 2010 11:57 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:44 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:34 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote:
oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote:
Pikachu - Townie
Raichu - Miller
Chansey - Medic
Cloyster - Veteran
Alakazam - Detective
Electrode - Mad Hatter
Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father
Koffing - Mafia Grunt
Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote:
yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote:
how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote:
Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. what would posting history 4 hours into the game show you? A) You dont want to be active posting B) You want to "look" active C) You read the rules but you actually dont know mafia KP? That was rare. D) You dont want to lynch inactives because that doesnt work. E) You want enlightment. F) You vote for me out of literally nowhere. I mean: i post to flip Infundibulum and you come right after me. Care to explain at least? A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. A) Well you just wrote 7 one liners and have yet to post something relevant. B) But you are NOT. It is not about how you look. Come on that is not an argument, so you post one liners to look active? what is that? Sparta? C) Well you actually read the rules because you posted the pokemon/classicmafia relation. I wonder why you just couldnt look for the mafia KP, and insisted to look clueless asking for it. D) It doesnt? well you were pretty much inactive and so was Infundibulum. Maybe it does.E) You think too much. You have again 2 posts where you "think" about this "think" about that, when it is clear that those post refer to info available in the opening rules. This heavily smells like "im not too sure, i dont know" plot. F) So you agree that you are protecting infundibulum by voting me: More reason to flip him!. This logic is flawed since the game just started. So they didn't post right at the start and their first post was later then a lot of people's. So they were inactive til their first post? What about all the other people that haven't posted yet. When they make their first post are you going to say the same thing about them? After all, they were even later and therefore must be even more suspicious? Note that Kenpachi was actually posting since the start of the thread. People is inactive because we are just starting the game but nonsense has to be pinned down as soon as it comes out. I find hilariously weird that a guy posting one liners comes right after i vote Infundibulum (with a reason that may or may not be strong for other players) and simply votes Gabriel because he doesnt like my vote on Infundibulum. What do you think? Is that normal? He didnt even posted that. So is this your first game? You are not good at reading my friend ⇓.
I thought you were a better mafia player on your old account. What happened to that?
|
Hasn't it been 48 hours already since Day 1 post?
|
My read on last night's events:
Last nights deaths make sense from the context of ridding the town of leadership and/or bluesniping. Tree.hugger had already established himself as a strong town player despite his misread on Kenpachi. I imagine his blue-ness was icing on the cake for mafia. Similarly for jcarlsoniv, who contributed to discussion. RoL is a dangerous player to have for anyone around, and his relative activity makes sense for a blue read (for me, anyway).
Who took the 4th hit? Step up and claim. If you do NOT, then it leaves room for Gengar to sneak in.
I'm having a hard time coming up with more leads at this point in time. With mafia targeting active townies they're looking more to destroy whatever organization we're getting and feed us whatever lies they want us to believe. LSB and Hesmyrr seem likely to me, as does Gabriel. The Eiii/zeks is something I'm not entirely sure on, because I never bought into Gabriel's analysis of zeks too strongly.
|
On December 13 2010 17:15 Brocket wrote:
I was reading through the roles again. I get why there was only voltorb because electrode only gets to place 1 voltorb per night or switches 1 voltorb per night (not both).
But what seems odd to me is the rule that if mew is checked by alakazam, mew will appear as alakazam. What's the point of that if there is only 1 alakazam in the game?
I kind of get that gengar can appear as alakazam too. I guess that's a given that gengar will always choose to apper as alakazam.. to appear as mew? Honestly I would have just made it mew appears as mew, and gengar can appear as mew.
There is probably more than 1 Alakazam in the game.
|
The relative silence of the town bothers me, because it's just what mafia needs to win. The contribution of members named KtheZ, chaoser, deconduo, Insanious, ShoCkeyy, serApH, DCLXVI, Oceanic is virtually nil.
We need to spend our time finding by rooting through the list of semi-lurking voters and figure out which ones we want to kill and/or check. Gabriel's insistence on a zeks vote today is distracting, but the votes on him thus far aren't very well-explained either. LSB and Shockeyy need to explain themselves on this.
Actually, Shockeyy needs to explain himself, period. He only has ONE post thus far in the thread:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 12 2010 05:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 04:35 tree.hugger wrote:On December 11 2010 17:41 tree.hugger wrote:My hunch is that he's not going to be able to commit fully to anything, no matter how much we prod.
On December 12 2010 02:30 Kenpachi wrote:
asdf. even when i post, i get pointed scum On December 12 2010 02:35 Kenpachi wrote:
okay so yea my posts were bad but what can i say? i couldnt offer anything there and there. So i voted Gabriel for blatant bandwagon. Then he reacts and i defend. On December 12 2010 02:27 Kenpachi wrote:
##vote tree.hugger On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic? On December 12 2010 04:13 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 04:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic? Are you claiming DT or medic? no i am not Word. I suppose we'll get treated to angry defending eventually, as he's in the lead right now, but hey, that might be too committed. Alright, I feel like kenpachi is getting way to agressive here. All his post have been aggressive and not helpful in anyway. + Show Spoiler +A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174831¤tpage=14#270When he starts saying, that why do people assume that he reads the rules, makes me question him. Everyone reads the rules and we know this because that's part of the game. If he's saying he doesn't that just seems phishy to me imo. I also feel like, he posted the DT or Medic theory in order to try and get some people off of his case cause he can possibly be a TR member. I've seen this happen plenty of times where they pull out the "I might be a DT or Medic" and they end up not being it. My two cents, maybe I am wrong, but this is what I've been able to read off of.
I'll be back in the evening, so don't go anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
