EPTMini Mafia IV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
| ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
Also, please stay caught up with the thread... just read new posts whenever you get the chance. Once you fall behind, it's much easier to just write the game off and go inactive. Let's not do that. I agree with the idea of lynching an inactive unless obvious scum turns up day one. If we had lynched our chosen inactive on day one in XXV (Brocket), we would have hit a red. Of course, you won't always get that lucky, but it's better than lynching an active townie. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On January 21 2011 04:27 LSB wrote: Abstaining is bad because it brings us closer to lylo (Assuming that the doctors don't make their protects) Hmm, what do you mean? Wouldn't abstaining mean it takes us longer to reach lylo? it'll take 4 deaths to reach lylo. If we lynch every day then we reach lylo after two days and two nights. If we abstain then we reach lylo after four days and four nights. Not that I'm advocating abstaining. But I'd think the problem with abstaining is that it hands the kills to the mafia instead of letting town get their turn. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
[QUOTE]On January 21 2011 01:30 Barundar wrote: [quote]Shockeyy, you where laying really low in mafia xxxv, I hope to see more out of you in this game.[/QUOTE] Of course I was laying low seeing as all the active kids kept dying first, because everyone in that game was so dumb to realize who were the mafia either way. I was dumb as well, but hey it happens. That game actually has showed me a lot more that the way I played mafia back in the day has changed than the way we play it now. And Pandain, if you read the thread, I clearly state I can't post till I get out of work. I will try and post from my phone as much as possible, but that is such a pain in my ass. Either way, I will post some more when I do get home.[/QUOTE] You were green, why would you need to stay alive if you weren't actively posting. That's a really bad reason for 'laying low'. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On January 21 2011 05:19 GGQ wrote: You were green, why would you need to stay alive if you weren't actively posting. That's a really bad reason for 'laying low'. Fixed the quote problem | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On January 21 2011 05:22 ShoCkeyy wrote: So we actually had a chance in the end to win as a town? But that didn't happen either way. How does that help you win as a town? Even if you survive to the endgame, you'll have no credibility because you haven't been active. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
| ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On January 21 2011 11:24 Pandain wrote: Because mafia will never go inactive. As for pressuring them.... For example, we can threaten to lynch people. When for 2 days in a row you only say "I'm busy", that's unnacceptable, and we lynch them. As of now though there is no one I would consider truly "inactive inactive." There really the only way to differentiate is by lynching them, such as soulfire and george clooney, who wouldn't talk even if pressured. But no one is doing that now. So for now, lynching "inactives" is not what we should be doing. You literally just finished XXV where two mafia were modkilled for inactivity... | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On January 22 2011 02:08 Pandain wrote: And we don't want to be voting those who we modkill anyway, no? I got enough out of him, the point is to pressure as many people as possible in a limited amount of time. Speaking of which, why is chaoser still voting me since I've obviously spoken. And BC, I'm expecting alot out of you this game. You're certainly the most experienced one here, yet as of now have hardly said anything of real substance. Finally, I've decided that I don't think Shockkey is scum. He's playing his norm, in fact, even has contributed more with a semi analysis of Nemesis. I think Hesmyrr is a far better person to vote considering he has barely talked at all. Do you really think that's a relevant reply to what I was saying? You initial point was that we shouldn't lynch inactives because mafia are never inactive. I pointed out the undeniable fact that two mafia were inactive in the last big game, proving your point wrong. Now you are trying to say we don't want to lynch inactives because they will get modkilled (which might not even happen if they're careful enough to post once or twice and vote), and you're saying it as though that was your point all along. Maybe you just weren't keeping up with the logic, but this feels sketchy to me. Also, why so uncomfortable with having just one vote on you? Your play seems nervous to me. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On January 21 2011 19:32 Jackal58 wrote: Good morning all. So the debate rages on. I think it's now time to start attempting to identify lurkers/inactives rather than to continue debating whether or not it's wise to do so. We appear to have a clear consensus on the issue. Having everyone on board is not a requirement since the player with the most votes wins anyways. Shockeyy - Yes he may be at work. Yes he may be unable to post. Or he may be something else. In either case if he continues at his present rate of participation he is a detriment to us. BloodyC0bbler - Hello!!!! You're the worst of the bunch so far. GGQ - Your lips are moving but you're not really saying much. Yeah, I haven't done as much analysis as I would like, but honestly I could say the same thing about you. You've made a good number of posts, but almost every one is a one liner. The activity is good, but more content would be appreciated. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
##Vote ShocCeyy | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
| ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
| ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
@LSB, I didn't have time before the deadline to explain why I thought ShocCeyy's defense was worse than anyone else's. It's too late now, but I can still explain if you want. And yes, I would like you to answer Pandain's post. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On January 23 2011 22:39 Jackal58 wrote: Yet you switched. Why couldn't we have a tie? At the point you posted this it was painfully obvious we were going to have a modkill. I'm just gonna keep sitting on you man. We have a 37% chance of lynching a red today. Unless we lynch you. Then it goes up to 100%. What is this? Is this just bluster? Over-confidence for humour's sake? Or do you really think that your post justify's calling Pandain 100% confirmed scum? | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On January 23 2011 23:50 GGQ wrote: What is this? Is this just bluster? Over-confidence for humour's sake? Or do you really think that your post justify's calling Pandain 100% confirmed scum? Damnit, justifies* | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
Answer seriously, please. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On January 24 2011 00:24 Jackal58 wrote: I was. His last minute rush to break a tie between in order to lynch Shockkey or LSB makes no sense with an obvious mod kill on the way. All 3 are town. The odds of that are reaching the point of being ridiculously improbable. I think he has to be aware of who the reds are and his rush to get a 2 for 1 deal is extremely scummy looking. Why would you not vote for someone that you consider to be 100% scum? | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
You said that lynching Pandain would be lynching a red 100%. I asked if that was blustering overconfidence or if you were serious. You said both, which doesn't make sense, but from your posts I gather that you were being serious. So I asked why you would not vote for him if you actually believe he is 100% mafia. It feels scummy to me, like you are scum trying to sling mud without having to back it up. You did the same thing yesterday, accusing pandain then waiting to see if anyone else would vote him first. Your play this whole game has been ringing alarm bells for me. You've been posting aggressively but with little analysis. I think your accusations of pandain are not nearly strong enough for the confidence you are saying you have in them. What gives? What do you think of Nemesis or GMartshal? | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
Justify yourself, please. | ||
| ||
