EPTSurprisingly Normal Mini Mafia I
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
| ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
Hope that won't be a problem... | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
On April 12 2011 06:44 GMarshal wrote: I doubt this will be full before Friday, and at the earliest it would start on thursday, it would mean you start 24 hours late, but that should be ok... Great! on vacation the next week, so activity shouldn't be a problem for me. | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
On April 12 2011 10:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: What ever happen to having a Mayor?! From what I understand, wouldn't a mayor be really overpowered in a 9 person game. just doing the math: If a mafia gets voted mayor, mafia will have 4 lynch votes. once a single townie is dead, it becomes impossible for the mafia to loose, because they can force lynches with majority (ties are decided by who gets the votes first, which the mafia could arrange easily). Maybe if mayor gets less votes? | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
I am allowed to edit before the game starts, right? | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
On April 12 2011 15:10 Qatol wrote: Yeah of course. But you might want to get out of the habit in this forum. thx. Used to normal tl, where doubleposting gets me a warning at best if it wasn't an accident. I've been reading through mafia XXXVII though, and it has become evident that this section was abandoned by mods long ago. Onwards with the doubleposts! | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
On April 12 2011 15:40 Qatol wrote: Well don't get too carried away. The mods don't visit this section very often on their own, but they will if we ask them to. And the multiposting instead of editing rule that we use here was actually introduced by a mod, so even when they do visit, they multipost too. Regardless, the major habit you will have to shake is that urge to fix your typos. Do not edit your posts. Just use EBWOP: "whatever you meant to say" instead. (EBWOP = edit by way of posting) I'll make sure to remember that. I assume nobody asked them to check out the Pregame of TL Mafia XXXVIIpregame of TL Mafia XXXVII then? Mods would have heart attacks at the sight of some of those posts! | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
On April 12 2011 16:01 Qatol wrote: The spam at the beginning of that thread is pretty harmless, though I guess it might look bad if the mods look at posting histories out of context. I was thinking just that. So many posts on the Automated ban forum read: "this was going to be a warning, but then I looked at your shitty posting history..." I'm training myself to preview every post so that I can proofread. | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
gl hf to all the other players. | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
a) Lynch an inactive player because he might be lurking scum/ because he won't be helpful later on. b) Wait to see how things play out. I think we should pressure lurkers, but put the votes towards suspicious characters once we get the lurkers talking. | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
On April 16 2011 03:59 Zorkmid wrote: I'm all up for scumhunting, and will defend myself at any point that I think it's necessary. Let's hear from the lurkers! VarpuliS Senj Vain Penny for your thoughts? I'm interested in the little argument you and Forumite are having. I'm not sure if you're right and he's suspicious or if you're suspicious because of your accusation. I don't like the idea of lynching active players without a good reason, though, and neither of those reasons are good enough for a lynch. Also, there's practically no way that you've found both the mafia within 24 hours of the beginning of the first day. | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
On April 16 2011 05:52 Forumite wrote: There has been some accusations of scummy behavior allready, actually everyone has except the lurkers (Varp, Senj, Vain) and Shcoleosis have pointed out someone that they think are scummy. There are 4 different people who have been pointed out as scummy by at least two people, at least if my data is correct. would you care to share your data with the rest of us? | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
On April 15 2011 23:19 sandroba wrote: That makes no kind of sense whatsoever. How is me saying losing townies is a bad thing makes me scum? I'm obviously town. The idea of lynching inactives is really just to make sure everyone post enough so we can get a read on them. Also attacking the one doing analisys on you is not good town play. That's called OMGUS from what I've read. If you really are town then you should either defend yourself or make a case of someone you think is scum (a decent one, not the nonsencical one you've posted) so you can actually help town. I also have no connection with forumite and I fail to see how you could possibly have drawn this conclusion. And to say it doesn't matter if he posted that before or after he got PM'ed is just LOL. You are looking more and more like scum to me. This is a scummy post. He gets defensive and says two scummy lines, which I bolded. Not sure if it's just defensive posting because Zorkmid called him scum or an actual scumtell, but it's suspicious. I highly doubt that Forumite is scum though, so I might just be overanalysing. Zorkmid's schtick about Forumite being scummy because he' busy over the weekend is bullshit though. | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
On April 16 2011 06:23 Forumite wrote: And because I like tripple-posting; Yes, and you are welcome. Thank you very much. Am I still a lurker? | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
I just looked though the thread, and pretty much 100% of Eternalmisfit's posts have been pushing for an inactive lynch day 1. He'd like to get everybody talking, but has yet to contribute in a meaningful way. If we're gonna lynch a lurker, it should either be him or Senj, who has been lurking since the beginning of the game, save a few posts about inactives. | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:28 Eternalmisfit wrote: I pushed for inactive lynch as I don't see in-actives contributing to discussion in any form or sense. As far as meaningful discussion is concerned, there has been very little analysis by anyone on this thread apart from arbitrary finger pointing. As far as my suspicions are concerned, I am quite suspicious of Shcoleosis being scum. + Show Spoiler + Most of the people in the town are in 2 camps: lynching lurkers or not lynching lurkers. And for the most, the people have strong opinions on the matter. Shcoleosis initially was quite against the idea at the start of the discussion. However, as my suggestion gained some support (as most of the people opposed to it posted later), she quickly jumped sides and was semi-pro for lynching inactives. I think she is changing her opinion and trying a bit too hard to fit in which seems like scummy behavior. She has also been inactive since those posts. FoS Shcoleosis Fair enough about the lurking. I'll look into the Shcoleosis matter. Expect a post about it in a couple of minutes. | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
First post is a response to Eternalmisfit's suggestion to pressure lurkers On April 15 2011 11:17 Shcoleosis wrote: Yeah, that seem logical. We don't want to kill innocent townies, though...It's the mafia we want gone! I highly doubt any mafia would be lurking or inactive when they have chances to kill. But who am I to say...I'm still learning :/ This bolded line is not scummy, it's just stupid. Mafia doesn't kill by talking, they kill by pm'ing GMarshal at night. Mafia needs to avoid drawing attention to itself to prevent themselves from getting lynched. This post in general is pretty worthless, ending with a line that is... strange. But who am I to say...I'm still learning :/ This is the first scumtell I can see. She basically says "don't listen to me, i'm new." Townies need to talk and be listened to, not ignored because this is their first game. Only mafia and blues benefit from being ignored, so unless he roleclaims, lets assume scum. Second post comes a little bit later. the post reads: On April 15 2011 11:41 Shcoleosis wrote: I'm sure getting rid of the inactive would make the lynching process easier, but I can't help but question the idea of getting rid of people unnecessarily. I'm thinking about it more, and I'm realizing that there's a chance the one we lynch is scum and there's also a chance that he or she might not be scum....no way to tell right now. Hopefully we'll get lucky. This is a post which blends in. It says practically nothing, but appears to be a contribution. Blending in is not something a townie needs to do. +1 scum level. Finally, we've got lucky number 3: On April 15 2011 13:01 Shcoleosis wrote: Not trying to protect the inactive. I guess I just didn't really understand your logic well. But, hey, if it takes lynching the inactive to get rid of the scum, LET'S DO THIS! Lol Here, Shcoleosis basically says: "you seem to disagree with me... fine, you're right!" Agreeing with everybody else is something that two kinds of players do: -unhelpful townies -because they're just being sheep -mafia -because they're trying to blend in I don't want either in my town come lategame. Based off of this analysis, I'd like to start putting some pressure on Shcoleosis. Until a better target surfaces or she comes up with some good posts later on, I'll put my vote on her. ## Vote Shcoleosis | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
| ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
Shcoleosis, sheeping is not a great way to play town, if you are indeed town. Even if you're not scum, you're not helping us find them. Who do you think would be a better target for a lynch? there are no inactives left, and you are the most suspicious of the lurkers so far. I'd love to hear your opinion. If you can convince me that somebody else is more scummy than you, then I'll change my vote, until then, I'm fine with leaving you over the fire. | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
I love the hypocrisy here. a few short posts ago, you defended your changing opinion with I was looking at things from a different point of view in order to help all of us find out who is mafia scum. Then, after I thought about it, I changed my mind a little because I started to see the point. Since I am new to this game, I am trying my best to give my point of view Then, when Zorkmid comes through and accuses you based off of what he sees, then changes his suspicions based off of new evidence (twice), you say that he's scum because he changes his mind a little. I've noticed something else about you. You're fickle in your accusations. One minute you're accusing someone of this, and the next you're accusing someone of that... Misfit, Sandroba, Shcoleosis....who is next, Zorkmid?... To me, that screams nothing but scum....a scum desperately trying to fit in. So, you change your mind, and you're not scum. He does the same, yet he is scum? "great" logic... Despite this, Zorkmid still seems pretty suspicious. Not sure whether or not this is just two townies arguing or if one of you is actually scum. For now, I'll back down. To reiterate, I'm trying to force activity, not bandwagon the first guy who seems suspicious. ## Unvote Shcoleosis | ||
| ||
