TL Mafia L

On August 12 2011 11:11 flamewheel wrote:
Going to ignore all the /in's and make you guys sign up again when it comes time though because I'm OCD ~_~

On January 06 2012 10:54 VisceraEyes wrote:
I'll step down for one of Wiggles/Jackal. Out of RESPECT.

On January 06 2012 10:54 VisceraEyes wrote:
I'll step down for one of Wiggles/Jackal. Out of RESPECT.

On January 14 2012 00:53 kingjames01 wrote:


First, there are only 2 Bodyguards.

Second, I agree with you about Jackal's comment about lynching a Bodyguard.

Third, you're actually agreeing with me in essence. I'm saying that if they sneak in a Bodyguard, it will be risky to take out the elected officials. However, to make it harder for them, they should be revealed from the beginning. What if both elected officials are killed and we have 0 clue as to who the Bodyguards were? Are you okay with that risk?

Finally, are you stating for the record that if you were elected, you would not reveal your Bodyguards?

On January 14 2012 01:35 Kurumi wrote:

We should not make Bodyguards claim.
Good to know that someone actually reads my posts Palmar, if You were given ability to kill someone right now, who would it be?

On January 14 2012 10:38 wherebugsgo wrote:


no, screw leaving people till day 2. If he's useless now he'll be useless day 2. Kill him.

I couldn't care less about veterans and usefulness later on or all of that bs. If you're a vet and I think you're scum day 1 I want you to die day 1. Palmar fits this perfectly. Just look at his filter if you don't believe me; he's had a full day (and by EU time it was an actual day, I've only had about 6 hours worth if you compare) and all of his posts have been one liner marginal content bull.

He also refuses to respond to any sort of pressure and has been completely incapable of any sort of scumhunting. He's scum. Just kill him.

On January 14 2012 10:48 bumatlarge wrote:
ATTENTION THOSE WHO READ BUM'S POSTS

I like BC, and I think his goals are pro-town, but I also feel our best move is to not make him mayor based on that. He has stated to me that he is not expecting to win from his claim, but I would like him to live up to that self-less expectation. If he has a good lynch candidate, then I'll get behind him. Town masons, it's up to you how you feel you shoul act based on BC's proposal, but be prepared to explain exactly why you haven't followed up on it already.

Cyber_Cheese is my lynch choice at the moment if I get voted in. He had a very "why not?" campaign, got himself into multiple players scopes early on and I feel like people are actively not discussing candidates for lynch. If there are a few people who are actual scum, distractions like endlessly swamping BC with point-less accusations about his claim, scum tend to not like talking about them.

BC, if you vote for me, I'd prefer to have you as sheriff where you can mantain your protection while being ut under the microscope with your claim. That sounds reasonable, no?

@meapak: I'm not reliable? lol please bro, I'm the most reliable person in this game. I'm readable and smart, and as mayor I can nail that one-time lynch, and then my votes will always be reliably placed. I HAD RESPONSIBILITY COMPLETELY UNDER MY THUMB... regardless of what my voting history said lol. You said this a while ago so, if you think I'm not good enough to be mayor just come out and say it cupcake.

Who is still running? THREAD PRESCENCE PEOPLE. If I can't remember if you are running or not, then you might as well opt out. Any half-assed campaigns by townies are detrimental, because I'll take your ass to court in analysis if you said you were campaigning and coughed up empty in the useful department.

On January 14 2012 11:06 bumatlarge wrote:

Please stop bringing this up, I had posted multiple times in the QT what we were going to do, and I had to manage your massive failure in the item game, as well as all these items in the black market that were OP as hell. You wanna push this, then blame it on the mods or something. As far as I was concerned, I was 1 of the only two useful townies that game, and I would have won it single handedly. Bringing this up is just a testament to how amazing I am as a leader.

Thanks jackal, I'm expecting your vote any minute now.

On January 14 2012 11:13 bumatlarge wrote:


EBWOP: Forgive this post, I got angry. If you really think I'd play this game exactly the way I would play insane mafia 2 where I was the police chief and the mayor, and you think someone here would have done a better job in the same position, then fine.

I'm opting out of the race. I'm clearly not meant to be mayor on TL ever again.

That said, Slardar, the strength of the mayor is how much ressure is put on them by deciding the lynch. Scum can run bullshit campaigns if all they need to live up to is having +3 voting power and night protection. Scum mayor's get massive amounts of flak very quickly because it becomes apparent rather quickly that they don't have town's best interest.

On January 14 2012 11:46 Protactinium wrote:
Ah an interesting roleclaim. However, there is much more to this than people are getting at.

The PM debate is an old one. Everyone has their opinion on whether it is town or mafia favored, and even through out-of-game debates, this is a highly controversial topic. If it can' be solved out of game, there's absolutely no way we are going to come up with a consensus in game. BC defends his claim by saying that getting everyone to contribute on this polarizing topic will help us get early reads on players. But if we can't agree on anything out of game, you won't really be able to say that someone saying "PMs good!" or "PMs bad!" will tell us anything about their alignment. Anyone can pretty much say whatever they like since they are under no obligation or pressure to have an opinion one way or the other on this issue.

While it is debatable whether PMs are "good" or "bad" for town, it shouldn't be too controversial to say that PMs are elitist. They inherently favor good players who can make use of the extra channel of communication. When you are talking to someone in PMs, always keep in mind what you think the other person wants from you. Are they trying to convince you of a certain point of view? Are they trying to get you to claim? As long as you can keep in mind that the PM initiator may be attempting to manipulate you and don't give away information loosely, PMs really aren't that scary.

What exactly has BC been discussing? Primarily, he has divided his attention between defending his claim, responding to attacks on the potnetial that he is red, and asking for "discussion" while pushing a particularly biased point of view. More clearly stated, he proposes a seemingly open-ended question, and answers it himself to make it appear like there was a town consensus behind it.

If you look at the thread, the only real contribution to the discussion that DOESN'T come from BC is sandroba's suggestion that all the masons roleclaim. And notice BC's bias when discussing the topic. In almost all his posts, BC paints PMs in a bad light. He only seriously acknowledges that town masons have the potential to catch scum, but in the same post, quickly says that "its harder than you think":



But lets look at a section of what BC has to say a bout PMs in his guide "TL Town Breakdown/Analysis":



Quite a contradictory opinion from what he states in game. The essence of BC's out of game stance is that: "PMs are like playing with fire. Could be insanely awesome if used correctly, but could burn you if you don't. If you don't feel comfortable, don't use them". This is quite a stark contrast to his position in this game, where he seriously downplays the usefulness of town PMs, and does a bit of fear mongering in emphasizing how the mafia can screw you over with PMs. Is it possible that BC has changed his stance? I doubt it, but it certainly is possible. So lets dig deeper here.

How is BC pushing his opinion? He does it subtly, and attempts to dissociate it from his personal point of view. In the beginning of his campaign to discuss masons, BC heavily uses the word "discuss" or "discussion", asks how "we as a whole" want to deal with masons, emphasizes that this is a discussion everyone should be weighing in on, and attempts to get the community involved in the discussion. He doesn't outright present his personal point of view, and frames the discussion so that it appears free and open-ended. But pretty much injects his own opinion into the discussion whenver possible.

His initial point is that mafia masons are dangerous and that town needs to have a plan to deal with that.
When asked for an example of PMs in action, BC drags in an example where he manipulated VE to do pro-mafia actions in just 1-2 PMs. (Reinforcing his stance on "PMs are scary")
When asked behind why he thinks a mass claim will interfere with the mafia masons, he proposes in the hypothetical that if town agrees to not use PMs, then it shuts down mafia masons.
A few posts later, he reemphasizes that "by making the town decide, vocally, now, we force everyone to have an opinion." While this is fine and dandy, really he is the one calling the shots here.
When Cyber_Cheese suggests that we let masons use their discretion and suggests that smart town masons could cause the mafia masons to backfire, BC counters with "Mafia masons have the experience of an entire team to work manipulate someone", subtly pushing his opinion that PMs should be shunned.

When asked about his opinion on a mason claim, he says he's fine with it, but takes the opportunity to inject more of his "ignore all PMs" idea into the conversation (notice that nobody else has been saying "lets ignore PMs").

BC is pushing the anti-PM agenda, in a way that is quite subtle. He constantly brings in reference to "the town needs to decide", or "this is a very important discussion that everyone needs to weigh in on", while he is really the one dominating the conversation. In other words, he is injecting his mafia bias into the discussion while attempting to pass it off as a town discussion or collective town decision.

Here's something BC didn't tell you. As he has told me in the past (out of game): "keep in mind as red i rarely pm", and "my heavy pm use is town play".

Now what about the "spotlight factor" brought up by Meapak? BC putting himself in the spotlight is nothing unusual, both for his mafia and town play. If you've read past games, think of BC's style as much the same as Ace's. As stated above, red BC doesn't use a PM heavy style. He uses a style that focuses on thread control, shutting down serious opposition through arguments and generally trashing the thread. BC claiming mason does not give him any +town points in my book. The general heuristic of "mafia want to avoid the spotlight" doesn't apply to BC, who is an experienced mafia player and has proven that he is well capable of taking the spotlight as red.

So what is the scenario for BC being red and pushing his mason claim? BC is in fact red, and can use the mason power (chooses it for himself early in the day). As a town mason would, BC picks a mason target and starts talking to them. Once he gets the town to agree to ban masons, he is off the hook, and doesn't have to worry about PMs anymore. More specifically, he doesn't have to worry about town PMs. Like stated before, mafia BC plays a powerhouse thread control style. By banning PMs, BC doesn't lose out on much (he admits he isn't a heavy PM user), and nerfs Foolishness, sandroba, and my abilities to play a PM centric game (which we are known for). And that's what is the difference between this game and XLII (the game he refers to when he says he dominates with only 1-2 PMs). Foolishness and I are playing in this game, and are real threats. BC wants to shut down PMs before it starts, and he doesn't have to give up much information or lie at all in order to do it.

Furthermore, he has not followed up on his campaign promise: "I will question, analyze and call out all those who play in what I view as bad town/mafia like. (I have already done this with foolishness, he knows better)."

Ok, so maybe he called out Foolishness yesterday, but where is the scumhunting today? Its non-existent, because BC is too busy derailing the thread with mason discussions instead of scumhunting.

What is even more interesting is the timing of his initial claim post. It comes an hourish after my second post against Ciryandor, which conveniently most people except for sandroba and sheth have ignored.

1. BloodyC0bbler derailed today's discussion onto the irrelevant, highly controversial, and unsolvable PM debate.
2. Because the community is split over the PM debate, discussing it tells us nothing about alignment even if people contribute to the discussion. In other words, BC is overexaggerating the importance of this discussion.
3. BloodyC0bbler is masking his intentions and his clear anti-PM agenda, [b]which is inconsistent with his previous (out of game) stance on PMs).
4. BloodyC0bbler is trying to frame the discussion as an open discussion, when he is clearly injecting his personal bias.
5. BloodyC0bbler's actions are completely consistent with his mafia style, which is to spread chaos and control the thread atmoshere and discussion.
6. BloodyC0bbler's actions are not consistent with his campaign promise to analyze and call out people. He has done none of that today

BloodyC0bbler is mafia. If you vote for me I will lynch him.

On January 14 2012 12:16 Nisani201 wrote:
I would recommend against a Palmar lynch. The argument against him is entirely meta-based, and as such should not be used as the basis of an argument.

However I would like to see him post more.

On January 14 2012 19:54 Adam4167 wrote:
EchelonTee:
”Adam, I’m curious if you are still for cheese”
I missed this line because of the whole “–town” debacle that occurred right after it. And the answer is… No, I've since put my vote on Protactinium. I don’t trust cheese since a large portion of his posts have been shitty. He can change my mind by doing some great analysis though.

GGQ:
You’ve had some experience playing with Palmar, should we hang him based on his meta of being obstructive and lazy as scum?

Jackal58:
In your last post, you agreed with Nisani201 that lynching Palmar based off of meta alone is a stupid idea. Do you feel that Palmar should warrant a ‘stay of execution’ until day 2 so we can better determine his alignment?

On January 14 2012 23:23 Adam4167 wrote:
Ah, OK.

I assumed "Good enough for me", was your way of saying "OK, you make a good argument", when instead you meant "A meta case is 'good enough for me' to lynch him with". My mistake.

While you're around, who do you like for Mayor? I have an idea which way you might go ()