EPT
The Sum of All Fears Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
| ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
/in | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
On March 26 2012 12:15 VisceraEyes wrote: /in also. If there's room. You know. If I have a gun, I'm shooting you night 1 :O | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
| ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
To elaborate on that: While yes, lurking is a perfectly viable strategy for mafia, townies also lurk for various reasons like lack of activity. Lynching for lurking alone is pretty much a crap shoot whether you'll find mafia or not. I won't encourage lynching lurkers unless there is an activity problem. Because if there is an activity problem, it is much harder to read people, and lynching lurkers will force people to increase their activity. | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
On March 27 2012 08:19 zelblade wrote: Blabla no lynch bad blahblah In sch post mre ltr Do you mind posting something coherent? On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote: As town, it's hard to stay with a solid stance. Games change, and ultimately these little things never seem to come up anyway. As mafia, having a solid stance and sticking with it is basically a free pass. Ultimately, 'lurking' and 'lying' are only a fraction of a persons play. However, if it's a stance you want: In my experience, the moment you bother lynching the lurkers is the moment you know mafia are in control of the game, especially if it's done sooner. WIFOM If we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers. Thanks for stating the obvious. This is a rather crappy post. Town SHOULD always take a stance. If your stance change throughout the game, then you just have to explain why it changed. Scum are the only one who should fear taking stances, as they can get caught when their explanation doesn't match with their stance. | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:07 VisceraEyes wrote: Maybe if you accompanied your question with reasoning as to why I'm "so scum this game" instead of empty threats, I'd be more inclined to answer your question fully. What part of my play so far indicates that I'm "so scum"? It was a joke(with reference to how I tunneled you last game)  | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
| ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
On March 27 2012 11:52 Blazinghand wrote: /confirm Good morning, gentlemen. First off, regarding our discussion of policy lynches: I personally apply a soft "lynch all lurkers" and "lynch all liars" policy to all the games in which I play. My first goal is always to lynch scum. Scum likes to lurk, and scum likes to lie. I am highly suspicious of lurkers and liars, but I will not automatically lynch every lurker and every liar-- this is too easily abused by scum. That being said, I have lynched lurkers and liars in the past and am not afraid to do so in this game. Nobody can convince me to modify my personal stance and I will not do so. Secondarily, regarding setup: This is fairly simple. This is a closed setup with 10 town and 4 scum. Scum can win by either the traditional fashion, or by destroying 5 specific players or the other 5 specific players as an alternative wincon. It is immediately obvious that we should not share our alignment. Anarcy fo life The town should not take a unified stance. If we rigidly follow a unified stance scum will just crap on us. We must always adapt to the situation at hand. The idea that you're somehow gonna catch scum because of their thoughts on a POLICY LYNCH is so utterly preposterous as to be asinine in character. Policy lynches are the last resort of a lost town, not some vital centerpiece for scumhunting. I hope you can understand that. ![[image loading]](http://i.minus.com/iUBP2UtMo1zk2.gif) In this image: Blazinghand and Nemesis. Lol, ok one last post before I go to sleep. Stop misrepresenting what I said to defend your scummate: 1. I never said that town should take a unified stance. Just that they should take a stance on important things. 2. I never said we shouldn't adapt. In fact, I explicitly said that stances do change, and you just need to explain it when they change. 3. I never said that discussing policy lynches are important. Sinensis, would you please stop inflating useless topics? | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
1. By town making stances. I mean townies, now town as a whole. 3. I was discussing policy lynches to move discussion along. We have to start discussion from somewhere. Also, I'm being unnecessary aggressive, what do you call those gifs? Maybe you can take your own advice, you hypocrite. 1) the idea that the town should take a stance is not good. Individually, we should make our own stances and developed them with the discussion You just agreed with me right here. Cyber_cheese was saying that we shouldn't take a clear stance on anything because we might change our view later on. I pointed out how that is bad for town, tell me do you agree with what he is saying then? | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
1. 1. By town making stances. I mean townies, not town as a whole. | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
Yes, as I was pointing out his posts were quite bad. In addition to what I've said, VE's points are also good. There is no reason for townies to hint at their nationalities as it just makes it easier for scum to fulfill their second win condition. On the other hand though, scum could have plenty of reason to hint at nationalities like fishing for other people's nationalities. On March 27 2012 07:41 Cyber_Cheese wrote: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P7KtZ.jpg) Alright boys, lets do this. Something about this seems suss. Compensating for some sort of guilt perhaps? Plus, he seems to be avoiding taking a solid stance in here. He's trying to imply that VE is scum, but not outright saying it so that he can avoid taking responsibility if other people push him and it ends up in a mislynch. Blazinghand, I thought at first was chainsaw defending him with his ridiculous posts, but people are pointing out how he acts retarded like this in other games too. Since I've never played with him before, I'll take their word for it that BH is just retarded. ##Vote: Cyber_Cheese | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
read my previous posts about him: (clicky) He tries to imply that VE is scum without outright saying it. He was wishy-washy with his post, and never followed up on that. As to why his other post is bad. He encourages play that is bad for town. clicky As to why I'm taking people's word on BH. It's because there were like 4 people that said his play was like that. So unless all of them are ballsy scum(which is impossible as there are only 4 scum btw), I don't see why not take their word for it? Plus it's very easy to check his previous game, and I doubt scum would risk slipping for something stupid like that. And I'm a bit too busy right now to read through his past games. If you don't think that the current lynch candidates are not good, why don't you come up with your own? Who do you think is scum right now? | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
| ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
On March 28 2012 03:47 Cyber_Cheese wrote: I seem to be getting a lot of flak for that soviet flag. Why did I post it? I was going to post it regardless of pm. As for my stances ##Vote Bluelightz Is that seriously your entire defense for the entire case against you? Plus that case on bluelightz was just hilariously bad. Also, seriously cccalf only has 1 post? If we have a vig, shoot him now, so we don't waste time on him later. Sloosh, I'm still waiting for your reads. | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
| ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
On March 28 2012 12:56 Blazinghand wrote: If you don't think VE is scum, I wouldn't mind help with a JW wagon. That being said, of the three of you who I suspect as scum, VE is by far the most dangerous, as a town leader and as a terrorist. JW is fairly benign, as he himself notes-- he's bad at making arguments and pushing wagons. I'd be comfortable with lynching him, but if VE is scum we really should try to get him D1. I'd really prefer a VE lynch though. I'm going to see if I can drum up support and convince the others that we need to take him down. If that fails, then a JW lynch is on the table, and so is letting your wagon roll across the line. What a shitty non-committal post. "I think VE is scum, but JW or CC might be scum too." Take a stance on which ONE among them you actually think is scum. You are saying that they might all be scum, but VE is the most dangerous one. It doesn't matter who is more dangerous as scum(if that was the case we'd instantly lynch all veteran players), but who is most likely scum. Unless you are trying to say that all three of them are all scum, which is quite improbable. | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
Got anything better than him just being VE? | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
I agree with sloosh that the case on gonzaw is rather weak. Will go through his posts to get a better read of him. | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
Gonzaw, can you explain what is similar between bluelightz's player there as mafia, and his play here right now, because frankly,I don't see it. @Everyone: This is one of those times where I agree with C_C. Doesn't it seem suspicious that nobody is suspicious of Blue and they defend him? A LOT of people are resisting the Blue lynch, don't you think that if he was townie some scum would jump on his bandwagon? Maybe people are resisting, because there isn't a strong case against him? | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tIz0J.png)
