The Sum of All Fears Mafia

Post a Reply

1 2 3 4 Next All

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 26 2012 02:42 GMT

#57

/in it to win it

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 26 2012 03:50 GMT

#68

On March 26 2012 12:47 johnnywup wrote:
Oh never mind then.

So what's the point of having US and SU instead of just one 'faction' then?

~~So that when I turn Soviet I can have voting bias against people I know are US.~~

Because it influences your role.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 02:34 GMT

#139

gonzaw when you do line breaks, only use one of them please.

Like that. Also I agree that NO ONE should claim Nationality for any reason, as that information can only hurt us.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 02:48 GMT

#142

Also, I work every day from at least 5pm to 10pm EST. I will post very consistently after work near 10pm.

So VisceraEyes, "what's" "with" "all" "these" "quotation" "marks" you use whenever you talk about "liars" or "scum" or "bad play"?

Several Examples
+ Show Spoiler +

On March 27 2012 07:17 VisceraEyes wrote:
Cool guys, am I really one of the only "vets" in this game?

ATTENTION SCUM! IT WILL BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO PUT ME ON THE BACK FOOT IMMEDIATELY! IF YOU ATTEMPT TO HIDE I WILL FIND YOU!

That being said, I'm in favor of lynching a lurker if we can't find a good scum candidate (fat chance) and I'm not in favor of lynching "liars". Lynching is for killing scum, not for punishing "bad play".

"But VE, isn't lynching a lurker the same thing as lynching to punish bad play?"

No kind sir, lurking isn't just bad play...lurking is a very viable strategy that scum often employ to hide.

For my part, I'll be keeping my eye on C_C and to a lesser extent BH due to them being among the only names I recognize as players who have played more than like 2 games here. This is one of the first games I've played where the average experience level is so low...so I'm probably not going to be on the offensive as much this game...but I make no guarantees.

On March 27 2012 08:14 VisceraEyes wrote:
Yes, lying is situational and obviously we need to scrutinze any inconsistencies we find...but lynching by policy anyone found to have been untruthful about anything? Not today sir. Not ever as far as I'm concerned. If someone is scummy because they lied, they should be scummy for other reasons. If someone's lying is the only thing that makes them "scummy", then I'm not on-board with a lynch of said person. That's what I meant by "I'm not in favor of lynching "liars". Policy lynches, on the whole, are a bad idea and allow scum to control the lynch.

On March 27 2012 10:07 VisceraEyes wrote:

Show nested quote +

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"?

On March 27 2012 11:38 VisceraEyes wrote:

Show nested quote +

On March 27 2012 11:24 gonzaw wrote:
Got back from uni.
Let's hunt some nazis.

On March 27 2012 10:14 EchelonTee wrote:

On March 27 2012 08:27 slOosh wrote:

On March 27 2012 08:21 froggynoddy wrote:
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly).

It shouldn't be at all different no? Actually I've been meaning to ask a similar question.
Does a closed-setup in general change basic scumhunting principles or do they just allow/favor different styles of play?

honestly I am treating this game like a standard Mini Mafia, with the knowledge that there is probably a few doods with nukes or powers revolving around nukes. AKA, re-skinned medics/vigs.

and if there's anything I learned from minis, it's that there's always scum hiding in the lurkers. In general I'll always argue against policy lynches (because they're bad) but in a Mini, with so few people town simply cannot afford to have non-contributors whose alignment cannot be determined. People lurking scummily (yeah there's a difference between innocent lurking and scummily lurking) should be axed over someone with only a weak case on them.

gonzaw! shouldn't you be spamming the thread by now?

I doubt I need to ask 100 questions to everybody, considering this is a smaller game, so don't worry about that too much.
I'll try not to "hurt your eyes" this time

I think it's obvious that nobody likes lurkers, but lurking alone doesn't mean they should be lynched immediately. It just means you need to call them out, make them contribute, and put them under more scrutiny than other players, since they can easily fly unnoticed.

@VE: I have to agree with johnny here, why do you prod someone about taking stances 1 post into the game?
Even as pressure that doesn't seem very helpful.

Also, I'd recomend nobody even slightly hint what nationality they are from. As far as I know, town don't get ANY information whatsoever if someone is US or SU, but scum can use that info to try and get their alternative win-con.
So no nationality claims, nor any hint to them.
If you have to claim just claim your role and nothing else.

I'll prod whomever I want whenever I want for whatever reason whether you think it's helpful for you or not gonzaw. Now, let's talk about this generic/obvious advice you gave. I know why you did it (glare @ C_C) but the part that concerns me is bolded in your quote.

As a member of town, I happen to know for a FACT that I don't know what "nationality" people are. So that begs the question...why preface your "advice" with the statement "As far as I know..."? It seems to me like you're trying too hard to appear clueless.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 02:59 GMT

#145

On March 27 2012 11:51 VisceraEyes wrote:

Show nested quote +

On March 27 2012 11:48 Sinensis wrote:
Also, I work every day from at least 5pm to 10pm EST. I will post very consistently after work near 10pm.

So VisceraEyes, "what's" "with" "all" "these" "quotation" "marks" you use whenever you talk about "liars" or "scum" or "bad play"?

Several Examples
+ Show Spoiler +

On March 27 2012 10:07 VisceraEyes wrote:

Show nested quote +

On March 27 2012 11:38 VisceraEyes wrote:

Show nested quote +

On March 27 2012 11:24 gonzaw wrote:
Got back from uni.
Let's hunt some nazis.

On March 27 2012 10:14 EchelonTee wrote:

On March 27 2012 08:27 slOosh wrote:

On March 27 2012 08:21 froggynoddy wrote:
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly).

I doubt I need to ask 100 questions to everybody, considering this is a smaller game, so don't worry about that too much.
I'll try not to "hurt your eyes" this time

What a perfectly useless "question"! Perhaps I have "quotation tourettes" and can't help "myself". Perhaps I'm "communicating" with my "scum-team" in code, in spite of the fact that if I were scum I'd have a "quicktopic" or something to "communicate" with them in.

Perhaps you're trying to appear to be helpful.

Perhaps you can comment on something useful.

Perhaps not. <3

I'm sorry you feel it's a useless question. I wondering if there were any more clarifications coming on what the words you are quoting mean to you, or if it was just this post below.

On March 27 2012 08:14 VisceraEyes wrote:
Yes, lying is situational and obviously we need to scrutinze any inconsistencies we find...but lynching by policy anyone found to have been untruthful about anything? Not today sir. Not ever as far as I'm concerned. If someone is scummy because they lied, they should be scummy for other reasons. If someone's lying is the only thing that makes them "scummy", then I'm not on-board with a lynch of said person. That's what I meant by "I'm not in favor of lynching "liars". Policy lynches, on the whole, are a bad idea and allow scum to control the lynch.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 03:04 GMT

#147

On March 27 2012 12:01 VisceraEyes wrote:
In general, the quotations are there to emphasize that I doubt the words are sincere. For example, in the post you quoted, the word "scummy" is quoted because I don't feel like catching someone in a minor lie is enough to make them scummy alone, so I quoted the word scummy.

I have a conversational style of posting, so if you see a word in quotes, you should envision me making finger-quotes around any single words that are in quotes...if that helps.

It helps. So if I'm understanding you're just trying to make your posts more subjective and less specific? Right?

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 03:16 GMT

#150

On March 27 2012 12:09 VisceraEyes wrote:
I think if I wanted to make unclear, nonspecific posts I could do better than I'm doing.

So no, that's not the intent at all. If it bothers you, I can try to tone it down, but I make no guarantees. I have a style of posting that works for me.

I don't care how you post. I just think lots of quotes is suspicious, because it leaves room for:

"But this is what I meant when I quoted this..." or
"But THAT is what I meant when I quoted that..."

Just don't do that.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 03:29 GMT

#152

On March 27 2012 12:22 Nemesis wrote:

Show nested quote +

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

On March 27 2012 10:13 Nemesis wrote:

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:

On March 27 2012 07:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I noticed that you didn't give an opinion one way or the other C_C, is there a reason you don't want to commit to a stance?

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.

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]

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?

Just as soon as you are in a position to tell me what to do. I will ask whatever questions I want of whoever I want. Deal with it.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 03:43 GMT

#156

Also, there's only been one topic. It's topic. Not "topics [sic]." VisceraEyes using quotes. You weren't even part of that conversation.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 04:07 GMT

#163

On March 27 2012 13:01 EchelonTee wrote:

Show nested quote +

new topic! sinensis do you think blzinghand's vote on nemesis is resonable or not?

Happy to have a new topic

. Reasonable? No. Harmful to the town? Also no. It's the beginning of day 1. A vote, some stuff about bed times, and a power rangers gif doesn't seem very suspect to me. I'll be watching though.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 05:33 GMT

#175

On March 27 2012 14:24 Bluelightz wrote:
No Fucking Idea,

I'm gonna take more looks at people,

Has anyone took a look at ccalf? He has posted NOTHING! besides his /in post.

IMO I find Sinensis generally unhelpful with his posts, he has only posted some useless question, and said hes gonna watch Blazinghand, I feel he needs to step up.

IMO I find Bluelightz generally unhelpful with his posts, he has only posted some useless question, I feel he needs to step up.

Did you notice I couldn't even mock you fully because you've managed to contribute less than me?

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 05:44 GMT

#178

On March 27 2012 14:38 Bluelightz wrote:
Sinensis, what do you think of Blazinghand now with his vote on Johhny? also srsly cool down we're all friends ==".

I think he is being aggressive and unreasonable. Johhny wasn't wrong about anything he said about Blazinghand as far as I'm concerned. I don't think Blazinghand's vote possesses any substance. I think he is just trying to see who goes after him, and to what end they will continue to go after him. As of now I will be watch his vote the closest toward the vote deadline.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 05:55 GMT

#179

While I'm at it, here is what I think of johnnywup:

I think he is ballsy to go after BlazingHand because BlazingHand is seemingly going after anyone who will pay him any attention. I don't think a mafia player would go after BlazingHand, because doing so risks being in the spotlight; BlazingHand being a very aggressive player at the moment.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 27 2012 07:03 GMT

#199

On March 27 2012 15:47 EchelonTee wrote:
##Unvote

So what changed? Or do you not like being in the same voting boat as johnny? You defended him earlier.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 28 2012 02:51 GMT

#356

Back from work.

On March 28 2012 11:00 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
I've been using a simple system to keep track of people, and I have the game solved. It's just a matter of waiting it out now.
+ Show Spoiler [gg] +

So you just alignment claimed soviet for the second time? You are also grouping people based on Nationality.

Only one class benefits from grouping based on Nationality, so indeed, gg Nazi.

##vote: Cyber_Cheese

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 28 2012 02:56 GMT

#359

On March 28 2012 11:53 Blazinghand wrote:

Show nested quote +

Let me get this straight: you think that this post you've quoted somehow has anything to do with anyone's nationality? C_C only knows his own nationality... and he's already soft-claimed AND backtracked SU. There's literally no way he was gonna align-fish anything with this latter post that he wouldn't have already with the first post, assuming people are reading the thread. This is a bad and scummy reason to vote for C_C. Was the flag not enough, but somehow this graphic is?

It is the combination of the flag and the graphic, and the fact that he is segregating names in his graphic based on nationality.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 28 2012 03:00 GMT

#365

On March 28 2012 11:57 Blazinghand wrote:

Show nested quote +

Explain how the segregating names in his graphic based on nationality does anything to help scum or hurt town?

Mafia wins if they kill every citizen of one nationality. Dividing reads by nationality supports that agenda.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 28 2012 03:12 GMT

#369

On March 28 2012 12:04 Blazinghand wrote:
Sinensis either knows something I don't, or literally doesn't understand the way nationality works. Nobody has claimed any nationalities, and nobody will. It's literally impossible to have a read on anyone's nationality at this point. Please sir explain your reasoning?

C_C, the "soviet scientist's," posts would have me beg to differ.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 28 2012 03:20 GMT

#373

On March 28 2012 12:16 Cyber_Cheese wrote:

Show nested quote +

That was flavour only.

The flag and writing "me" in the soviet side of the graphic was flavor too, right? Have all your posts been flavor only? Maybe we should all give you a clean slate and unvote you since I seem to have voted based on something you posted only for flavor.

Sinensis

United States2513 Posts

March 28 2012 03:27 GMT

#375

On March 28 2012 12:18 Blazinghand wrote:

Show nested quote +

Assuming CC is indeed town and not scum, I currently do not have a read on whether or not he is US or SU, and nobody who is reasonable does either.

I consider myself reasonable and I have a read on his alignment. I think he's a nazi. Based on votes, 5 other people thing he's a nazi.

1 2 3 4 Next All

Please or register to reply.