EPTI will not be modkilled
can people talk in the 23 hour period after night begins? or only in the 1 hour before day begins?
Acme Mini Mafia, Inc
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
I will not be modkilled can people talk in the 23 hour period after night begins? or only in the 1 hour before day begins? | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
Shouldn't Hope get the position over Muso for the "I will not be modkilled" | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
| ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
Are we asking Millers or Masons to claim? prplhz (the origin of the idea) said millers and now kushmasta has asked for masons to claim (although he does avoid saying mason). I have to say already that kshmasta is looking scummy. Since i don't see the advantage of a miller claim, i'd like to know why a miller should claim (from both prplhz and hope in particular). I'd also like to hear from kushmasta why you avoided saying mason. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
| ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On November 01 2012 09:05 kushm4sta wrote: I'm not being deceitful about it, I just got their names mixed up. I think they should probably both claim actually. @release Are you suggesting that I'm trying to trick power roles like vig, dt, etc into mass claiming? Are millers' true alignment revealed upon death? well, you were assigning Mason traits to the miller, which led to the confusion that it did between who should claim. Also, you didn't mention mason but the "town who can talk to each other." You avoided saying mason. Mason is clear. "town who can talk to each other" could be mason, but could be miller if someone assumed you were talking about who YOU thought "could talk to each other." Mafia is a game in which posts can't be editted. People tend to check their posts for any dubious or tentative information. I highly doubt that you "mixed up" their names because things like that tend to get checked, which leads me to believe you said such things on purpose. I wasn't talking about the mass claim. That was rather obvious. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
| ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
| ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
________________________________________________ @Mattchew: Skewing his words how? He was asking for the mason to claim in his posts while calling it the miller. Then he goes and says the town who could talk to each other, but avoid saying mason. This gives him the chance to say "I meant the miller" if the mason claims. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On November 01 2012 10:17 thrawn2112 wrote: and I highly doubt you would actually think this I was confused about whom we wanted to claim and which each were. So i checked the OP and the thing Hope posted and asked for clarification. Kush posted things based on a misunderstanding and i don't understand why he would not check the OP or ask for clarification. I mean, in Hope's post-quote, there was clearly a miller AND a mason. So it appears that Kush is setting himself up for a defense ( as I have said), and overeager to contribute. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
Your words seem the strongest of all yet no vote. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
| ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On November 01 2012 10:53 Acrofales wrote: Meta is far from useless. It's not easy to use, though, and therefore often used wrong. However, it is very powerful when used right. So in that light, please let us know a bit more about yourself. Do you have previous games on this forum? + Show Spoiler + No. Kush was quite obviously confusing Millers with Masons. He said Miller, but described Mason. In his later post he clarified (when thrawn pointed out that he seemed to be confusing the two) and added "Masons should claim" as his own idea... kinda on the same line as mass claiming. Is it a good idea? No. Is it potentially fishing for blues? Yes. Is it inherently scummy? No. In fact, as scum I tend to pay MORE attention to details, so I am inclined to write weird derps like this off as more likely to be made by town. However, this is a meta-call which does not work for everybody I have 4 newbie games under my belt: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=337671 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342960 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=345447 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=349066 | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On November 01 2012 10:52 Release wrote: where is your vote? Mattchew felt strongly enough to vote, as did Thrawn (although less convincingly). Your words seem the strongest of all yet no vote. meant to quote I missed the holding off the vote (haha i'm a hypocrite): but now that i read it, what stopped you? | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
| ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
So in the flurry of comment regarding the claiming, we seem to have dismissed the possibility of enacting a Lynch-all-liars policy. The main con i see if we do enact it is that we can't pull use fishing for reactions as freely. The main pro, however, is that people can't claim to be fishing for reactions. Another consequence is that more information is in the thread. Both town and mafia know more about true intentions and can react accordingly. Personally, i am against such a policy because people can very easily say "i changed my mind" and blame/vindication will tend to be imposed base on a town/scum flip. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On November 01 2012 11:26 kushm4sta wrote: If I had to vote right now I would vote him if that answers your question. @release Please clarify this while it's still fresh in your mind. Am I correct in describing your suspicion this way? I would add subtly before convince, but yes. And thought. not think (see below). However, hope has attested to your derp, and that makes 2. I don't have any glaring suspicions to cast against hope so as of now, I will admit that my theory is probably too far-fetched to be the truth. On November 01 2012 11:48 Acrofales wrote: Why bring up a policy you don't agree with yourself? In fact, why bring up a policy that in a previous game you described as: Can you explain your thoughts behind bringing up this policy which you evidently don't agree with yourself? 1st bold: I don't want a lynch-all-liars. 2nd bold: lynch-all-liars is retarded aka i don't want a lynch-all-liars. I agree with myself. However, i don't see how a game 4 months ago has much pertinence to me this game: I have played a grand total of 5 games (including this one) and my mind could have changed between those 4 months. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On November 01 2012 11:26 Mattchew wrote: release what do you think of zealos's posts First post agrees with the general consensus. Has a point in that he can't be blamed for not agreeing. Second post reinforces the miller not mason claim. Clarifies part of the problem. Third post seems to allude to that fact that he thinks I'm town or that my posts are insignificant. If he had posted something more, i would think of it as "there are more important things to do" but he has yet to make a further contribution. I honestly have no idea what he trying to do with this post because his filter is rather meager, so this doesn't seem like fluff. Zealos, please explain in detail what you mean by this post because there seems to be ambiguity surrounding it. _____________________________________________ Personally, i'd like to hear from someone who has not yet posted to get another perspective on this, and the case on me. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On November 01 2012 12:05 Mattchew wrote: he's not pointing out a contradiction in your opinion he is asking if you are so adamantly against it, why even bring it up? It was left with kind of a dangling end; no real agreement, no disagreement. I prefer to have things be explicit so it has much less chance to be used manipulatively. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
Muso... | ||
| ||
