EPTWitchcraft Mini Mafia II
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 04 2013 09:22 EchelonTee wrote: Kind of strange to say "ususual win-con" as opposed to just "other than our win-con". How do YOU think Witchcraft should be handled? It might be an idea for people to claim who they voted 72 hours ago. Those people are no longer blue and therefore dont have to worry about silver bullets anymore. Since roles are moving people might as well claim esults of cop checks etc at the same time. We might want to think about a best order for claims if we do something like that. The only downside that I immediately see is that if people vote for the same people day after day, it will be very obvious who the witch hunters should shoot (if we are claiming). But since we want the cop checks claimed anyway (I presume) we probably should not keep voting for the same people anyway. Afterall, the scum witchcraft powers are not that scary. Roleblock is annoying but I would rather east a roleblock than a silver bullet anyway. Also, if people claim when they are roleblocked and 72 hours later people claim their votes then we might get a shortlist of people who were able to be the roleblocker. Scum mason power isn't worrying either. There is no good reason for town to mason in this game, because if you accidentally mason a scum then they are going to shoot you. Therefore might aswell assume that if someone masons you then they are scum. So yeah, with the scum powers not being too strong, I suggest altering voting patterns and claiming votes 72 hours later. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On night X+1, each person claims what actions they took on night X (if any). Then each person claims who they voted for on day X. The three people who used actions should be roughly the same three people who had the most votes. It could be slightly out as we would be missing information from the people who died on Day X (if town), night X and Day X+1. Come to think of it with up to three people's votes missing it might not be worth claiming who we voted for, so this may not have any merit. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
“I will be firm and call someone scum because that is a town thing to do. That guy was not being firm, so he is the guy that I will call scum. Raaaar, I'm so townly!” Umasi is my biggest scum read right now. Nothing to ask him really as I expect he will make a response to Van's response anyway, which is what I want to see. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 04 2013 12:35 WaveofShadow wrote: Dude, so meta. Umasi calls out Vanesco for not being firm who called out Sylencia for not being firm. SO MUCH FIRM hzflank do you think that is alignment indicative of anyone involved in the cycle of firmness? Vanesco did not call out Sylencia for not being firm. Who we are firm with is very alignment indicative. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
I think what Thrawn was getting at was this line: On November 04 2013 10:48 WaveofShadow wrote: Vanesco's post looks like typical 'scum trying to jump on the first odd thing somebody does for early game contributions n' shizz. You are aware that scum sometimes jump on to something. The thing that you don't mention is that scum tend to do this if they think at least one town will also jump on it, as that allows them to place/leave their vote on the target for a longer period of time. I could certainly argue that Vanesco did this with his first post, but then one may also argue that you did the same. Basically, that sentence was a little bit hypocritical. On November 04 2013 12:55 WaveofShadow wrote: As for 'who we are firm with,' care to elaborate? I asked you a question and you just gave me a very generic answer, without the specifics I was asking for. Well, sometimes a man....actually we are not having that conversation. On November 04 2013 12:35 WaveofShadow wrote: hzflank do you think that is alignment indicative of anyone involved in the cycle of firmness? Yes. If you enter a game with a really direct post where you call someone scum, it is probably for one of two reasons. Either you think it's time that the game got rolling and you want to change the style of conversation that is taking place, or you want your first post to make you look like you are town. Umasi wanted to look like he was town, because if he were trying to direct the conversation to be more about post analysis and scum hunting then he would not of added this last sentence to his post. On November 04 2013 10:30 Umasi wrote: Also, I support claiming votes and actions after they occur, so once it's back to the blues being VTs and unviggable, can't really think of a downside. Ofcourse, it is fair to point out that trying to look like town does not always make a person scum. But trying to look like town in your very first post makes someone (Umasi) look like uncomfortable scum. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
I was a jerk to you before that game started. That was intend as a joke, I did not mean any offense. I am genuinly very grateful for your assistance during that game. Okay that said, back to being a jerk and playing this game. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
I am here to play a game. At no time, ever, during the game have I or will I ever intend to personally insult anybody. It might happen on occasion due to the medium (text), and if it does then I will apologise. There are also some cultural differences in the way British people phrase things compared to Americans, and ofcourse British slang can be different. Not to mention that British humour is very different to American humour. I'm useless at the moment, so will be back to the game later. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 05 2013 03:40 gumshoe wrote: Onegu, ObviusOne, SnO_Man. Meet the peanut gallery. None of them actually agree or disagree with my theory, which is fine because it's mediocre at best, but no doubt at least one of them is scum. This jumped out at me, because the conclusion of Gumshoe's entry post was mediocre. I liked the post, but the only affect it had on me regarding WoS's alignment was “I should read WoS again with this in mind”. Gumshoe's post seemed to trigger Snoman's first content post of the game. On November 05 2013 01:17 Sn0_Man wrote: Can WoS post this actively as scum? Not a fan of his take on the game so far. I assume that by 'his take on the game' you mean his reads? Well you know that disagreeing with someone's reads does not make them scum. You also fail to say which reads or why you disagree with them. Additionally, WoS's reads changed a bit before he read Gumshoe's post, but not between that and you making your post. So, you think WoS might be scum, but your reason that you state for that is not based on the exchange between WoS and Gumshoe. But if you think that WoS is scum then I would think that you would at least reference their exchange for one reason or another. On November 05 2013 01:44 Sn0_Man wrote: "Hey guys i'm super excited I rolled scum which I never do. OHBOYOHBOYOHBOY" -WoS Iunno. Doesn't feel like the WoS I've played with. I'll let it develop. In other news, much desire to lynch Onegu. A) he's always scum B) I never catch/suspect him. Here you give an additional reason for thinking that WoS is scum, which is purely a meta reason. It's not really a meta reason that can be questioned either, as you are basing it on a feeling. It's one thing to call someone scum without a good reason, or to call someone scum but not follow up in it. But to do both at the same time? Is there a point to doing it that I am missing? Then when you move on, you happen to move onto Onegu who is the exact person that WoS thinks is scum. If you feel uncomfortable with WoS, then you should also feel uncomfortable with wanting to lynch the same person that he wants to lynch. On the other hand, your reasons for desiring to lynch Onegu are a joke. If you were completely joking (about wanting to lynch Onegu, not the reasons) then my previous paragraph becomes void. It also means everything you posted was pointless (attack WoS, get response so use joke to detatch). Moving on to Sno's exchange with OO: On November 05 2013 05:25 Sn0_Man wrote: You are like, incredibly desperate to justify yourself. If you weren't so uptight I'd be leaving it alone. Actually I was leaving it alone ur the one pushing it lol. Snoman very casually removes himself from the discussion. If Snoman wanted information on OO then this was his time to do so, but it just seems like Snoman actually wants to run away. I don't care how little confidence you have in your D1 reads, if you twice have the chance to question your scum reads directly and twice decide to distance yourself from them instead then you do not really think that they are scum. ##vote: Sno_man | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 04 2013 09:22 EchelonTee wrote: Kind of strange to say "ususual win-con" as opposed to just "other than our win-con". How do YOU think Witchcraft should be handled? On November 04 2013 11:48 EchelonTee wrote: If you have the time to write that paragraph, you have time to answer my question. Why won't you discuss your thoughts on Witchcraft, and only spend time defending yourself? I disagree with people claiming actions, because if I voted someone as a blue and they avoided the blue-vig, I'd like to continue voting them. Why is it so important for Syl to answer your question about blue roles? I mean, that is the least important type of question that someone could ignore. What were you expecting to get out of Syl? | ||
| ||
