EPTNewbie Mini Mafia LIV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
| ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
I don't want to be waiting forever for this game to start  | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
On March 14 2014 22:39 Valenius wrote: Mehhhhh /in Im confirmed town btw, so medic saves on me and no lynching, kk? Easy game plz i dont see you in coags townie seal club | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
FATE IS UNDER YOUR CONTROL! | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
| ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
Therefore, ##VOTE Lord Tolkien | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
Let's policy lynch lurkers. This is not to say that I think all lurkers are mafia or all mafia lurkers, but instead that lurking is pushing a mafia agenda and not only will you more likely find mafia in a list of players pushing a mafia agenda but also forcing everyone to talk drives the mafia into the open. What do you guys think? | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
| ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
What does it look like? Let's go through the logical construction. Suppose we preferentially policy lynch lurkers (thanks for clearing that up Valenius). Then players who lurk and are as or more suspicious as others will be lynched. Therefore, to avoid being lynched (which is unsurprisingly in the best interest of both town and mafia) players cannot lurk. They must talk. If you talk nonsense or push a scum agenda, you get lynched. If you talk productively and push good discussion then you don't unless you start looking scummy for some reason or other. Therefore, two things happen: 1) mafia are unable to lurk effectively, so they're easier to catch, which is good for town. 2) good discussion is promoted and a good town atmosphere is set, which is good for town. As I said, I'm not saying all lurkers are mafia or all mafia or lurkers. I'm saying that the mafia would like to lurk because lurking pushes an anti-town agenda, so therefore by not letting people lurk we benefit. Does anyone else have a problem with this? | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
| ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
| ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
Why do you need me to answer your question in order to answer mine? Are we playing truth or dare (without dare)? Are you trying to get out of answering questions until later? | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
sqrt - jokes and one liners during RVS. Lots of 'em. Made no posts afterwards, yet. Mysteriously Robik's got a town read off of that. Valenius - qualification of what I mean when I talk about policy. Robik town reads it, slightly. me - brings game out of RVS and now we're actually talking about things. Robik thinks I'm scummy. ##VOTE: IAmRobik Want to explain this, Robik? You seem to think you know an awful lot. | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
| ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
On March 26 2014 13:47 Pixalated wrote: I don't like how he cleared both sqrt and val. Already explained why I don't feel that Val's questions make him town, and sqrt posting random stuff doesn't mean much. What this means about his alignment I'm not sure. Could be mafia trying to get cred by claiming that people are townie and having 'right' reads when they flip. ... so he has two things you don't like and you draw no inference about his alignment? | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
| ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
Pixalated - What are your thoughts thus far on Eden? | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
About Cavalinho: I agree that he's suspicious in that he hasn't contributed a lot of original content. However, I disagree with Eden's statement that "blatantly riffing off of Robik" makes him scum. As seen here: On March 26 2014 12:16 Cavalinho wrote: I am also curious about aforementioned shit This is just an "me too" post which... doesn't really say a lot about his alignment. I'm most bothered by this: On March 26 2014 15:26 Cavalinho wrote: No, I am not dealing with this shit a second time. ##Vote Eden1892 One of us is going to be dead by the end of today and it isn't going to be me just because I agreed with someone. This is an overreaction and he's trying too hard to look like an indignant townie. He did the same thing in a previous game but the context is not the same -- last time he did this by attacking Amiko once Amiko said that he was just agreeing with something other players said before but before this he voices no suspicion of Eden, and in fact this post doesn't really voice suspicion of Eden either! Instead Cavalinho just places down a vote which gets no justification when we're well past so-called RVS. ##VOTE: Cavalinho. About LT: Gonna have to disagree with you guys, LT made an honest mistake and got impatient in pulling the trigger. sqrtofneg1 - What do you think of the interactions between IAmRobik, Eden, Cavalinho and Lord Tolkien? Cavalinho - Are you saying that if we lynch you today and you flip town we should lynch Eden? And more pressingly, why shouldn't we lynch you? (don't just say "I'm town") LT - Yes, actually I am getting flashbacks to Cav's mislynch on Day 1 of our last newbie game. But it's been a while and he's aware of his own playstyle. However, here's something interesting. He's brought it down to "me or you". What do you think of this? | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
I don't understand your logic for why my post on policy was strange -- people were joking around and posting stupid stuff and then I made it so that people would no longer post stupid stuff. Did you want the amount of stupid stuff to continue to pile up? How else are we supposed to get into discussion mode? As I observed, this isn't the same exact reason why you died: the context is a bit different. You were already suspicious of Amiko that game, you were never suspicious of Eden this game and suddenly you place a kneejerk vote on him. wtf? | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
| ||
| ||
