EPTIf you use color in the thread, you might lose your night action, your chance to vote, or be warned
You may still use bold and stripe things.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Mafia - Page 21
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
If you use color in the thread, you might lose your night action, your chance to vote, or be warned You may still use bold and stripe things. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On June 23 2010 00:00 Hesmyrr wrote: I propose alternative plan. Below is the player list: The person with investigative powers in red tag investigate MoM The person with investigative powers in green tag investigate pardoner The person with investigative powers in blue tag investigate someone else. Okay now I don't know how this panned out last night, but lets use the same colors, but now you will investigate someone within the same color lines. DO NOT investigate Radfield or myself. I am assuming we were both checked. As for the blue we won't know who they checked, if anyone is there at all... however if you are able to read minds please pick someone within your color lines and do it. Protection and role blocking.... if you are capable of protecting you should protect yourself. We don't have enough information to say who you _SHOULD_ be protecting. Role-blocking is a bit more difficult since we could accidentally block players who are protecting themselves or those who are checking other players. So the following players should have been blocked: Myself Radfield Any other candidates I was not blocked... so there has to be two or less role blockers... or people did not listen. I'm wondering if we should stack role blocking on one player to see if there are any role blocking players... suggestions? | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
 | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On June 25 2010 10:48 Thegilaboy wrote: Hey we had a wicked storm yesterday that uprooted trees and everything around here as well. You in the Chicago land area? Probably not but worth a shot to see lol As for Ludwig, looks like the guy is going to get modkilled unfortunately. He seems so incredibly out of the loop that it's almost not worth looking at him anymore, like you saidMetro NYC area actually  Also Roffles I forgot to ask this... if you were to vote for someone who would you have voted for? If I missed it in a recent post I apologize in advance. | ||
|
johnnyspazz
Taiwan1470 Posts
On June 25 2010 08:47 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: On the other hand, when it was looking very close at the end of the voting, johnnyspazz did not change his vote from amber to YI -- this doesn't really add up in either the case he's mafia supporting the mafioso YI or if he's townie, so I'm rather confused by that. Care to explain, johnnyspazz? okay, so first amber[light] halfheartedly suggests a plan with mass roleclaiming. from this, i get a blue vibe from him. with his previous posts in the game, this makes him seem more blue than red to me. that's when i start thinking, this guy might be a good candidate for MoM. then he decided to nominate radfield as his running buddy so that they would both get the elected positions. this seemed a little suspicious to me. then he posts this gem: On June 22 2010 21:13 Amber[LighT] wrote: Even if radfield is going to be inactive I can communicate with him regularly. If and when we need to pardon we will use him. I'm going out on a limb here to stress that I will probably be the best person for the position. I am also asking the detective to IMMEDIATELY check me. WHAT A UNFORTUNATE MISTAKE! then he tries to save himself here: this heavily implicates that he and rad are scum buddies but i think they are masons and amber has some other ability. at this point, i'm okay with getting amber as MoM because if anything fishy goes on, then we lynch him. the only problem i have is radfield has pardoner. i think red in MoM position is ok but red in pardoner position is bad. in the offchance that amber and radfield are red, atleast they won't have the ability to pardon amber when things get bad. i wanted amber as MoM and YI as pardoner but unfortunately with the votes at the time, it was impossible. if i had switched my vote to YI, then radfield gets MoM and amber gets pardoner. i would rather have amber get the bodyguard protection since i trust him more than radfield. any more questions A5J? On June 25 2010 08:47 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: this should be 100% town read I'm about 50/50 on him, no read either way as of yet.  | ||
|
johnnyspazz
Taiwan1470 Posts
On June 25 2010 10:59 Amber[LighT] wrote: So the following players should have been blocked: Myself Radfield Any other candidates what do you mean by this? also i don't like your habit of opening posts with an excuse for inactivity, seems odd to me. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On June 25 2010 11:29 johnnyspazz wrote: what do you mean by this? also i don't like your habit of opening posts with an excuse for inactivity, seems odd to me. It's not really inactivity... it's just I promised to post something when I got out of work and I really couldn't... I started to on my phone and I live in a perma-dead zone... go figure AT&T | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/almerrick/4cf20a7d.jpg?t=1277433588) | ||
|
johnnyspazz
Taiwan1470 Posts
i don't remember any plan to block you and radfield. can you please point to the post where this is stated? i must've missed it. | ||
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
On June 25 2010 11:01 Amber[LighT] wrote: Metro NYC area actually Also Roffles I forgot to ask this... if you were to vote for someone who would you have voted for? If I missed it in a recent post I apologize in advance. You. I was gonna put my ticket it at night, but Internet complications prevented me from doing so. Never was gonna push for my own nomination, didn't really think YI's posting was all that great, and was either gonna pick from you or Radfield. But as he mentioned earlier, he wasn't gonna be active enough to push for MoM, and I really do think for MoM to be successful, we need everyone to be on board with an active Mayor. The more active we are together as a whole, the better we can coordinate, so we won't be wasting precious time. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On June 25 2010 11:50 johnnyspazz wrote: whatever forget the second half of my post i don't remember any plan to block you and radfield. can you please point to the post where this is stated? i must've missed it. here: On June 23 2010 00:17 Amber[LighT] wrote: Actually what you're proposing to do role checks is what I had in mind. Either that or if you are within five players of myself (1 below, 4 above) and you can role check to role check me. This will lower the possibility of overlap, but doesn't guarantee it. From there what we could do is a player cushion style. So what you do is if you are a detective then check the person above OR below you. If you stumble upon a death eater then IMMEDIATELY come forward. In future nights we will have a protection schedule set up like the detective schedule for Day 1. I was also trying to think of a reason to block your thoughts for a night, but it really won't benefit us as much, especially if players are coming forward if they find DE's. We also don't know how many times a player can use "x" spell... I'm pretty sure BM gave number maximums since it would be a bit imba if the DE's can use the AK curse an infinite amount of times. Now this also goes back to the idea of role blockers as well. To avoid role blocking the detectives we should have the MoM, the Pardoner and the other candidates be role blocked. If any of these players are detectives they should let us know as soon as possible. What we can do is place medic (episky) on them so they can do a thought check, if they're actually able to. The role blockers will actually prevent spells, good or bad, for the night. It doesn't guarantee that they're not DE's, but it allows for the detectives to do their work without being blocked. Also how does the bodyguard role work? Are they just protecting other players at random, if any in this game? And I believe it is possible for detectives to have red or blue spells. I think the idea of the spells being colored is just to show whether the spell was actually "bad" or "good" in terms of the books. We also need to decide on potential lynch targets. Right now we have a few people who are inactive so they should be considered FIRST. People like Abenson, should start posting since being quiet is not helpful. No one spoke up, so I was assuming this was okay.... | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
| ||
|
johnnyspazz
Taiwan1470 Posts
well mister MINISTER OF MAGIC, i believe it's time to get your super duper awesome plan going? | ||
|
lakrismamma
Sweden543 Posts
Im back on Sunday hope you catch some scums by then! | ||
|
ElyAs
France205 Posts
On June 25 2010 08:47 JeeJee wrote: what the hell does that even mean, not pro-town but no scum tells? last i checked, if you're not pro-town, you're scum. anyway, i am looking at elyas as a lynch candidate right now. its pretty simple analysis: most of his 'big' posts show 3 things: -he plays the "im new" card -he restates what is going on -he does not take a definitive stance on anything hi mafia. Well, that came out of nowhere. Your first post today contains an accusation with a "simple" analysis. Fair enough, allow me to defend myself. First, I just intended the "I'm new" card to be a warning because Roffles was doubting my idea of analyzing previous games based on the fact that it was only my second game and after trying the analysis exercise, it's indeed harder than I first thought. As for restating what is going on, it's needed for analysis. Not only it allows to sum up the players's posts, but also acts as a basis on which I can start analyzing. Finally, I do believe it's still too early in the game to have definitive stances on players, especially in this game where there is a lot of inactivity. My not-so-sure position was made to encourage these players to post more. And as I said in the previous game, I believe that activity calls for activity and vice-versa, so I do like this accusation, but not the way it was done. | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
On June 25 2010 18:53 lakrismamma wrote: Im off for the midsummer party. -sorry I didnt have time for post analysis. Im back on Sunday hope you catch some scums by then! K...Voting to lynch Lakrismamma based on this post. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On June 25 2010 18:53 lakrismamma wrote: Im off for the midsummer party. -sorry I didnt have time for post analysis. Im back on Sunday hope you catch some scums by then! wtf dude? did you want to be lynched? | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 01:21) I like him more than you (not that I don't actually like you, ThreeKingdoms you were my buddy!). I'm actually planning on changing my vote still, and you had the same idea as me with Roffles, but I don't know if Roffles can scum find...I know Radfield can...But I learned my lesson from the game I was modkilled for. I was active, except the last day, and missed my vote. Radfield ALSO said he doesn't have as much time to dedicate to the game, (As I've pointed out) so I don't really feel he should be a mayor or pardoner. And Amber voting for Radfield (Amber trying to be pardoner?). Wow, is this paragraph confusing and ambiguous as hell. I'm not sure what kind of definite stance you are making here. My understanding is that you are pointing out your concerns about Roffles, Radfield, and Amber. Anyway I felt you were trying to avoid making definite stance on some of the candidates, which caused me to look at your voting history. ~OpZ~: Radfield (June 22 2010 14:02) -> AmberLight (June 23 2010 05:44) -> YellowInk (June 23 2010 06:32) Naturally this vote juggling has gotten me little confused. I would definitely like to hear your reasoning behind the vote switches. At ~OpZ~ (June 22 2010 13:08) you say "I'd nominate Radfield, but Radfield said he wont be as active" and that "I don't really give two craps about the mayor, but I most certainly hope he is active." So why did you vote Radfield one hour later? Note that you have repeatedly shown distrust toward Radfield and the fact that amber[light] was another viable candidate at the time. Why Radfield over Amber[light]? As for the vote switching, I looked and he does give justification behind it in ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 05:47) and ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 06:32), but the brevity of it really makes me uncomfortable. The tactic of trying to root out scums by looking at the d1 mayoral votelist kinda fails regarding player who shuffles their vote around like this. Link: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=5563227 | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
On June 25 2010 23:07 Hesmyrr wrote: I would appreciate it if you responded to this post, ~OpZ~ + Show Spoiler + ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 01:21) I like him more than you (not that I don't actually like you, ThreeKingdoms you were my buddy!). I'm actually planning on changing my vote still, and you had the same idea as me with Roffles, but I don't know if Roffles can scum find...I know Radfield can...But I learned my lesson from the game I was modkilled for. I was active, except the last day, and missed my vote. Radfield ALSO said he doesn't have as much time to dedicate to the game, (As I've pointed out) so I don't really feel he should be a mayor or pardoner. And Amber voting for Radfield (Amber trying to be pardoner?). Wow, is this paragraph confusing and ambiguous as hell. I'm not sure what kind of definite stance you are making here. My understanding is that you are pointing out your concerns about Roffles, Radfield, and Amber. Anyway I felt you were trying to avoid making definite stance on some of the candidates, which caused me to look at your voting history. ~OpZ~: Radfield (June 22 2010 14:02) -> AmberLight (June 23 2010 05:44) -> YellowInk (June 23 2010 06:32) Naturally this vote juggling has gotten me little confused. I would definitely like to hear your reasoning behind the vote switches. At ~OpZ~ (June 22 2010 13:08) you say "I'd nominate Radfield, but Radfield said he wont be as active" and that "I don't really give two craps about the mayor, but I most certainly hope he is active." So why did you vote Radfield one hour later? Note that you have repeatedly shown distrust toward Radfield and the fact that amber[light] was another viable candidate at the time. Why Radfield over Amber[light]? As for the vote switching, I looked and he does give justification behind it in ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 05:47) and ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 06:32), but the brevity of it really makes me uncomfortable. The tactic of trying to root out scums by looking at the d1 mayoral votelist kinda fails regarding player who shuffles their vote around like this. Link: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=5563227 Sry Hes, I seen it, but I figured at the end of it you seen I was justifying my vote switch. I was the first to vote for Radfield (actually the first to vote, on both days so far). And I told you my vote for Radfield was a place holder. If you recall I was modkilled in Incog's game because I didn't vote. (I was waiting for the end of the day to vote, but I was in Savannah getting my job back [and celebrating]). The first post you quoted...It was more of a note take, overly paranoid post. You see the style of writing? It's just my style of writing that is confusing I think. I was saying I liked Radfield more than you. See how I pointed out Amber voted for Radfield also? Well I don't like giving pardoner to people who say they want it over mayor...Why? (I'm sure you know). Town doesn't want pardoner. Mafia wants pardoner. So anyone asking for pardoner (YI and Radfield) looks suspicious to me. But Amber voting for Radfield struck me kinda off too. I have trust issues. =( I switched to Amber because Radfield started getting a lot of votes in a short amount of time with almost none of the people voting posting a reason. If you notice I've kinda seem to be being followed. When I posted my views on YI earlier the town suddenly started posting views on everyone which was very good for the town... (WHICH I HAVE NO IDEA why we stopped, but when I go back a page and see who one lined us into rule discussion I'm prob gonna change my vote to lynch that person). (Did you miss when I said my vote for Radfield was a place holder? because me and you had this talk previously in this thread iirc it was you that pointed out I said I didn't trust Radfield but voted for him. I can find that post if you like.) So then when I voted amber the same shit happened. Towns of people with little justification started voting for him. Now, take that how you want, but again, I didn't like that. Plus YI said he would lynch DC (lol), but that really didn't matter to me. If you look in the thread at that time, you would of seen me and amber DISCUSSING the voting and how we didn't like all the random votes with no reasoning. I don't care who's mayor because I don't listen to the mayor all the time. None of them had a true viable plan that I was willing to run with, and Radfield said he was going to be less inactive. We need to decide on night actions. There are plenty of other players you could be looking at who voted and didn't switch up like I did. I justified my vote changes. Amber and I were talking about the random votes. As to the bolded question. I'll say this again now just incase I wasn't clear or focused enough because I know I can be hard to follow and I'm never sure...but Radfield wanted pardoner ("Not to use it, but to make sure it wasn't used!" who wouldn't say that?). Amber wanted MoM. Well I didn't want someone who actually WANTED PARDONER to have pardoner.... I hope this clears it up hes. | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
"Looking at the posts from page 12. This is my chronolgical train of thoughts. As for the vote switching, I looked and he does give justification behind it in ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 05:47) and ~OpZ~ (June 23 2010 06:32), but the brevity of it really makes me uncomfortable. The tactic of trying to root out scums by looking at the d1 mayoral votelist kinda fails regarding player who shuffles their vote around like this. " This is why I figured you were just speaking your thoughts....I figured I gave enough justification for my vote switching. Page 13... On June 23 2010 05:56 Amber[LighT] wrote: I also like how a number of people who "read the thread" didn't read that we should also be considering a majority lynch. Like I said from the VERY BEGINNING please post someone you think should be lynched... the elected MoM should be considering the majority when deciding the person he wishes to lynch. I just noticed you said majority lynch. I guess I was the only one who suggested someone (DC lol)...Sorry man... | ||
| ||
