Time to analyze Annul. To explain my lack of activity lately, I quite simply have been irritated and lazified by this game. Its really hard to try to analyze when there are so many inactives and you are not seeing a huge amount of reds. On top of that it is really discouraging putting work into analyzing inconclusive amounts of information. The way I am going to approach this analysis is from several angles. What has Annul done that makes him red, and what the mafia did and failed to do that confirms it. A third angle I will try to discuss is what I believe annul is trying to do as mafia this game, and why I also think I didn't get hit last night.
Part I: What Annul has done.
This is Annul's analysis of LSB. + Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 01:00 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:27 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 10:25 TheMango wrote: where are my mafia team mates? lets start getting rid of some people. Flamwheel/Incog forgot to send me who my teammates were, can you PM me them? Thanks! what is the point of this post? acting as if he is mafia to create the impression he is not mafia? WIFOM surely, but think about it Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:35 LSB wrote: I say we lynch ~OpZ~ because his town play and mafia play is indistinguishable. what is the point of this? instant attempt to form a wagon on someone who hasnt even posted yet and the game had just started? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:37 LSB wrote: If there are mayoral elections, will you help me make my campaign poster? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:38 LSB wrote: Nvm, doesn't seem like there are mayoral elections two posts to seem active and he answers his own question a minute later. point of this? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I wanted to wait for the day post before posting this but w/e All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about: - Should we lynch an inactive day one? Assuming of course, there is no good alternative
- Plans for the roles
Inactives:A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive. Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives. We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. The key is that we have to make sure the town knows it is not okay to just simply sit back and not do anything. This way, hopefully everyone will be active and we won't need to lynch an inactive. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. Generic Blue Activity planOne plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The DTs should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Medics should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. Framer Issue: Framers are much better put to use framing the important townies. So any attempt by the mafia for framing the inactives would be a waste. "should we lynch an inactive?" <-- probably knows mafia is most likely to at least pay attention to the thread enough to evade being labeled inactive. probably knows even if there are mafia inactives, he can choose any other town inactive and maintain the aura of "hey im helping out town" the rest of this is informative sure, but common sense? but the line "We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one." worries me. much better to hit an active scummy person and LSB should know this. "DO NOT CLAIM" is good advice, and i would like to say obvious, but given current history and shit it isnt =\ Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:18 LSB wrote: Lets say Coagulation tells Doctor H that he is the medic. That's a claim
Let's not do that this game Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:25 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 11:20 TheMango wrote: Isn't that part of the game? assuming you're using it strategically, and not just for fun/out of boredom? Of course. There's a few cases where claiming is okay. 1) You are about to be lynched. Don't expect this to save you, but it would be nice to tell the town what happens 2) DT checks you. The DT then messages you and say that "I know your role is [insert green/blue role here]. This is mainly used when the DT finds a red, and also finds a green. The green becomes the "DT Mouth" and tells the Town what the DT found out. 3) The Medic successfully protects you. Assuming that it wasn't a hit from the mad hatter, if the medic protects someone, that person probably isn't mafia. 4) The town thinks of some super awesome plan. The issue is when blues jump the gun and start claiming before they confirmed someone. That's a great way to get our blues sniped. (See Salem Mafia. For a short summary, look at the article in the Pony Express) 1 and 2 are fine, 3 is not - you don't claim here, you just admit to being hit - preferably to town circle if you know where it is. 4 is a catch-all sure, but claiming day 1 to a "super awesome plan" is a horrible idea. that said though, LSB is providing pure information (some of which is sketchy) and no analysis. this early it is usually fine but consider it in the light of his earlier postings? it is like he wants to be active but isnt contributing valuable stuff. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:27 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 11:26 ilovejonn wrote:There's already a rule to prevent inactives? Modkills: Inactivity has been a problem in every mafia game so far. Inactivity is most easily defined as failure to vote. If you do miss a vote, you will be modkilled. Special consideration will be exercised if a player in danger of being modkilled by this manner has been an active contributor in the thread. If something comes up and you know you will miss the vote, PM me in advance about it to let me know and you will be spared. Remember again: abstaining votes are NOT allowed. And once again, flaming is not tolerated. Keep it civil, or else you will receive a quick lightning bolt to the back of the head. Furthermore, you must post at least once in this thread per game cycle (from the start of the night to the end of the next day) to avoid being modkilled. Simply voting doesn't work. This is to prevent lurkers from lurking. Unless you mean you have to post a lot to not be labeled as an inactive. Check out Pokemafia. Basically the entire mafia team, except for DCXLIV and Kavdragon posted once a day, and made sure they voted. That's what lurking is. common sense information Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote: TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history? fair question! ? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 12:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 12:35 Mr. Wiggles wrote: If he is of the belief I'm spamming, I've just been posting somewhat short responses because there hasn't really been anything worth discussing up to this point.
What do you feel about lynching inactives / spammers? What do you feel that the blues should do? more "hit inactives" crap - this is bad. also maybe a blue fish? wants to write a day post. uh huh. keep this in mind with the "try to appear active but not" lens. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:26 LSB wrote: I don't believe Pandain is mafia just because he fingered Mr. Wiggles.
Clearly at the time Mr. Wiggles did not contribute anything, and Pandain just voted to accent his point.
Indeed, as Ver put in his town guide, spamming can be detrimental to the town.
Now, I don't belive we should lynch Mr. Wiggles. It is far to early to tell anything about him, and also I'd rather lynch a lurker/inactive than a spammer. HEY something of content, cool. sort of defense of pandain and blatant defense of mr. wiggles. sadly the rationale of "inactives instead!" is scummy. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:30 LSB wrote:EBWOP On December 27 2010 13:24 TheMango wrote:On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote: TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history? Hmm, shows up for me, are you going to my profile page and clicking on my post count, or doing a search? both show up properly for me :o Yep, thats what I'm doing. It looks like there is a little time lag between what you post and what shows up in the search function. Maybe this is normal... Haven't actually tried searching for posts this recent before. dunno how to analyze this -- information that isnt common sense (or meant to filibuster) is fine, and even i didnt know this one. id say this gets a pass Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote: Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain yes, lets lynch people with zero meaningful posts. LSB, you up? or yes lets lynch a modkill target because those are almost certainly going to be town and we want to lynch towns, yes. you too. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote: Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L. good idea, i like this, but why sign up and then insta modkill on purpose? if youre replaced its not like you can consider any potential wins by the mafia as wins for you -- you are considered not to have even played the game. seems like something nobody should ever do on purpose and if they do, metagaming at its finest. buuuut then we haaaave..... Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:57 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:45 Soulfire wrote: But I will speak for other players who are new like I am, it is difficult to post something that contributes in Day 1 - so yet another thing to differentiate: new players who are lost and can only agree with others, and mafia trying to slip under the radar and avoid modkill. As for new players, don't worry to much about being inactive. As long as you try to play mafia and spend some time thinking and reading the thread, this won't ever be a problem. Just post you thoughts on the person currently being accused. And feel free to ask questions, in thread, PMing the hosts, or any of the Bootcamp helpers, and I'm always willing to help "DONT WORRY ABOUT BEING INACTIVE LOL" after his entire campaign day 1 was "kill the inactives" -- whaaaat? what is this inconsistency? Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:34 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 21:02 Ryuu314 wrote:On December 27 2010 18:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On December 27 2010 18:25 Ryuu314 wrote:On December 27 2010 17:57 ilovejonn wrote:On December 27 2010 17:46 Ryuu314 wrote: Probably. I don't see how else the game could run otherwise.
7. Editing posts. Editing posts is not allowed for any reason. Anybody can see if you edited a post, and if you are caught, you will look suspicious. Editing will result in a warning. After that, you will be owned. I do have close connections to people who can check pre-edited material if you are truculent. Please do not edit; this is the one part of the site where it is okay to be double posting, even triple-posting. While I ask for everybody to post as concisely as possible, post again if you have to edit anything. Make sure you read all the rules. =) Oops x[ I remembered after I edited hahaha. I \was basically gonna say that Coag probably couldn't be mafia as the timing of his ban would probably prevent him from making hits? But then I looked up the time of his ban and it disproves my theory. The timing of his ban should have nothing to do with what role he may or may not be. Or rather what role I may or may not be. Well if his ban happened before roles were assigned and thus hits could be made, then there's no way he could've made a hit as he'd be in Disneyland. That said, his ban was after roles were assigned I believe so this point is moot. Remember this post? On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote: Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L. 40 Minutes Later http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=179875#2On December 27 2010 14:20 Coagulation wrote: your sister hot?
User was temp banned for this post. Not a scum tell per say... but still... yes coagulation got a 14 day ban on purpose to "help" his mafia team day 1, this makes perfect sense. ***************** in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing. my vote is on LSB now. I would like to say firstly that I agree with LD. Annul's analysis wasn't really what got LSB killed. Annul's analysis drew attention to LSB which LSB then proceeded to kill himself with by doing weird shit. On top of that the "saying a lot while barely saying anything" Day 1 is never a good tell. It is an okay tell, but it can be applied to almost ANYONE who contributed more than one post. Annul buts a huge focus on this for the majority of his analysis. LSB just not contributing, LSB spamming.
If you read closely Annul taking a few posts completely out of context.
On December 28 2010 01:00 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:57 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:45 Soulfire wrote: But I will speak for other players who are new like I am, it is difficult to post something that contributes in Day 1 - so yet another thing to differentiate: new players who are lost and can only agree with others, and mafia trying to slip under the radar and avoid modkill. As for new players, don't worry to much about being inactive. As long as you try to play mafia and spend some time thinking and reading the thread, this won't ever be a problem. Just post you thoughts on the person currently being accused. And feel free to ask questions, in thread, PMing the hosts, or any of the Bootcamp helpers, and I'm always willing to help "DONT WORRY ABOUT BEING INACTIVE LOL" after his entire campaign day 1 was "kill the inactives" -- whaaaat? what is this inconsistency? LSB is giving advice to new players, that as long as they read and actively try to play the game that they Don't need to worry about being inactive meaning that if they do the aforementioned they won't be inactive because they will be talking. He takes that in the completely wrong way.
On December 28 2010 01:00 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:25 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 11:20 TheMango wrote: Isn't that part of the game? assuming you're using it strategically, and not just for fun/out of boredom? Of course. There's a few cases where claiming is okay. 1) You are about to be lynched. Don't expect this to save you, but it would be nice to tell the town what happens 2) DT checks you. The DT then messages you and say that "I know your role is [insert green/blue role here]. This is mainly used when the DT finds a red, and also finds a green. The green becomes the "DT Mouth" and tells the Town what the DT found out. 3) The Medic successfully protects you. Assuming that it wasn't a hit from the mad hatter, if the medic protects someone, that person probably isn't mafia. 4) The town thinks of some super awesome plan. The issue is when blues jump the gun and start claiming before they confirmed someone. That's a great way to get our blues sniped. (See Salem Mafia. For a short summary, look at the article in the Pony Express) 1 and 2 are fine, 3 is not - you don't claim here, you just admit to being hit - preferably to town circle if you know where it is. 4 is a catch-all sure, but claiming day 1 to a "super awesome plan" is a horrible idea. that said though, LSB is providing pure information (some of which is sketchy) and no analysis. this early it is usually fine but consider it in the light of his earlier postings? it is like he wants to be active but isnt contributing valuable stuff. What Annul is calling Sketchy with this post is not really suspicious at all. If a medic protects someone and a mad hatter has not died that night, that person is almost certainly town. The odds of a medic protect and a vigi overlapping is extremely low, and impossible before night 2. Meaning virtually all protects before night 2 are guaranteed innocent. But more importantly READ what LSB wrote and READ what Annul wrote. Annul's point he is calling scum is him reading something out of context again. One, if a medic saves you, you CAN role claim to them, and you can claim in thread that you were saved. The mafia CANNOT fake a medic save considering its confirmed through a moderator PM. And LSB isn't saying the medic should claim in the thread, he is saying the protected person should CLAIM they were protected in the thread which is what they NEED to do. It gives information to the town, on top of that if I am a medic and I claim to someone I protect, as an insurance policy I make them claim publicly that I protected and messaged them. This means that If I die, they know who to scrutinize more.
On top of that Annul suggests blind claiming to some town circle, as if all members of a town circle are confirmed and known. If that were true town circles wouldn't exist because the mafia would eliminate them every night phase. Then what really gets me is he attacks point 4, which is obviously a joke. LSB says "The town thinks of some super awesome plan." as another justification for claiming, which seems to me like an obvious joke.
On December 28 2010 05:49 annul wrote: you mean like you?
i think ~24/30 of this game will agree that i have contributed much more analysis to this game than you have. the 6 who wont are you and your five mafia teammates. if there are seven mafia or eight mafia then it will be 23/30 and 22/30 who will agree with this. =\ This is kind of intuition I guess you could call it. The only reason someone would feel the need to post this last part is because hes trying to avoid what seems like a mafia slip that being knowing the exact number of mafia members. We are also going to see that annul keeps saying how HE contributes and LSB does NOT contribute.
On December 28 2010 07:47 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 07:40 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 07:34 LunarDestiny wrote:I am following debates between Annul and LSB. There are something I don't get. Annul's conclusion in his first post about why LSB should be lynched. in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing.
my vote is on LSB now. Annul, your conclusion for lynching LSB is because he have about 30 posts. All 30 posts, except 2, are posts that means nothing and pure informative posts without analysis? LSB, are your reasons for lynching Annul in page 17? -1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing -2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives -3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced -4. Annul posts without brining anything new I will say what I think of this later, but I want to get these two points straight. Indeed. 1/4 are basically the same thing. How about this. With a bit more explanation. 1) Makes posts that don't do much, but pretend to be contributing. Then congratulates himself of all the contributions that he did. This is a mafia manuver. See LMNOP in WaW mafia 2) Although Annul says inactives hurt the town, he has not done anything to attempt to deal with the problem. He has shot down all attempts at working together a solution without offering a reason, let alone an alternative. This is a decidedly anti-town maneuver, as leaving the inactives alone will lose us the game. See Pokemafia 3) Annul analysis is forced. This is incredibly telling. See my analysis on SR in TMM2, I was mafia and I made a forced junk analysis in order to try to take off heat. 1. "no u" defense again. this is precisely what i called LSB out on in the first place. we wouldnt even have these pages of debate if not for FOSing LSB. couldve just sat back and let pandain fall, very easy right? 2. see: Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 06:52 annul wrote: my position on inactives is irrelevant. of course id prefer them to not be inactive. but the only way to actually "deal" with them is to get them to stop being inactive somehow or to lynch them. barring some model way to do the former (which isnt obvious considering the state of TL mafia), then the latter is all we have. and right now, we need to kill scum not inactives. so yes, my idea is "wait until later" as that is all we can do. 3. "forced" how? i couldve sat back and let pandain hang, right? why am i calling you out specificallly if i didnt think you were scum? the only way is if pandain and i are both mafia and i am trying to save him, and while i am not clear on pandain, i do know his wagon makes no sense. i realize saying this will mean i hang if he turns red but =\ you are scummier than he is right now. This is a great example of what you will see like 30 times if you go through Annul's post history. Him saying LSB is using a "no u" defense, which isn't at all what LSB is doing but is a great way to dismiss LSB's credibility. LSB wasn't arguing his case amazingly and he said a bunch of things I definitely don't agree with strategywise, but a "No u" defense was not something I ever really saw him doing.
I am going to leave the analysis of Annul's play here. I am not going to do an EVERY SINGLE FUCKING POST analysis of him. Its a waste of time and is redundant, especially in Annul's case. He repeats the same stuff over and over again, while constantly discrediting LSB.
Part II: What the mafia did and failed to do.
This part could be argued to be theoretical. I have played MANY games as mafia and I can safely say that most mafia think very similarly and rarely attempt to delve into deep wifom, and attempting to mind fuck people. That being said, the way LSB's lynch snowballed Day 1 is interesting. A day one lynch is something that is generally very hard for town to get behind, let alone so fast and so sure. The reason I didn't bring this up Day 1 is because LSB had me convinced he was mafia, and I figured most of the town saw the same thing and the mafia didn't want to risk outing themselves to save LSB day 1. I can now say I was wrong about that. We fucked up. So now I have to accept that his lynch didn't pick up steam entirely because of how he acted, but also because the mafia decided that he was a good person to kill.
At this point you can say "well Annul fucked up" and tunneled hard on someone who turns out was town. Which could be true, and I'd even give some credit to that statement except for one huge mistake by the mafia. No one EVER pressured Annul Day 2 for his "fuck up". From a mafia standpoint 2 townies going head to head is fucking awesome. Kill one, then kill the other with a lynch since one MUST be mafia, right? Logically after the first guy dies, a mafia can reasonably attack his accuser and get him lynched because of how HARD Annul pushed it thus setting back the town 2 lynches on townies. The mafia could of EASILY attacked and probably killed Annul Day 2 because of his fuck up, but instead Annul goes very quiet, and most people simply pretend it didn't happen.
But why would the mafia not attack Annul if its such an easy innocent for them to reasonably attack without garnering too much suspicion? The answer is simple, they aren't thinking like that. Why would they attack one of their own if the attack is entirely unnecessary? If no one else is pushing for Annul to die, then why would they bus one of their own who has NO heat on him going into the night phase, and even the majority of Day 2. Pretty much the entire town attitude was "Well, LSB looked scummy as shit. We can't fault Annul." So the mafia didn't feel the need to throw him under a bus.
The failure on the mafia's part to attack Annul makes me firmly believe that Annul HAS to be mafia. The only reason the mafia wouldn't jump on the opportunity to kill him is because he is one of them. Who even after his really aggressive play that killed a blue, the town still didn't look ready to punish him for it, so why would the mafia help the town by doing that?
Part III: Enter: Annul
If you read Annul's posting he often talks about how whether he is townie or red he will jump on "scummy" play and attack someone like a pitbull for what he thinks is the right thing. To me this looks like Annul is trying to build a meta for himself, and tell us that his play is NOT suspicious because its how he ALWAYS plays. Annul can be seen enforcing this idea in quite a few his posts. But where the idea is cemented was when I talked to him on AIM.
When I was talking with Annul on AIM I mentioned how LSB looked scummy to me because of how he was responding to Annul's attack, and that if it was me I would of completely ignored the analysis whether I was town or mafia unless it became an issue and gained some steam as a legitimate argument. The reason being I would rather not get into a public fight with someone, especially since attacking back will generally make you look guilty, and generally only a guilty man needs to respond to such a petty attack. When I told him this Annul told me how he thought that was a good meta to build up, and then started talking to be about his Pitbullish play style that he tries to create and how he will attack anyone who "looks" suspicious whether he is mafia or town.
The thing about talking about that so much is, if you are right there is no need to mention it at all. We will see that your scumdar is dead on and you nailed a red. Unless you wanted to preempt excuses and reasoning for why you played so aggressive. On top of that, if you see someone play like that when they are blue/green they aren't afraid to die because it doesn't matter. As long as whatever the townie does benefits the town before his death then he did a good job. Generally a townie will take the mindset of "If I am wrong, well, we will cross the bridge when we get there" while a mafia will try to preempt his defense because he already knows the result.
While I agree developing a meta is very important to being a good mafia player, as long as it can remain consistent regardless of your alignment. Look at mine for example. I will never respond to an attack unless I need to. It is VERY simple to pull off regardless of my alignment, and doesn't yield any expectations of my play. Occasionally I will go insane and assault someone like Aidnai in ExMiMa, LSB in HP, or Annul in this game, but its not generally expected of me. The problem with what Annul is trying to set up is people expect results from you, even if you fuck up at first eventually we expect you to do something right if you are being that aggressive. But a mafia can't keep seeing scum where there isn't. It is really hard to but out multiple fake analysis in a game because you simply can't forget who your team mates are, and that everyone else quite simply isn't scum. With that in mind a person trying to pull of his play style needs to play well as a townie (hitting reds consistently) then as a red fuck up within reason and kill a town, then at some point bus one of your teammates, which believe it or not, its hard to find a team mate who wants to die.
So in conclusion, Annul is fighting extremely hard to establish and maintain a meta that is REALLY hard to pull off. The only person I have ever seen kind of pull it off is Ace, and he still gets bitch slapped for it sometimes.
If that didn't convince you Annul is scum, I honestly don't know what will.
As a last statement, I will say why I believe I did not get hit last night. I see it as two possibilities. All my analysis were absolute trash and I didn't get a single mafia, or one at most. Or what I believe to be the actual reason. When I was talking to Annul on AIM he was trying to fish me and got under the impression that I am a Veteran. When looking at that from a mafia stand point I am someone who was very likely to draw medic protection and even if I didn't, one hit wasn't going to kill me anyway. Meaning I was a bad choice for a hit. I personally believe it was the latter, and he told his mafioso that I was a likely Vet and not to target me. I don't think it would be hard to convince a team that I am a bad hit because even if I am not a vet I will most likely draw a medic, and if they stack me and both occur, then well fuck. Day 1 you lost 2 hits. Just simply isn't worth it.
So there you have it. After two days of saying absolutely nothing you have an analysis approaching Annul's scum from 3 comprehensive angles. Please try to fight that, and please vote Annul.
|