|
On February 21 2012 07:33 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 07:24 redFF wrote: Day 1 is usually somewhat of a crapshoot in 48/24 games. Policy lynches are good, embrace them.
Show nested quote +On May 31 2011 06:01 redFF wrote:On May 31 2011 05:59 sandroba wrote: EBWODP: That should have read we policy lynch ANYONE who claims without valuable information or lies about their role. I generally don't like policy lynches, because there are always special circumstances. Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 09:51 redFF wrote: meh i wanted to win and to win you have to take human error into account. Policy lynches are terrible. Yeah we could have policy lynched and taught GM a lesson but we would have lost. These quotes come from couples therapy and ptp2. You were town both games. So why the change in play-style red? They're also from months ago.
|
To elaborate, i've been playing a lot of mafia recently and my mind has been changed. I had something of a mafia epiphany.
|
On February 21 2012 07:38 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 07:36 redFF wrote: To elaborate, i've been playing a lot of mafia recently and my mind has been changed. I had something of a mafia epiphany. Spam the mafia subforum with one liners? I've seen one liners from you everywhere -_- I hope the irony of this post is not lost on you.
|
On February 21 2012 07:38 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 07:36 redFF wrote: To elaborate, i've been playing a lot of mafia recently and my mind has been changed. I had something of a mafia epiphany. Is this the standard mafia "opps I got caught in a discrepancy". Time to claim change in playstyle! I explained why I like a policy lynch, not much more I can do i guess.
I don't see the problem with posting a lot if they say something, if i put it all in the same post its still the same amount of reading.
|
On February 21 2012 07:50 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 07:38 kitaman27 wrote:On February 21 2012 07:36 redFF wrote: To elaborate, i've been playing a lot of mafia recently and my mind has been changed. I had something of a mafia epiphany. Is this the standard mafia "opps I got caught in a discrepancy". Time to claim change in playstyle! I hate these meta arguments. People are not automatons that play every single game as a particular alignment in the exact same fashion. Stupid question too, doesn't pressure him even if he is mafia. I've never seen a policy lynch work on TL, not even LAL because town players here lie so often and my perspective is that TL towns are fairly gullible in general. I know, its just blazinghand seemed to expressing familiarity with them.
Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 07:24 redFF wrote: I disagree, I think a policy lynch day 1 does a number of useful things. I will lay them out.
Day 1 is the hardest day to get a scumlynch, as town has the least information available to it. A policy lynch means not possibly mislynching a strong town player.
Policy lynches and the reactions to them are very useful. They get lots of juicy reactions.
We get rid of a bad.
Honestly the chance of a policy lynch hitting scum is about as good as hitting scum from a flimsy day 1 case.
We also don't lynch radfield the blue day 1, but thats similar to my only point regarding getting rid of a bad.
Day 1 is usually somewhat of a crapshoot in 48/24 games. Policy lynches are good, embrace them.
There have been good Day 1 cases on multiple occasions. On Day 1 in the ongoing Arkham City game both VisceraEyes/Sheth got pretty close to the chopping block. I'm not denying that good cases are made day 1. It's just that more often than not, its a townie lynch. "Bad" is a subjective term as well, who decides whether a player is good or bad? The "town"? You might as well pick a random amount of "bad" inactives and just RNG the lynch, what a waste of a Day 1 discussion. I disagree. There are points where a player is so useless and terrible that they are objectively bad.
Putting votes on inactive townies/policy lynches generates almost no real pressure on a player over whether or not they are scum but only creates arguments over whether or not a policy lynch is justified. It creates early day 1 discussion, something I think it has done this game, so that's one good thing. It also forces the person to post and post constructively, something they may not do otherwise. It doesn't only create arguments about whether a policy lynch is justified, it creates discussion about different things, as we have already seen. Mafia is designed so that the town can still win fairly easily even if they mislynch on the first day. Yes it is, so why not get rid of dead weight. It is not designed to make it impossible to lynch scum on first day or so that people will not try. I don't disagree, a policy lynch is simply a suggestion. You get better discussion out of people making, or being forced to make, real cases on people. When mafia have to make bad analysis, they get exposed. No shit, policy lynching doesn't FORCE EVERYONE TO STOP ANALYSING. You don't have to policy lynch to avoid lynching "blue radfield" or anything like that either. yes but it helps.
Re: Spammy RedFF Never fails to live up to expectations. Red you really don't have to comment on every little thing with a 1-liner response. My PL on you stands until I get a scum-read on someone.
I'm a proponent of "innocent until proven guilty". derp
|
last 2 quotes were from VE, everything else from drh
|
PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE
The game has been going on for an hour, my suggestion of a policy lynch does not mean I don't want anyone to scumhunt. It's an excellent way to generate discussion, which it has.
VE's post is hypocritical because he's calling me scum for pushing a policy lynch when he himself was pushing a policy lynch up until that post, when it arbitrarily became a scum lynch. Consider him my first moderately scummy read.
|
On February 21 2012 08:14 Toadesstern wrote: If this guy shows up and changes his attitude he is fine imo. If he 's not he's getting lynched if there's noone else screaming mafia. GET OUT OF THIS THREDA WITH YOUR SENSE.
|
On February 21 2012 08:13 VisceraEyes wrote: What I'd read in the thread up to the point of my vote stood to prove you guilty of what I accused you of Red, don't "derp" me. You were spamming the thread already when I posted that and have continued to do so after I proposed a policy lynch of it. But you know, whatever.
The fact that you're so vocal about this Policy Lynch discussion tells me that you're trying to hollowly contribute to the thread, because a VI Policy Lynch, no matter how you slice it, isn't designed to lynch scum. And no matter how much you say "it generates discussion", when that's all you're discussing, it doesn't add anything constructive to the thread either.
Therefor, I'm upgrading you from a Spam Policy Lynch to a full-fledged Scum Lynch. Congratulations RedFF. Now die. He wanted to policy lynch me because i spam, he then changed it to a scum lynch because all i was doing was talking about the policy lynch, when all he has done is push a policy lynch on me and discuss policly lynching up until the above lynch. That's not misrepresentation.
|
On February 21 2012 08:28 redFF wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 08:13 VisceraEyes wrote: What I'd read in the thread up to the point of my vote stood to prove you guilty of what I accused you of Red, don't "derp" me. You were spamming the thread already when I posted that and have continued to do so after I proposed a policy lynch of it. But you know, whatever.
The fact that you're so vocal about this Policy Lynch discussion tells me that you're trying to hollowly contribute to the thread, because a VI Policy Lynch, no matter how you slice it, isn't designed to lynch scum. And no matter how much you say "it generates discussion", when that's all you're discussing, it doesn't add anything constructive to the thread either.
Therefor, I'm upgrading you from a Spam Policy Lynch to a full-fledged Scum Lynch. Congratulations RedFF. Now die. He wanted to policy lynch me because i spam, he then changed it to a scum lynch because all i was doing was talking about the policy lynch, when all he has done is push a policy lynch on me and discuss policly lynching up until the above post. That's not misrepresentation. bolded what I fixed.
|
I'm fairly sure suggesting a policy lynch and voting them counts as pushing a policy lynching.
Why is my suggesting of policy lynching tyrran "Hollowly Contributing to Thread Attempting to Appear Pro-Town" while your suggestion of policy lynching me isn't.
Nothing you've said there makes me scummy. It makes us agree on whether a policy lynch is a good thing, but it doesn't make me scummy.
|
Nothing I've done is scummy and this is not going to get off the ground so enjoy your lonely wagon ve and drh.
|
VE, simply by saying that I spam, has made tyrran, someone I've never played with before, tell me not to spoil constructive discussion with spam. Pretty annoying.
Anyway VE you know as well as I do that TLMAFIA has never had a polcy lynch go through and the likelyhood of one happening today was pretty much 0. The policy lynch suggestion and push was more a way to get get reactions and generate discussion(which it succeeded at).
thanks tyyran,
##unvote
VE is also back to null, this looks like dumb bc shooting ve-town being dumb bc shooting ve-town.
|
On February 21 2012 08:46 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 08:40 redFF wrote: Nothing I've done is scummy and this is not going to get off the ground so enjoy your lonely wagon ve and drh. Defensively misrepresenting other players arguments seems scummy to me. You're just contributing another negative oneliner devoid of content. If you're not scum, you're really careless. I'm fairly sure carelessness is a towntell if anything, so thanks for saying im acting like town?
|
No I still like and would be down with a policy lynch but I know realistically it probably won't happen.
|
Because that post is good and not something to policy lynch someone over.
|
I don't see how I'm pushing scum agendas. What does that even mean?
Ah, wbg is here, awesome.
I'm remembering why I stopped playing here a couple months ago lol.
|
ITT: wbg is still butthurt over couples
|
kita: votes tyrran in his first post of the game. Attacks me for pushing a policy lynch(which he is on) when i called them bad 4 months ago. thinks he's caught me in a mafia meta contradiction when really my policy regarding policy lynches has just changed.
He was also grilling me for a few posts before stopping and going back to pointless fluff, while placing a vote on me without announcing it in thread. so erm ##vote kita
For a moment I want everyone voting me to think about why scum would do what I have done this game, then get back to me.
|
On February 21 2012 11:05 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 08:49 redFF wrote:On February 21 2012 08:46 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 21 2012 08:40 redFF wrote: Nothing I've done is scummy and this is not going to get off the ground so enjoy your lonely wagon ve and drh. Defensively misrepresenting other players arguments seems scummy to me. You're just contributing another negative oneliner devoid of content. If you're not scum, you're really careless. I'm fairly sure carelessness is a towntell if anything, so thanks for saying im acting like town? Yeah that's why I said if you're not scum you're acting really careless. Regardless making terrible arguments, explain how any arguments i've made have been terrible. You can't just say this without any backing up. misrepresenting other players, you said i was misrepping and i explained how i wasn't and you didnt respond. and being antagonistic as a defensive action are not helping you here. is being antagonistic a scumtell? If so then wbg is scum every game!
|
|
|
|