and nuking JeeJee first because JeeJee is JeeJee as JeeJee is JeeJee
World at War Mafia
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
and nuking JeeJee first because JeeJee is JeeJee as JeeJee is JeeJee | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
Why so mad JeeJee? | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 22 2010 11:59 Caller wrote: make him 1914 era russia, then he can feed all game and rage quit when the game goes against him owait he does that anyways I thought you changed, JeeJee JeeJee. | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
| ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 23 2010 11:31 ~OpZ~ wrote: Eh...RoL lynching first would be retarded... Our first order of business should be to find Iran, Pakistan, North Korea...They are clearly the baddies... And maybe Mr. Chavez. This guy's legit. | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 23 2010 13:39 L wrote: Now for day 1 lynch: Kill abenson. Kid's terribad and not worth keeping alive. And here we go. | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
This comes to the main point - usage of nukes/retaliation. I agree with L partially that maybe 2 nukes is a bit too little, but I don't agree with him that everybody should just counter-nuke due to a possible third party win condition. Unless of course by L saying "everybody chain nukes" he means a lot of people nuke rather than "everybody chain nukes." On March 23 2010 16:13 ~OpZ~ wrote: While Zona has a decent plan to deter nuking, it involves a lot of secondary nuking. (One nuke = Two more nukes being fired as retaliation). Then his suggestion of a third party scares me into believing he himself is a third party. Seriously, one retaliatory nuke should be enough. We have no idea how many nukes can actually be fired before we wind up fucked from radiation. I believe one counter-nuke definitely is not enough. If this was the case, we'd just leave it up to the person who has the nuke called on him to retaliate or have some person claim that he’d counter-nuke and not have any nukes at all. I don’t think this is such a sound plan. Until we hear from every person I don't think we should decide on a lynch candidate. We have 2 days to find a target, let's use them. Everyone post an overall strategy, don't just cosign someone elses. I support L's M.A.D. only because I will not let someone bully me, or force a band wagon when half a day hasn't even went by yet. Nobody is deciding on a lynch candidate just yet. L is simply throwing an option out there. His reasoning may be off in some people’s viewpoints, but the option is out there which is what’s important. Surely we’re not going to sit here for 48 hours discussing what everybody’s opinions on how our nukes should be used. L isn’t proposing we all agree with him and lynch Abenson which is why he hasn’t actually given a vote. Whether L proposed Abenson, Zona, or anybody else doesn’t matter: the important thing is that extra discussion happens which will give us more tells about the players. We also have no need to day lynch, remember this. We can start shit and throw suspicion as much as possible. Ace said we need a majority of players, and once he notices, the days over. No one is going to vote for anyone until everyone is given the appropriate time to speak in their own defense. And L said 100% Considering all we need is 54%, 12 players, to vote for a lynch to pass that isn't something we have to worry about. This shows why we shouldn’t sit on a day 1 lynch. Yeah, bandwagons shouldn’t happen and with the majority rule, it is imperative that people do in fact think for themselves. However, because we act on a majority rule, nobody is obligated to vote past the majority. Because of that, vote lists are a bit restricted if we don’t make full use of them now when everybody is equally suspect. Although it’s a bit counter-intuitive because we don’t want people to die, we need people to die to get information early on. Until we hear from every person I don't think we should decide on a lynch candidate. We have 2 days to find a target, let's use them. Everyone post an overall strategy, don't just cosign someone elses. I support L's M.A.D. only because I will not let someone bully me, or force a band wagon when half a day hasn't even went by yet. That being said, I’m putting you out there for a day 1 lynch. This is because you've been in contradiction of what you said earlier about Zona thinking two nukes is too much. L’s deterrence offers that *everybody* nukes the initiator while Zona’s is on almost the opposite end: two is just fine. His plan also has nothing to do with the fact that people are “bullied” or “bandwagoning” either – you said yourself that one nuke should be enough, so why do you care if you are “bullied” by someone? The only thing that person can do during the day is nuke you which you can just retaliate back with “one retaliatory nuke” that “should be enough” according to what you have said. On top of that, you even say that you'll fire as many nukes in retaliation as possible if things do not go as planned. To whose plan? Surely not the town's as "we have no idea how many nukes can actually be fired before we wind up fucked from radiation" according to you. You may be a bit annoyed about how L acted last game, but that should have no bearing on this game. I just don’t see the logic in supporting L’s deterrence plan when proposing the opposite earlier, and when the logic has no link to L’s deterrence plan at all. His deterrence strategy doesn’t have anything to do with people getting pushed around, acting like sheep, or bandwagoning at all – it’s just a countermeasure to people having random nukes launched on them. Consider your stance a bit more. Anyway, going to write a paper. | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
| ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
| ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
| ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 24 2010 04:07 ~OpZ~ wrote: I will respond to Elemenope's post in a moment, for whoever asked me to So how's that post coming along. | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 24 2010 05:06 ~OpZ~ wrote: Why do you think that isn't a good plan? What's wrong with it? Why would the counter nuker counter if he doesn't have any nukes? We can just kill him if he does that, but it really wouldn't matter. Why not just let the person BEING nuked counter, and if HE doesn't have nukes, let another...You didn't really explain here why that's the case? The idea you just said doesn't make sense, or I just can't understand it. I disagree with the firing or nukes for no reason already, but I think we should definitely consider the situation But you really didn't explain anything here. If we use the logic that only one counter-nuke should be launched in response to an unsupported launch, we spread the idea that a) since only one counter-nuke is promoted and b) only one person is getting attacked by an unsupported launch then c) the person getting attacked should be the one to take care of the counter-nuke. The problem with this is that it doesn’t take into account the fact that some people may not have nukes at all. You might say that the person can just claim to have no nukes, but we have no way of verifying that claim unless we ask the person to launch a nuke themselves, which kind of defeats the purpose. Oh, yes. L was assuredly saying we should lynch Abenson. Or atleast that is who he would lynch. Saying “we should lynch X” is different from “**vote: X” [I’m using * because I’m sure Ace will be gay and complain if I use #]. Proposing lynch candidates is merely asking people their input and response. It’s to draw out emotions of people in a game where we can only judge people by their emotions, behaviors, and mistakes. It looks like a shitty way of phrasing things, similar to how he was doing with BM, but the point is that L can only act as a catalyst to events – just like anybody else. What is necessary is our judgment in deciding if we should follow through in his beliefs or not. Yeah, L may have a history of bussing people, but if you know that and believe he is wrong in this case, then make a very good argument discrediting him. Convince people by pointing out flaws in his case. Not everybody is a sheep. But you are saying we shouldn't just sit here for 48 hours discussing nukes? Okay, I didn't say that. I said don't jump on lynching without giving everyone a chance for input. You even said everyone should speak, and its imperative that they do. Then why complain about me saying it, right afterwards? The only discussion about nukes is how many we use as retaliation in an unsupported attack. Everybody is going to agree that we shouldn’t nuke each other. But we cannot really discern intentions from how many nukes we can use. Possibly the only thing I can glean from it is that L may possibly be a third party candidate pushing for a ToD game over and that perhaps the ToD threshold will be in fact quite real, though it’s merely speculation. It might end at one nuke, it might end after 100 nukes. It’s just something we have to take into account as the game progresses. Perhaps lynching is the best choice for ToD concerns, but we also gain slight information about everybody’s alliance and capabilities if we use counter-nukes. We need death for information, I was only speaking against bandwagoning. There was no real argument between us here... The main point I had was you said we have no need to day lynch, but I’m saying it’s better to get a day lynch out of the way first, then sit on future lynches if needed. We don’t know all the roles possible. What if there’s a vote list checker? What if there’s other vote manipulation roles or a role that happens when a lynch happens? It’s necessary to try to find these out as they give us more information about what we can use. We lack complete information. It’s necessary to uncover information as soon as possible. Yes, I was annoyed by L. You took my firing of nukes out of context. As in, my death is imminent, I will retaliate. I disagree with most of the nuking plan. I'm sorry I didn't post everything I had considered, but the game had just started as far as I was concerned. His deterrence plan isn't what I'm concerned with. Bully? Try and force a bandwagon. (I will not nuke on this) Try and lynch me. Try and lynch before everyone speaks. (or this) I refuse to accept this. This makes sense to me. I know my role. When I said consider your stance, I meant more of your supporting of one while supporting the opposite of another, not necessarily all your opinions. I mainly wanted to get this out of the way first since it was addressed to me, I’ll respond to the other items in the thread, hopefully within the next hour, otherwise that’ll have to wait for a few more hours due to class. | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 24 2010 08:37 ~OpZ~ wrote: True...Abenson, Johnny, Don't just bandwagon. Give us a legitimate reason. And someone, Xelin or Elemenope(?) said not to take L's past game's actions into account? But we are still supposed to use past games to assess their character? Hmm...is this logical to not use past game actions then? Shit, L could possibly have Nukes...it would be better to lynch him while he's gone then wait for him to be here then Nuke right before he dies in order to take peoples with him. Just pointing that out... I'm at class right now on break and reading this from a friend's laptop, but I'd like to point out that I said that L's past actions shouldn't have a bearing on this game, and I never said that we are to use past games to assess character. If you interpretted that, you misinterpretted. Provide quote and I'll explain more if needed, but my stance is that only current game actions/activity should have bearing on this game. Use that information to discredit people rather than attack players based on past games or "revenge" crap like L did with BM last game and with Abenson current game. Larger post will come with more of my thoughts when I get home. | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 23 2010 21:41 haster27 wrote: It is my opinion that launching only one retaliatory nuke against the player who nukes without permission is terrible idea. If the player has nuke capabilities, it is highly likely that he will also have some anti-missile defense to protect themselves with. I don’t see how you can say this. It’s highly unsupported unless you’re just basing it off of your capabilities, which is quite unwise. As for the first lynch, waiting sounds good enough. It should force Mafia into activity, and active Mafia generally seemed to be easier target to find than lurking Mafia. This only holds valid when the town is active as well. Which is why I stress it is important that everybody talk. Basing off current lynch votes, it seems L is going to be one of the first to die on the basis of inactivity. He really has no choice of activity but everybody else does – it’s imperative people are active. On March 23 2010 23:08 Amber[LighT] wrote: All this bio-chemical warfare. We should go for the ez kill then and go for L if he's going to be inactive anyway. Any other target would be foolish at this point, unless someone thinks there's any reason to suspect anyone else. Sound reasoning. I’m only worried if something comes up shortly before the final vote is cast, but I suppose that’s something that can be dealt with the next day. And partially, I fear that a lot of this may be because people just don’t like L =\ On March 23 2010 23:17 JeeJee wrote: ahhh... i love the smell of napalm in the morning anyway, i think obviously if anyone launches a nuke without consensus, they should be dead. but i disagree with the counter-nuking plans proposed so far. we shouldn't be so triggerhappy. i would save our nukes for end-game if we need the extra daytime kp, plus i don't want to risk some bullshit ToD loss. here's my plan. we adopt a strictly no nuking policy for now. anyone who nukes gets majority voted right away. as soon as their nuke lands, they pop, and we get 2 pieces of info (nuker and nukee's alignments). I had forgotten this option at the start. Sounds reasonable. The only problem I can see with this is if someone uses it to save someone who is going to be lynched, kind of like a self-sacrificing pardoner. Or if multiple people launch nukes. I agree though that this can be used for the first few days until we have more information. On March 24 2010 00:55 Caller wrote: In fact, the best way to go about this is for somebody without any actual nukes to nuke L. Disregarding the rule mistake which you’ve admitted, the problem with this is that we can’t confirm the validity of nukes until after they land. We have no way of proving who has nukes, who doesn’t have nukes; the same goes for counter-measures. I feel that nobody should state how many nukes they have nor counter-measure amount unless we can somehow verify the claim. On March 24 2010 01:40 Zona wrote:Making the town misunderstand the game and thus the best way to play is beneficial to the mafia and must be called out. Actually I don't like your attitude that "they didn't read the rules" is some trivial issue. If you're going to play the game, at least take the damn effort to read the rules. I agree that misunderstanding the rules is very harmful to the town. It is essential that each person knows what the rules are and what his or her role is along with its powers. Remember – we have no information about roles. We don’t know if there are conditionals to rules or not. It is very vital that you misinterpret your role and screw up. Again, as Zona said, PM ace if you don’t understand an aspect of your role. Although having admitted his mistake [I realize that this has happened after these posts], and the fact that it wasn’t at a time where everybody was on or anything, I’m thinking that he wasn’t doing it intentionally; though it is something to keep in mind in the future if he pulls something like this again. On March 24 2010 01:43 Versatile wrote: as far as someone nuking without town consensus, how about they get nuked by the person above/below them in the list? this would help in beginning to determine who may have what "powers". also, there's all this discussion about how to punish someone for nuking without town consensus, but no discussion on how we decide who does nuke. and how to figure out who has nuking capabilities. i think some altered form of 789/ace's plan in the caller game might be useful here. This is something I wish would get discussed a bit later when we may need to abandon the “lynch nuker” plan. Personally, I wasn’t here for the game in which this plan happened, so I can’t say so much about the plan itself and how it can be modified. I don’t really care for how many nukes people has as I feel until we get a verifying method, it isn’t something that should be discussed. But a non-biased and set plan for counter nukes is efficient in my mind. On March 24 2010 01:56 Zona wrote: I agree with this. But I see the use of nukes (as a daytime vigilante kill) as a last-resort, desperation measure for the town when they feel they are close to losing. Let's not factor using nukes into the town plan until we're really fucked. Nukes are shitty for ToD, but keep in mind that nukes as day vigs are basically our way of getting extra lynches in. If we are very sure about a particular suspect, we can lynch that person, yes. But if we are sure of two people, I feel that we should use a nuke as it’s basically a double lynch. I’m sure people are going to argue about this considering ToD, but as I said earlier, we don’t necessarily need to be afraid of using nukes but rather afraid of using them unwisely. On March 24 2010 02:04 XeliN wrote: L being banned for 2 days in my eyes means he is not a viable candidate to be lynched, although the posts he has made already I disagree with but that might simply be because he's L and thats my general reaction to whatever he posts. The problem that it’s very put-offish at times. It may be the way he plays, but if it doesn’t rub well with people, obviously conflicts are going to come up even if people have different playing styles. As to the idea of retaliation against a player who has an itchy trigger finger, we have the perfect form of retaliation. We lynch them. Or to put it more bluntly Any player launching a nuke against another without at the very least providing coherent argument for doing so will be lynched. Furthermore the only instance whereby we would launch against a player who acts in this way would be if we already have a good candidate for lynching, then we will nuke or multiple nuke them (I am of the opinion that 2 ought to be enough) To get things started off in the voting section I am going to be Voting ~OpZ~ His post earlier on both seemed different in style to the way he posted in the last game and also was riddled with subtle "I am town" choice of wording, something I consciously made an effort to do in the last game I was mafia so guess I'll go along with my instinct here.[/QUOTE] On March 24 2010 03:14 Zona wrote: Current version of proposed plan 1. No one is to initiate a nuke. 2. Anyone who initiates a nuke should be revenge-nuked by TWO players with real nukes. To ensure only TWO revenge-nuke, those with real nukes need to refresh the thread, and see if two have already been launched. If not, shoot one. 3. If any of the revenge-nukes turn out to be fake, the faker needs to be lynched or nuked as well. 4. Do not launch fake nukes. This only serves to muddy the picture for the town and gives an opportunity for the target to get another nuke in the air. 5. Anti-nukes should be used at their owner's discretion. However, save some for the late game, so that at that stage, the mafia can't simply nuke a large proportion of the remaining town members and win. 6. If the town COLLECTIVELY (not by some individual thought) feels that they're probably close to losing, start using nukes as daytime vigilante hits. The only thing I would change is that 6 shouldn’t be when we feel close to losing, but rather when we’re sure of a second scum in addition to the lynch. Though still, the town as a whole decides. On March 24 2010 03:17 JeeJee wrote: 2i) lynch the second nuker on the day after. unfortunately if there's doubt about even performing one town lynch, i doubt this will work. 2ii) if possible have one of the nukee's counternuke the nuker, and we lynch the other one. that way they both flip on the same day (unfortunately this means more nukes in the air) 2iii) something with anti-nukes? like anti-nuke one, lynch other. The main issue with 2i is that on the second day, the nuker may launch a second nuke. Yeah, we’re going to lynch him, but we still have a nuke to deal with. 2ii) possibility of scum to interfere with a single counternuke, and then we have the same situation with 2i, though now we may have two nukes out in the air. 2iii) this is probably the best option that I can see at the moment out of these 3. On March 24 2010 03:19 Zona wrote: There are two things to discuss though - if we approach a day deadline with no majority vote. Is it worth it to launch a fake nuke to extend the day? And the amendment to my plan of LYNCHING the first nuke-initiator rather than revenge-nuking them. I don’t see how we can do this. Are we to take the word of someone when he says that he has no nukes? On March 24 2010 03:24 XeliN wrote: There is a difference between making assumptions and considering likelihoods, it is reasonable to consider RoL might have a greater chance of being town based on the reasons you now retracted just as, in my view, it is reasonable to consider it unlikely that people will have an ability to manipulate the voting, or at least if anyone does have such an ability it would quickly be made obvious. I don’t feel it’s fair to consider the likelihood of anybody having any role whatsoever. It may be obvious that someone has extra votes, but what does that matter? We have new information that we just have to take into consideration and execute our town plan(s) accordingly. Everybody is suspect considering we have no information whatsoever. Until we can get some verification methods, it’s to remain that way. Go by what’s being posted/activity/inactivity/actions. Not likelihood that something may or may not happen because it “doesn’t seem right”. I’m not even going to say anything other than “lol” at the Xelin-Fishball misunderstanding. I want this clarified On March 24 2010 04:07 ~OpZ~ wrote: You didn't respond to anything about my post. You just read my post and says he's trying to claim town. Now Xelin, I hate to tell you this, but your instinct is wrong. Also, your lynch idea as being the perfect retaliation to nuking? Wrong. In response to On March 24 2010 02:04 XeliN wrote:As to the idea of retaliation against a player who has an itchy trigger finger, we have the perfect form of retaliation. We lynch them. Or to put it more bluntly Any player launching a nuke against another without at the very least providing coherent argument for doing so will be lynched. Furthermore the only instance whereby we would launch against a player who acts in this way would be if we already have a good candidate for lynching, then we will nuke or multiple nuke them (I am of the opinion that 2 ought to be enough) You say On March 24 2010 04:36 ~OpZ~ wrote: It's a WASTE of time. Do you think mafia will have all kinds of nukes to just launch? To throw themselves out there and pray we don't retaliate? I agree retaliation is necessary, but ending the day right there to give them another kill, when it was most likely an idiot townie? Go look at Caller's game, the CIA agent was the last person to execute someone, and ended the game with it. It's already been stated how big of a gambit it is to just throw yourself out into the open. I agree with retaliating, but directly saying launch 3 nukes is bad, and simply ending the day is bad. The situation should determine the means of countering. when he was advocating that we only retaliate with nukes when a second player launches a nuke. Are you actually reading posts or are you trying to put words in people’s mouths? And then in the same post, you say That is what my problem with the plans. So far, I like the lynch plan best, because it doesn't increase the ToD. Do you even know what you’re saying? I realize that you claim you are in favor of lynch as the countermeasure for an unsupported nuke, but do you realize that you’re refuting and agreeing with people in the same post? On March 24 2010 05:55 Abenson wrote: I will vote for L simply because he is temp-banned and not much help as of now. ##vote L This is your one post, and you’re just going to leave it at that? Are you fucking serious? On March 24 2010 06:30 nemY wrote: Can someone summarize what's gone on so far? What I can make of it so far is: L's been banned. we're adopting a "no nuke" policy, if someone breaks the policy we nuke them 2x, don't use fake nukes (if you have them), and ~OpZ~ is being an idiot? Are you fucking serious? On March 24 2010 07:15 ~OpZ~ wrote:And Elemenope, I don't see what we are arguing over? My post was stating I would use what I have as needed. And I didn't support lynching until everyone posted. We have over 24 hours, and as I've said, we should use them. Only using one nuke in retaliation preserves the ToD. We can always launch another if it's necessary. You act like we can't fire it the next day if necessary? Why must we retaliate within the same day? Please explain what is wrong with that. I’ll explain this right now on why it’s necessary that all unsupported nuke launching needs to be dealt with that same very day: Because that person can launch another nuke the very next day. Then what do we do? Use up a lynch just because we were afraid of instant GG from ToD when due to our inaction, another person dies and we waste a lynch. That’s two days gone basically. When radiation is at none, are you seriously still proposing that if two people launch nukes, we only deal with one now and the other the next day when he could launch another nuke, thereby increasing ToD if it’s detonated? Aren’t you in favor of not raising ToD in any way? *We can’t rely all the time on anti-nukes or other prevention methods as ways to prevent unsupported nukes from killing people.* On March 24 2010 07:19 meeple wrote: It's possible Nemy is feigning ignorance, but its also possible that he doesn't have the time to read the whole thread. On the other hand, he is suspect to me because of how he made a questionable statement that was ill-informed, that promotes the wrong type of ideas. (Saying that OpZ is being an idiot) If he hasn’t had time to read the thread, then he shouldn’t make posts that says he’ll read the thread, then make another post asking people to summarize the thread for him. That’s just ridiculous. On March 24 2010 09:43 tree.hugger wrote: Don't let L's reputation for being frightening and wrong discourage you. His guesses haven't gotten better over time, and I doubt a two day break will help his logic sober up. That man should never be let near a blinking red button, take him out. Also the 'or worse' clearly means a kind of 'Dr. Strangelove' doomsday device. Purity of Essence, remember, PoE, PoE, Purity of Essence.... You have got to be kidding. On all parts. On March 24 2010 10:34 ~OpZ~ wrote: If the votes didn't operate different this round I wouldn't care. I wouldn't support lynching one of the only people I know that is confirmed town, and since the votes are an instant majority thing it gets a little more scary than usual. Especially if you feel you were bandwagoned after a reasonable statement of things to be aware of this game. Um, what? How do you know anybody is confirmed town? On March 24 2010 11:57 ~OpZ~ wrote: Okay...I'm going to say this again. We don't need an exact definite decision against nukes. I think our biggest worry will be people about to be lynched firing off their nukes anyway. That's the kind of stunt I would pull. Wait. So you claim so much that the ToD is like some fucking ceiling of death 1 foot over our heads, and how we should lynch people and try not to do any major counter nukings, random nukes, etc. Then you fucking say you would fucking fire off a random nuke if you’re about to be lynched? Are you even reading what you’re saying? If you’re truly town, you wouldn’t fire off a nuke, even if you’re about to be lynched. On top of that, since it’s a majority ends the vote or 48 hours, it’s not even guaranteed that you’d be lynched when you fire this nuke. Do you see the problem with this at all? Going to play D2 some, will be back later maybe to read some of the few replies since I last refreshed. | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
As to the idea of retaliation against a player who has an itchy trigger finger, we have the perfect form of retaliation. We lynch them. Or to put it more bluntly Any player launching a nuke against another without at the very least providing coherent argument for doing so will be lynched. Furthermore the only instance whereby we would launch against a player who acts in this way would be if we already have a good candidate for lynching, then we will nuke or multiple nuke them (I am of the opinion that 2 ought to be enough) To get things started off in the voting section I am going to be Voting ~OpZ~ His post earlier on both seemed different in style to the way he posted in the last game and also was riddled with subtle "I am town" choice of wording, something I consciously made an effort to do in the last game I was mafia so guess I'll go along with my instinct here. Made an error in quoting. I did not say this, so don't misconstrue this part as what I have said. | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
| ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 24 2010 19:01 Ace wrote: Phrujabz is being replaced by Bill Murray. Remember Day 1 ends March 25th, 12AM ET as of now. oh shi- | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
Will post something about what has just been posting. | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 25 2010 06:22 Zona wrote: Wait - did you just claim masons with Abenson? Because I presume you did read the rules and otherwise wouldn't be talking to him privately. I'm willing to switch my vote to someone else if you clarify this claim, at least for day 1. The problem is I'm not sure if the town's momentum can be changed. Wait. Where did he even RC Mason? Don't be so assuming. | ||
Elemenope
Burkina Faso1704 Posts
On March 25 2010 06:28 Zona wrote: He has claimed that him and Abenson are "confirmed town". He also implies that he has spoken with Abenson, and speaking out of thread with other players is explicitly prohibited unless your role allows it. Now mafia can speak with each other as well but it'd be pretty dumb for them to reveal that. So the conclusion to be reached is a role with mason abilities. Except he could be lying about the whole thing. If he's going to RC, let him do it himself. Don't assume he's a certain role because that's just the way things have been done before or that it'd be dumb for a different role who has the same ability to do that [This is a tricky game for the second part]. Don't be so assuming that people who say they did one thing or can do one thing actually can do that one thing. Abenson hasn't even confirmed that they spoke to each other. Are there any rules against lying to people that you've communicated outside with anyone? The rules only state that outside communicate is not allowed, not claims of such. Until he makes a role claim himself, we can't go anywhere with it really as it could be a ploy to just shift votes away temporarily and force a no lynch. On top of that He hasn't even responded to my post where I specifically point out how he would use nukes just to save himself and how he in general was acting scummish. If he elected to not even bother to read that, then he hasn't even read your post which specifically pointed this out, and instead, his only post after that is trying to get Abenson off the lynch train. | ||
| ||