8-11 kst range would be preferable for me, but i'm flexible
The Sum of All Fears Mafia
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
8-11 kst range would be preferable for me, but i'm flexible | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
On March 22 2012 13:06 GMarshal wrote: I'm extremely tempted to sign up I guess we'll see if there is any room left on Monday. You should! I'm curious to see your play ^^ | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
| ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
Policy lynch is teh sux | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
| ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
On March 27 2012 08:27 slOosh wrote: It shouldn't be at all different no? Actually I've been meaning to ask a similar question. Does a closed-setup in general change basic scumhunting principles or do they just allow/favor different styles of play? honestly I am treating this game like a standard Mini Mafia, with the knowledge that there is probably a few doods with nukes or powers revolving around nukes. AKA, re-skinned medics/vigs. and if there's anything I learned from minis, it's that there's always scum hiding in the lurkers. In general I'll always argue against policy lynches (because they're bad) but in a Mini, with so few people town simply cannot afford to have non-contributors whose alignment cannot be determined. People lurking scummily (yeah there's a difference between innocent lurking and scummily lurking) should be axed over someone with only a weak case on them. gonzaw! shouldn't you be spamming the thread by now? | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
On March 27 2012 07:17 VisceraEyes wrote: For my part, I'll be keeping my eye on C_C and to a lesser extent BH due to them being among the only names I recognize as players who have played more than like 2 games here. This is one of the first games I've played where the average experience level is so low...so I'm probably not going to be on the offensive as much this game...but I make no guarantees. ayo, I've played like 6 games. most of the people here are over 3 games, don't get all tunnel vision'd worrying about vets b/c it's the less conspicious new scum who will slip by. be on the offensive, I like the feisty VE more than whatever else you'd pull out | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
On March 27 2012 12:39 Blazinghand wrote: 1) the idea that the town should take a stance is not good. Individually, we should make our own stances and developed them with the discussion 3) discussion of policy lynches implies they are important. I believe they are important insofar as we use them in an appropriate faction. It seems to me that your statements are unnecessarily aggressive and are hurting the town atmosphere. Your removal will help the town greatly and improve our discourse. In any case, I think this will be appropriate: ##Vote: Sinensis When you wake up I expect some actually helpful posts. Actually, I expect an OMGUS, but ideally you'd make some helpful posts. come at me bro preface: this aint no chainsaw blzinghand, I feel that you're being the unnecessarily aggressive one here. first you say it's bad that nemesis is using policy as a centerpiece for lynching, then you state it's bad that nemesis says policy lynch discussion isn't important? your arguement doesn't flow. and dude, you misread his original post; he's saying "town should take stance" as in townies should each have their own stance. ur being all flashy and stuff. is this normal BH? + Show Spoiler + where do you get your gifs? | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
On March 27 2012 12:43 Sinensis wrote: Also, there's only been one topic. It's topic. Not "topics [sic]." VisceraEyes using quotes. You weren't even part of that conversation. new topic! sinensis do you think blzinghand's vote on nemesis is resonable or not? | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
On March 27 2012 13:04 Blazinghand wrote: But the fact of the matter is, he did somehow wake up to respond to my posts. He will doubtlessly claim that he hadn't yet gone to bed... but bear in mind that his series of actions is distinctly something a scum player WOULD do. + Show Spoiler + Blazinghand: I thought you went to sleep. Nemesis: I was just checking thr- Blazinghand: He lied!! Townies never wake back up!! Lynch!!! Jubjubs (chanting): It makes so much sense! | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
On March 27 2012 13:26 johnnywup wrote: I don't think you're mafia, blazing, because no mafia would be so stupid to post something so stupid. At least I think. Utterly garbage posting so far. never underestimate the depths to which people will reach. + Show Spoiler + never assume someone is scum or town off of logic like "scum would never do that", you'd be surprised how often that can be wrong well mr. wup u singlepostedly changed my opinion on you. i'm out of suspects now darn | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
##vote: Blazinghand Being good at arguing doesn't make you town. At this point you're just wildly voting people. Sowing dat chaos. Way to take the one off statement in his post and ignore the rest. You're voting people off of semantic mistakes as opposed to having any real reasoning, so thread flounders under your boot. As you might say, this kind of thinking hurts town. Scum. | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
dude my filter in that game is 1 page. wth LOL. good times ^^ bluelightz no one can talk a look at cccalf because he hasn't posted anything. you're doing that thing when you don't make any sense. hip hip hurrah C_C is doing that thing where I have no idea about his alignment, mostly b/c he hasn't posted much direct opinions or cases on anyone. I hope C_C does that sometime. O_O hey lurkers/semi-newbies who haven't posted yet! feel free to start posting, don't mind the hubbub ^^ what's your opinion on the state of town? answer soon pls!! relevant topics include 1. role of policy lynching, 2. the closed set-up 3. blazinghand vs. all contenders. | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
On March 27 2012 11:52 Blazinghand wrote: First off, regarding our discussion of policy lynches: I personally apply a soft "lynch all lurkers" and "lynch all liars" policy to all the games in which I play. My first goal is always to lynch scum. Scum likes to lurk, and scum likes to lie. I am highly suspicious of lurkers and liars, but I will not automatically lynch every lurker and every liar-- this is too easily abused by scum. That being said, I have lynched lurkers and liars in the past and am not afraid to do so in this game. Nobody can convince me to modify my personal stance and I will not do so. Secondarily, regarding setup: This is fairly simple. This is a closed setup with 10 town and 4 scum. Scum can win by either the traditional fashion, or by destroying 5 specific players or the other 5 specific players as an alternative wincon. It is immediately obvious that we should not share our alignment. Anarcy fo life dam, for being non-relevant topics, you DEFINITELY addressed them in your opening case. what should I think Blazinghand? 1.) you talking about them doesn't mean they are relevant. Logical conclusion! 2.) They ARE relevant topics, and you're just wrong. Can't be that! 3.) you actually know that policy/setup is relevant, but you like people railroading to your avenue of discussion, where you have control over a few hapless townie. Cruelty! Z.) I am scum for arguing with you in any shape or form, and you will twist this post to make yourself look right. Most likely response!!! I am encouraging players who have not posted yet to come in and post, and in people's opening posts they often address topics that are RELEVANT to the beginning of a game. Am I REALLY being unhelpful BH? Are you REALLY being more helpful than me, with your subversive aggression? I don't expect a logical response, I expect OMGUS. Other people can comment on this if they wish. You're making utterly no sense. | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
| ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
| ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
On March 27 2012 16:03 Sinensis wrote: So what changed? Or do you not like being in the same voting boat as johnny? You defended him earlier. so i was all like "BH's tunneling on nemesis is not very good, I don't like it". then I saw this and was like j.wup busting out the logic woot, my earlier suspicion on mr. wup was wrong! BH is being wildly scummy! But then BH reacted alright to ma prezzure, so then I re-read the post mr. wup and realized it was actually not good at all and I was a dumdum to think it was good so then I unvoted. AKA Nemesis case bad. J.wup case good. VE you're being awfully chummy with mr. wup. it's one thing to say "don't overract to pressure", or to be generally friendly, but it sounds like ur presuming he's town. you think BH's case is god awful, and more importantly, wrong? | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
On March 27 2012 15:44 johnnywup wrote: just because i don't have as many posts doesn't mean I'm scum, blazing. My posts are more thought out. Your posts are yelling at anyone who directs a post at you. I don't find that particularly town-like. ##vote Blazinghand oh also this isn't a good enough reason to vote someone. feels like someone trying to push along a train. BH didn't yell at me despite me openly discrediting him, logic fails. | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
On March 27 2012 16:27 VisceraEyes wrote: I mean, respond...but you're getting emotional about it which is not the answer. Yes, he's using bad logic. So was I last game remember? Remember what I flipped? There's still a lot of time in the day. If BH's vote is still on you for the reasons he's giving, I'll gladly lynch his ass with you. Responding emotionally to his pressure only makes you seem more suspicious. I mean, obviously if you're scum I'm helping you right now, but you're using fine logic and I don't want to see you talk your way to a lynch. i glazed over this part. you didn't presume he's scum. please don't yell at me T_T in other news, blzinghand for prez?? | ||
EchelonTee
United States5180 Posts
C_C (in response to current stuffs) froggynoddy cccalf going to wrap up a post in TL LII then sleep. will check out dem cases tomorrow and make my vote. Dear Hosts, could you grant your poor, destitute players a voting thread? | ||
| ||