. This was, my initial plan. I was going to request that the weakest mafiate claim as a show of good faith. That way if the kills started we'd at least get a scum out of it, while we all worked towards the same wincon.Vaya wrote: You know zoraster, that the mafia can go for Technology Victory as well. If we did this, there would be no reason for the mafia to not cooperate or for them to start killing people. I can't think of any reason that everyone winning like this wouldn't work, though it would probably be a pretty dull way to win.
This actually isn't a bad idea.zora wrote:
Bulletproof will be a handy tool to have for pretty much all town. I think it might be a good idea to have everyone grab that either tonight, last night or perhaps night 2. It "wastes" a night of inventing/actions, but it also neutralizes several scum kills (scum then has to kill someone twice to take them out). Other than BP, I think diversifying will be good. But what do you guys think? Should everyone get BP tonight if they haven't already?
Also not a bad ideaNeto wrote: I don't think we should specify who got BP and who didn't. I think we SHOULD all move towards getting NK-immunity with BP as the next action for those who didn't get it.
It was a joke ^-^Cobalt wrote:
Hey UK, that sounds like a wonderfully terrible idea and one which ensures you'll keep my vote for now. cheers
I play to win. However, that win is obviously not going to occur easily, so I'll drop it.zoraster wrote:
And yes, we technically COULD have everyone come out and go for a tech victory, but why bother play?
Tar assured me there was something that would make it more difficult than we anticipated. And plus, the may or may not end the game thing means he doesn't HAVE to be scaring us. It normally wouldn't but if we go for a mass victory he'll just trigger it.Vaya wrote:
And I'm pretty sure that a Tech Victory wouldn't end the game, and that Tar just added that line to scare the players into not trying a plan like this. It reminds me of that "You may or may not count as a faction" line in the Outsider win con in LotA mafia. Even if it did, we could coordinate it so that everyone wins at once.
Anyway, enough of that, while I'm pretty sure that a mass Tech Victory would work, I'd prefer not to bother winning like that.
. May I expand on this?Chaco wrote: Also, Zoraster, I'd like you to closely check out the Thirds Post and tell me if you realize this game has a system of checks and balances.
Holy crap! Tar DIDN'T COUNT A TAR VOTE! Times are changing!Tar wrote:
UncertainKitten attempted to vote Tarhalindur in post 11. Tarhalindur is not a player in the game, so this vote does not count.
Not Voting (4) - UncertainKitten, Sajin, Pomegranate
Slight contradiction from the previous point, not gonna nitpick it, merely note it.SSK wrote:
Questioning you to see if this scummy act, makes you scum.Still pondering.
Safely? What's that supposed to mean?malt wrote:
I had a day (from that post) to safely pick someone who I could lynch. I just wanted to have a bit more time to think about my vote
But weird things that don't produce content are rather scummy, ne?malt wrote: Sure he's been posting weird things, but weird doesn't=scum.
I'd love a link to this.malt wrote:
To the second part: I would agree with that somewhat, but he HAS posted content (and original content at that, with his case on SSK).
More like misrep and...um...not a case. At best there's kinda a case on Chaco. Not sure I agree, but I'm kinda biased against that wagon thanks to "lol, L-3 in super fast mode"See Posts #61-68.
Sorry, misunderstood. Fair enough. But, I meant a link to his case.malt wrote: I'm not talking about the case on SSK. I am simply providing evidence to back up my counter-point. (You said that weird things that don't produce content are scummy. I showed you that he has produced content.)
Wish I knew. There are three possibilities in my mind. I don't have enough data to determine which one holds. One is very unlikely, the other two are quite probable.zoraster wrote: a note? so someone sent you a note instead of inventing? that's interesting. why would that be?
Precisely. I'm half tempted to ask for the sender to claim...but if they ARE town I'd rather not have them claim and thereby let everyone know they didn't invent last night.
Question is whether the player is town or scum.
It's what I'm leaning at the moment. Both possibilities are mutually exclusive indicators of the person's alignment, meaning we can draw nothing from it.Could be a gambit, might be best just to treat it as null.
Entirely possible. I know I'm not so I didn't consider it. This message basically seems like the most useless thing someone could have done really :S.zora wrote: The message may not necessarily make them town, but I have to believe that scum have every reason to want to invent every single night. I'd think that with town as well, but i think there's even more reason scum would want to avoid wasting a night on something so pointless. Lots of WIFOM though, so I think just keep it in your pocket for now no reason to out or anything.
Though I will pose this possibility: UK could be lying.
At least one is. Possibly all of them are. I'd really rather not get into it unless I have to.malt wrote:
Are any the reasons you're thinking of based off of the note's contents?
there are actually a couple intelligent uses of the note. Both of them still don't shed light on the alignment of the sender.Chaco wrote:
but I do mainly feel it is suspicious because, there would be no substantial evidence as to that note. Unless sent by mafia, even then, that would be dumb.
Isolate Sajin and see if he's as absent as I thought, and if he's posted anything of substance. He hasn't posted a lot, but have other people really?Pom wrote: Hmm?
I didn't catch that.
Not really. given the low activity of this game you don't stand out. At best you've kinda only talked about two people but it's hard to find much to talk about right now :S
@UK-
I have been getting frustrated at site problems the last few days. Have any specific questions?
Actually...I wouldn't mind you scumhunting ^-^. there's a lot of theory crap you can disregard, but overall, I think there are a few things of interesting to key in on. I myself should probably reread the game at some point between today and tomorrow and see who's scum.MafiaSSK wrote:Do you really want me to setup speculate?Netopalis wrote:That's all you have to say?
Pom wrote: I have seen around that Juls has stated that she's busy. I guess I didn't know whether or not he'd seen it, other than in this game.
And when did you change your name to SSK?malt wrote:
@SSK: Why are you simply parroting what fishy said with a non-comittal reason? Hell, why don't you vote Juls? She has been as non-comittal as I have and lurked to boot.
SSK can be productive if you give him a chance. No one ever does though. But, in TRADTiMM he was probably the biggest threat to the mafia. Granted, the town wasn't playing it's best, but SSK's playstyle isn't one of stupidity, it's one where he merely doesn't play all his cards. I think that you can draw them out though if you ask for them less roughly.The thing is, a SSK lynch is valid for more reasons, IMHO. Pom, if town, will be productive in the future. SSK will not be. If SSK or Pom flips scum, the other should be lynched, but we should lynch the least productive of the two.
Well, my evidence for the effectiveness of my approach seems to be in ongoings I think.You've said that a few times now....Can you link me to the game in question? Honestly, I'm having a bit of a hard time believing it. I've tried the soft approach with him before, and it's gotten me nowhere. Also, I've read his play in other games and it seems to be roughly equivalent. Essentially, I'll believe it when I see it.
He was invisible in that game but blew up scum. I think he made a few posts through the mod, that were admittedly useless. I may be misremembering about Tar saying there was a process but I believe there was.Netopalis wrote:He made 1 post in the thread that you link me to. I really honestly can't base a judgment on it. There may be a thought process that works going on back there. For all I know, he could be the most brilliant mafia player in the history of the site. The problem is that I *can't* know that because he never makes substantial posts.
I don't want anybody to fail. That's why I play in a lot of newbie games and try to help people out from the start. The problem is that this is a recurring problem with SSK. He's been here since November 2007. Quite frankly, if he hasn't learned that he needs to post his reasoning in 2 years, I really don't have a lot of hope for him. Either way, this is not a newbie game, and my primary function is not to teach, it is to achieve a win for the town.
Feel free to use whatever tactics that you want, but my vote stands until I have someone better to vote for.
As I said, I don't really object to it. I'm just sad I can't convince you Pom is the play. Her ISO REALLY bugs me. SSK's probably bugs me the least, even though I still find him rather scummy.net wrote:
Feel free. Like I said, I would be absolutely thrilled if he suddenly decided to take his games seriously. I'm just skeptical. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to be realistic and fair. I can't logically hold new players to a standard while lessening that standard for SSK because he can't be bothered to post something decent every now and then. I think that 2 years of consistent behavior, though, is more than grounds for the preconceived notion that I have about his play, and I also feel that his play is the result of laziness, not from lack of skill. Unfortunately, laziness is extremely difficult to correct. Again, I wish you luck, but my vote stands.
Probably. When you ignore it no one knows whether you are dropping the case entirely or if you are keeping it back for later use.malt wrote:
To quote #1 and 2: I don't get your point. What was I supposed to counter-respond to? Do you expect me to me say "Sorry, I didn't know that was a theoretical plan?" I simply dropped the case because I couldn't go any further with it.
Your explanation is noted. I don't think this point will be dropped.malt wrote:
#4 That certainly does look scummy, now that I look at it Razz, but what I was trying to say was that even that I think the message sender thing was a null tell, I still had an uneasy gut tell that didn't really didn't amount to anything.
Do you look at him? You have one line on him which doesn't necessarily encompass the case on him.malt wrote:
If that's the post your referring to, then I have no clue what point you are trying to make. I DID look at Cobalt and even commented on it the post linked. What are you trying to get at?
"Don't vote me! I'm ME! Vote Juls!"malt wrote: @SSK: Why are you simply parroting what fishy said with a non-comittal reason? Hell, why don't you vote Juls? She has been as non-comittal as I have and lurked to boot.
Could have sworn I had one. Lemme ISO myself to confirm.Malt wrote:
That's what I felt was the only cohesive part of the case at that point. What part of the case on him were you referring to? I certainly can't see one (I seem to be saying that line a lot :p)
Unsure I like this. It feels like you are accrediting SSK's case without believing it yourself.There's just not enough content to get a solid read. I know that she's been honestly busy for most of the game, so that sort of nullifies any "active lurker" vibes I get from her.