TBD [Status: GAME OVER]
- Thread starter GmK
- Start date
agreed, this is what I've been saying from the start. town is unable to understand this, apparently.
it's like jivvi, defiant, lee, and I are the only players here with any semblance of rationality.
which would avoid town fucking up the first lynch, as is their tradition
If one is talking about play style yes, that is all encompassed by an individual's actions portrayed in this game.
Saying lee_scar sure does pander and throw around so many hypotheticals and gets buried in what ifs is fine.
Fuckups and situations, that's talking about a game, despite a person being involved its a direct outside influence to the actions of this game here and now. Saying lee_scar sure did push for roleclaims that other game and look what happened then. Is not fine.
While comparative examples are fine if they are hypothetical.
----Referring to a situation where xx didn't believe aa and wow aa wasn't lying?! -------What if he isn't lying and we are all wrong, what if he is actually the doctor?
------- A situation where yy and rr were teaming up and tunneling qq and people instead voted rr only to find out qq was mafia?! ----- Oh man imagine while we go to vote on this guy and everyone is voting another guy that this guy were voting is actually mafia.
Those kind of situations when given direct examples in previous games is an outside reference and further devolves into manipulation.
It boils down to the type of manipulation that people use on others 'If that situation was similar and those results came about then no doubt the same result may come about, think about that when you decide.'
Its like preying on a girls weakness while she is dating a guy and the current boyfriend asked her for 'time alone' her previous boyfriend did this and ended up cheating so the new man must be doing the same!?!
Comparative end result analysis, the human brain follows trends and patterns, when a pattern is proven, ie fire hurts, when one says 'that situation will end up with your hand in a fire' or another one will use the former pattern of fire bad and avoid the situation.
That should have no bearing on this game.
tl;dr I'm tired of people using former games to manipulate soft skinned voters who would rather not have to make basis and example out of this current game.
If you think alpha is such a good lynch, I guess we can go for it if you so wish. He did say it won't affect us. I suppose it's better than taking the chance with you.
Sorry alpha.
And Lee, I think you do have a point there.
Right now I won't disagree with the votes, I'm just wanting to get a bearing on where they are coming from.
I enjoy seeing counter points and supporting argument rather then 'Oh well with everything that's been said yeah I will vote xx now'
It would be very nice to see what points and who is influencing these changes of minds.
Otherwise I'm just going to take those votes.
Much like raxos as a tide vote.
I enjoy seeing counter points and supporting argument rather then 'Oh well with everything that's been said yeah I will vote xx now'
It would be very nice to see what points and who is influencing these changes of minds.
Otherwise I'm just going to take those votes.
Much like raxos as a tide vote.
How, why? Who changed his mind? There is no argument or anything to add?
CaffeinatedKitty
Intoxicated Feline
Why are you voting an unclaimed instead of a 3p?
Because this particular unclaimed has a tendency to flip opinions and jump everywhere and contradict himself and I can't really trust him.
How does not voting a 3p benefit the town?
The only officially claimed 3P has no effect for or against the town really; imo, he's like a third-party villager.
Your admitting you mafia, that you would rather town hunt lynch then 3p oust?
...What?
Because this particular unclaimed has a tendency to flip opinions and jump everywhere and contradict himself and I can't really trust him.
How does not voting a 3p benefit the town?
The only officially claimed 3P has no effect for or against the town really; imo, he's like a third-party villager.
Your admitting you mafia, that you would rather town hunt lynch then 3p oust?
...What?
Enderfive
sarcasm incarnate
Inside we both know what's been going on and that's not it. I think that the people voting Hunter aren't doing it because they simply don't like them, I think it's because his playstyle makes him look scummy, the same thing has happened with raxo, for example. For the record, I still don't think playstyle alone is grounds for lynch, but I will also say that if by the end of the day people still want to lynch Hunter, I will bandwagon, because I want to get a lynch out of the day, as I always do.
No, it's not a legit vote. Raxo, sorry, but I still think you haven't fully grasped the game yet. Saying "He's suspicious" isn't reason by itself. Restating something that's already been said with very little effort put into the post yourself is not a reason by itself. It looks scummy, because it looks like you're trying to ride on whatever others are saying; your constant votehopping to agree with the majority only makes it look more so. I don't think you're scum, raxo, at least not at the moment, but others might if you keep playing the way you have so far.
For now though, let's change tactics a bit, shall we?
I propose that Hunter claims. After he's done that, you'll hear the rest of my plan.
nah, that's stupid considering we aren't massclaiming. the other people claimed voluntarily. the only people I pressured to claim were third party roles. They didn't affect the town negatively by claiming, but if an actual town claimed now, that would hurt our winning chance.
Five votes. If you could explain why you believe that it's better to lynch an unclaimed than a third party claim, that'd be nice. Think in terms of the question, not "THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR I DO NOT LIKE."
Haven't caught up yet. I'm still like 5 or so pages behind and just woke up. However, I felt the need to comment on this because I feel a lot of people forget this fact.
Town-sided players are expected to look at cases on a case by case basis. The first person to say LaL in many of those former policy lynches has been a mafia himself. 9/10 times someone who uses LaL as a reasoning to convince others to lynch is a mafia member throwing a scummy looking innocent under the bus, wasting one of the towns mislynches.
Its gotten to the point I think we should lynch anyone who uses LaL as their main argument. Therefore, i propose a new policy: laWSLaL ( lynch anyone who says lynch all liars)
Right now I'm highly suspect of caff. It looks like she's setting up for a LaL argumeny