You know, I think I will always win at that game. There's this nice thing called 'not drinking'..... It works for me. I don't lose any control of my body and mind to the creature, and I get to laugh at all the drunk peoplez.
You also live the lamest life ever.
Now please answer my previous question, so that I may view it in the morning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
I can't help but feel that you made a quick bad vote, and followed that up by trying to seem as if ur just being random by quickly making a silly vote of RafaelK. Seriously, why did you vote WOD?
NightArcher: See above
arim: Are you expecting everyone to vote on that or something on that, or is this a call to the mod or some other individual and the rest of us don't have to bother with it for the time being?
I can't imagine any ability that would matter if you had a vote on you.... especially this early. It's not like votes in the random voting phase were going to get him lynched. I don't take anything at 'face value' without some proof or at least more info beyond 'don't vote me plskthx'....
I switched because..... well, does it matter? This is still random voting, no?
For doing things just because people ask him not to. For all we know they have a good reason for not wanting to be voted on. So if someone asks you not to random vote them, I wouldn't random vote them. Also I don't like your answer as a whole.
I can't imagine any ability that would matter if you had a vote on you.... especially this early. It's not like votes in the random voting phase were going to get him lynched. I don't take anything at 'face value' without some proof or at least more info beyond 'don't vote me plskthx'....
I switched because..... well, does it matter? This is still random voting, no?
I don't believe this.
I don't even think it's internally consistent. It seems like you're trying on a couple of different excuses at once for the vote.
As for the "can't imagine", a simple "you can only use this ability if no-one votes for you during the day" isn't that hard to imagine is it, when the guy has already said votes for him could have a bad effect?
For doing things just because people ask him not to. For all we know they have a good reason for not wanting to be voted on. So if someone asks you not to random vote them, I wouldn't random vote them. Also I don't like your answer as a whole.
[/END RANDOM PHASE]
That joke is totally still funny
I don't find your vote of Night Archer for the reasons of "he's doing something someone said not to" to be a very good reason, and I also don't like how you don't extrapolate on what about NA's answer you don't like.
Don't ever vote for me. There, I've asked you not to.
I don't even think it's internally consistent. It seems like you're trying on a couple of different excuses at once for the vote.
As for the "can't imagine", a simple "you can only use this ability if no-one votes for you during the day" isn't that hard to imagine is it, when the guy has already said votes for him could have a bad effect?
Vote stands.
I do however, barn this post. unvote: Vote Night Archer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
I don't find your vote of Night Archer for the reasons of "he's doing something someone said not to" to be a very good reason, and I also don't like how you don't extrapolate on what about NA's answer you don't like.
Don't ever vote for me. There, I've asked you not to.
It's not that he is doing something someone said not to. If it was that I could care less if he had a reason to do it. But he did what he did because the person said not to, which is the answer I don't like.
The fact that he then tries to pull it off as a random phase Joke is even worse and seems like someone who was caught doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing, just adds to the whole issue.
I hope this clarifies to you what I was trying to get across in my post that you apparently got confused on.
It's not that he is doing something someone said not to. If it was that I could care less if he had a reason to do it. But he did what he did because the person said not to, which is the answer I don't like.
The fact that he then tries to pull it off as a random phase Joke is even worse and seems like someone who was caught doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing, just adds to the whole issue.
I hope this clarifies to you what I was trying to get across in my post that you apparently got confused on.
And yes the joke is still totally funny.
No, I wasn't confused before, nor do I like how you try to pass it off as me being confused.
However, I am a bit confused not. The bolded points are a contradiction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
Yeah, that does not compute. You are saying "It's not that NA is doing something after he was told not to that bothers me, it's that NA is doing something after he was told not to".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
Yeah, that does not compute. You are saying "It's not that NA is doing something after he was told not to that bothers me, it's that NA is doing something after he was told not to".
OK. Time for a story to illustrate what I am trying to say.
Sentence #1: It's not that he is doing something someone said not to.
For this sentence imagine a little kid whose mother told him not to eat the cookies from the cookie jar. The kid though loves cookies and wants to have one. Therefore he goes and steals a cookie from the cookie jar. Sentence #2: But he did what he did because the person said not to
For this sentence imagine a little kid whose mother told him not to eat the cookies from the cookie jar. The kid then decides to steal a cookie from the cookie jar to spite his mother for saying he couldn't.
As you can see the actions and end result are the same, but the motivation is completely different. If NA did what he did because of what I was saying in Sentence #1 then depending on his reasoning it might not have mattered that someone asked him not to. But since he did it because of what I was saying Sentence #2, just out of spite because he was told not to, I find that to be unacceptable behavior, especially in the random stage.
I don't like NightArcher's vote on WoD.
I don't like the reasonings on voting for WoD.
I don't like that he commented on random crap when questions were asked of him and he "missed" them.
FOS NightArcher
@NightArcher, how experenced in Mafia are you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks goes out to DarkNightCavalier and XenoNinja
I can't imagine any ability that would matter if you had a vote on you.... especially this early. It's not like votes in the random voting phase were going to get him lynched. I don't take anything at 'face value' without some proof or at least more info beyond 'don't vote me plskthx'....
I switched because..... well, does it matter? This is still random voting, no?
Um, it could very easily be that any votes demolish an ability that could be useful to the town. (Or the scum, granted.) Why so flippantly jeopardize that?
vote NightArcher for deliberately screwing with a guy who has effectively claimed role reasons for not having votes on him. There's no need for that kind of thing.
I don't like NightArcher's vote on WoD.
I don't like the reasonings on voting for WoD.
I don't like that he commented on random crap when questions were asked of him and he "missed" them.
FOS NightArcher
4.5. Nice little wagon you built yourself there, NA; you're a third of the way! Wanna dig a little deeper?
unvote, vote Cantripmancer for wall of texting at 11 am
OMGUS! Unvote Kpaca, Vote E_P for clearly mislabeling a Wall of Quotes as a Wall of Texting.
Wall of Quotes 1WU
Creature - Wall
Whenever ~ blocks a creature, that creature loses its flavor text and ~ gains that flavor text.
~ can block an additional creature and gets +0/+1 for each flavor text beyond its own that it has.
0/5
Wall of Texting 1UB
Creature - Wall
Whenever a player casts a spell, he or she may draw a card. If he or she does, each other player draws a card.
0/3 Every text spawns a library.
See? Nothing like each other.
@Ced: There's nothing saying that I can't acknowledge the scumminess of a player, note my concern, then hearken back to the golden age of random, especially after I missed the first 12 hours and, quite possibly, most of the random stage.
Interpretation of actions as fishing acknowledged; it seemed odd to me, so I asked him about it. But the intent wasn't to fish, but to highlight.
By the way, did you know that Cyan is town? Maybe you two should get a garage for all your hummers /third nipples and talk it out. Then go ahead and get back to us on who to lynch.
Well, there is nothing saying that you can't random vote after things get serious, but pushing a wagon then random voting elsewhere just looks like you're trying to avoid having to vote NArcher.
I'm not going to avoid voicing the concerns I have about NArcher's behavior, but I don't feel like it's anywhere vote-worthy as of yet. I'd like to hear more from him, and let him know that I find him suspicious. In the meantime, since my vote isn't placed on anyone, I'm going to have some fun with Kpaca, whose mind is way to fun to mess with. Except that E_P decided he wanted in...
Quote from ced395 »
...I don't see what's odd about it. Votes are reversible actions, except when great in number.
"Hi, I'd like to be the last vote of the day. It's in our best interests. But in the meantime I'll put the first vote on a person." I realize that his vote was probably random-stage based, but if he's serious, why wouldn't he indicate his suspicions via non-vote instead?
What more do I have to say. I have no reason to believe him. The chances of him having an ability (that helps the town) that gets ruined by a single vote is extremely unlikely. No one is confirmed *anything*, and as far as I know, are we even sure the mafia knows who they are yet?
Doesn't explain why you voted him. Do you have reason to believe he's lying?
I have no reason to believe ANYONE. I put a vote on him during the random phase.... because the likelihood of it having game-altering ramifications was minute.
This smells of inside information, i.e. you know how the mafia works here, and are trying to make it look like you don't.
Quote from The Setup »
As the FTQ it has the following to offer:
- A ~no Mafia role~ setup. This entire game is made up of townies and neutrals. There are no mafia roles.
- The mafia are CHOSEN by a specific individual.
I have no reason to believe ANYONE. I put a vote on him during the random phase.... because the likelihood of it having game-altering ramifications was minute.
Why would you choose to NOT beleive him over believing him first?
You cannot say what the likelihood of your vote has done to affect WoD.
Let me ask you this, Why do you think WoD requested not to be voted for?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks goes out to DarkNightCavalier and XenoNinja
That doesn't really make any sense. Someone says 'guys please dont' vote me thanks', and your immediate response is to do..exactly that. Then you tried to play it off like a joke(with your OMGUS 'random' vote on RafK). But now you're trying to act like you had a defensible position. You are being ridiculously flaky here. Unvote, Vote NightArcher
If you don't consider him "anywhere near voteworthy", then why did you take the time to highlight all the votes on him, then push the wagon, when you didn't even consider him worthy of one vote?
If you don't want to avoid raising concerns about NArcher's play, then why did you not voice the concerns that I would have expected you to have on the speed of the wagon over something you didn't consider worthy of a vote?
Actually, I was keeping visual track of the votes and the wagon, since it seemed to me that people were jumping on awfully quickly. I thought about cautioning people not to go ballistic on him quite this early in the game, but figured it was an unnecessary warning among somewhat veterans.
Quote from ced »
(also, the "anywhere vote-worthy as of yet" bit feels like you're setting up to vote later)
Um...you're right. I might vote NArcher later in the game... /sarcasm.
Quote from ced »
Presumably, if he's requesting to be the hammer vote, he wants to coordinate that hammer with the town. Does the opposite scenario, "I request the hammer vote, and am not going to vote otherwise", make sense to you?
Yes, actually, since I've seen it in games. The person who wants to hammer usually highlights his choice of vote with a placeholder ("I want to hammer, so I won't vote SomeGuy, but I would normally vote him now; please get him to hammer range and I'll hammer him.") instead of voting for that person.
Quote from ced »
This smells of inside information, i.e. you know how the mafia works here, and are trying to make it look like you don't.
Um, what NArcher responded with: it's possible that the person responsible for identifying the scum hasn't done so yet.
I have no reason to believe ANYONE. I put a vote on him during the random phase.... because the likelihood of it having game-altering ramifications was minute.
A ~no Mafia role~ setup. This entire game is made up of townies and neutrals. There are no mafia roles
So you bring up that there are no mafia roles. But you don't believe he has abilites to help the town and place a vote indicating hes mafia. FOS NA
OK. Time for a story to illustrate what I am trying to say.
Sentence #1: It's not that he is doing something someone said not to.
For this sentence imagine a little kid whose mother told him not to eat the cookies from the cookie jar. The kid though loves cookies and wants to have one. Therefore he goes and steals a cookie from the cookie jar. Sentence #2: But he did what he did because the person said not to
For this sentence imagine a little kid whose mother told him not to eat the cookies from the cookie jar. The kid then decides to steal a cookie from the cookie jar to spite his mother for saying he couldn't.
As you can see the actions and end result are the same, but the motivation is completely different. If NA did what he did because of what I was saying in Sentence #1 then depending on his reasoning it might not have mattered that someone asked him not to. But since he did it because of what I was saying Sentence #2, just out of spite because he was told not to, I find that to be unacceptable behavior, especially in the random stage.
Do you understand now?
That makes perfect sense. You should try to word your sentences better or something.................
Why are you asking to hammer, then putting the first vote on someone?
srsly, why would you do this?
Deflection masked as random stage much?
Um, it could very easily be that any votes demolish an ability that could be useful to the town. (Or the scum, granted.) Why so flippantly jeopardize that?
That's 1.
2.
3.
4.
4.5. Nice little wagon you built yourself there, NA; you're a third of the way! Wanna dig a little deeper?
FOS NightArcher
The end reeks to me of scum trying to talk to each other. And supporting the wagon with just your FOS is pretty bogus and all.
I don't like NightArcher's vote on WoD.
I don't like the reasonings on voting for WoD.
I don't like that he commented on random crap when questions were asked of him and he "missed" them.
OMGUS! Unvote Kpaca, Vote E_P for clearly mislabeling a Wall of Quotes as a Wall of Texting.
Wall of Quotes 1WU
Creature - Wall
Whenever ~ blocks a creature, that creature loses its flavor text and ~ gains that flavor text.
~ can block an additional creature and gets +0/+1 for each flavor text beyond its own that it has.
0/5
Wall of Texting 1UB
Creature - Wall
Whenever a player casts a spell, he or she may draw a card. If he or she does, each other player draws a card.
0/3 Every text spawns a library.
See? Nothing like each other.
@Ced: There's nothing saying that I can't acknowledge the scumminess of a player, note my concern, then hearken back to the golden age of random, especially after I missed the first 12 hours and, quite possibly, most of the random stage.
Interpretation of actions as fishing acknowledged; it seemed odd to me, so I asked him about it. But the intent wasn't to fish, but to highlight.
I disagree. With as analytical as you are it comes across as much more of fishing to me.
What more do I have to say. I have no reason to believe him. The chances of him having an ability (that helps the town) that gets ruined by a single vote is extremely unlikely. No one is confirmed *anything*, and as far as I know, are we even sure the mafia knows who they are yet?
Did it ever occur to you that you could say you don't believe him, without actually voting?
The end reeks to me of scum trying to talk to each other. And supporting the wagon with just your FOS is pretty bogus and all.
And what, exactly, would I be trying to communicate? You've garnered four votes, you idiot? Kpaca, you've played with me before; you know that I like keeping my own tallies independently of the modcounts.
As for the FOS, I've been over this before, but I don't mind going over it again: If I'm going to (non-random) vote, I'm going to be pretty durn committed to it. FOS is my way of highlighting suspicion (as I thought it was to be used), and actually voting usually requires more suspicion than one scummy action. Now, without jumping into the usual spat that we seem to enjoy dredging up in every game, I find that your style is often vote first and ask questions later. Nothing wrong with that; it takes all kinds. But it's not my style.
Quote from kpaca »
I disagree. With as analytical as you are it comes across as much more of fishing to me.
Funny: tearing me down with compliments. Did Dagger's comment really not strike anyone else as odd? I found it strange, so I called him on it. I wasn't asking about abilities, consequences, etc, but identifying what appeared to me as errant behavior.
To clarify, because it sounds like several people can't/won't read:
Win Condition: Most players have the following formatting to their win condition: Destroy the Traitors /// Eliminate the Loyalists.
The first win condition is your TOWNIE win condition. This is your default Win Condition.
The SECOND win condition is the mafia win condition which will become active if i PM you telling you you are mafia.
Essentially: ignore the second win condition unless told otherwise.
There is mafia/scum, but everyone has the dual information until SB PMs us with the update to identify the scum. Translation: SB might be screwing with us D1 by allowing us all to be town until a later point, since he didn't indicate when those PMs might come out. Or maybe they've been sent out already. Regardless, I think this is what NArcher is saying about the setup.
However, this:
Quote from StormBlind »
Warning: I dont believe almost any role pm's have the same win conditions.
threw me for a loop. What is that supposed to mean? Almost any?
No one is commenting on the fact that Cyan is town.
There isn't exactly much to comment. There is very little basis for [dis]/agreement.
As for FoSes, I can generally think of 3 reasons to do so as town:
1) You already have a vote down or no votes at all.
2) The player is nearing a lynch, but the day doesn't need to end yet.
3) The player who you want to vote has claimed that votes are detrimental to them.
Basically, the only time to FoS is if you would vote, but you can't, or shouldn't.
If you disagree, you're wrong. If you want to pressure someone, use votes. If you want to act suspicious of someone, ask questions. Your suspicion will be made obvious.
A player at 4-5 votes and equally many FoSes should be in claim range if those FoSes actually expressed suspicion. If they don't (and/or if the players holding them don't want a claim), then they should be removed anyways.
You really really should trust me. I will never ever harm you. Cross my heart and hope to die.
"...And in the morning, I woke up to discover I was HIV positive, sheriff!"
On that note, NA, you seem to be acting from a scum mindset here. Voting WoD when he specifically said not to at this stage of the game is at best incredibly stupid and, more likely, an attempt by a newb scum to ice a powerful, yet precipitous ability of a power role.
Was it...Court Mafia where this idea was first used? Bertrand's role? bah, I would re-check if I thought the exact example was relevant but the point is, this is a SPECIALTY. You don't get to say what will and won't be involved with roles in here.
O.o Andelijah, ShadowKnight voted; how is that fence-sitting?
He random voted.
He says he hates random voting, yet does it anyways despite there being plenty of other stuff to talk about, he dislikes the speed of the wagon yet would have joined it himself, and he has no opinion on Ged's comments, except to fish.
1. All players, as of the start of Day 1, will know whether or not they're town or Mafia. I asked stormblind about this quite specifically. Since some of you either are not (or are claiming to not be) aware of this, I thought I'd clarify it.
2. Ged, if that's a link, it blatantly doesn't work. I don't know why or how you arrived at that conclusion but until someone clarifies I simply ignore all orange text you post, mmkay?
He says he hates random voting, yet does it anyways despite there being plenty of other stuff to talk about, he dislikes the speed of the wagon yet would have joined it himself, and he has no opinion on Ged's comments, except to fish.
I'm not sure how that's a random vote (he gives a reason, ridiculous as it is). I agree with your other points, though.
1. All players, as of the start of Day 1, will know whether or not they're town or Mafia. I asked stormblind about this quite specifically. Since some of you either are not (or are claiming to not be) aware of this, I thought I'd clarify it.
2. Ged, if that's a link, it blatantly doesn't work. I don't know why or how you arrived at that conclusion but until someone clarifies I simply ignore all orange text you post, mmkay?
Thank you for the update, Wuff. I wonder why Stormblind didn't clarify that at the start of the game...
But I concur with ShadowKnight: the orange text and statement format of Ged's post combined with his whining that no one's paying attention to him seem intended to draw attention to him or Cyan or both.
Vote Wrath_of_Dog for not wanting to have votes on him.
srsly
Yeah this is so anti town. Stating that your serious negates any joke/random. Vote Night Archer
fos Shadow Knight. Trying to lead the town away from his scum buddy
4.5. Nice little wagon you built yourself there, NA; you're a third of the way! Wanna dig a little deeper?
FOS NightArcher
The end reeks to me of scum trying to talk to each other. And supporting the wagon with just your FOS is pretty bogus and all.
To be more exact, it seems more like someone who has realized he made an error in pointing out NArcher's tells, but then turned around and voted someone else. Later, once his misplay was brought to light by someone else, he decided to cover his ass with a weak FOS. This along with an excuse that it was "still random stage", while the rest of that post voices the idea of moving away from the random stage and being more serious, the tone of Cantripmancer's posts, and his fishing (that he says isn't fishing) leads me to Vote: Cantripmancer
EWP: More fishing by Cantripmancer in the above post towards Ged, makes me more happy about my vote.
EWP2: Cyan brings up another good point. I'm very content with my vote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia Stats (10-22 Overall) Random Mafia 2 Town MVP '08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
I prefer Magic and Bridge, though mostly I play more video games - DotA, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, and lately I've taken to breaking out the Worms Armageddon.
You also live the lamest life ever.
Now please answer my previous question, so that I may view it in the morning.
NightArcher: See above
arim: Are you expecting everyone to vote on that or something on that, or is this a call to the mod or some other individual and the rest of us don't have to bother with it for the time being?
I can't imagine any ability that would matter if you had a vote on you.... especially this early. It's not like votes in the random voting phase were going to get him lynched. I don't take anything at 'face value' without some proof or at least more info beyond 'don't vote me plskthx'....
I switched because..... well, does it matter? This is still random voting, no?
For being kpaca.
Unvote kpaca
For being kpaca.
Vote NightArcher
For doing things just because people ask him not to. For all we know they have a good reason for not wanting to be voted on. So if someone asks you not to random vote them, I wouldn't random vote them. Also I don't like your answer as a whole.
[/END RANDOM PHASE]
rejoicing all round!
*decides pointedly not to click CC's youtube link*
I still like my AE vote because he has still posted first.
You really really should trust me. I will never ever harm you. Cross my heart and hope to die.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
I don't believe this.
I don't even think it's internally consistent. It seems like you're trying on a couple of different excuses at once for the vote.
As for the "can't imagine", a simple "you can only use this ability if no-one votes for you during the day" isn't that hard to imagine is it, when the guy has already said votes for him could have a bad effect?
Vote stands.
Hummers. That actually made me laugh out loud.
That joke is totally still funny
I don't find your vote of Night Archer for the reasons of "he's doing something someone said not to" to be a very good reason, and I also don't like how you don't extrapolate on what about NA's answer you don't like.
Don't ever vote for me. There, I've asked you not to.
I do however, barn this post. unvote: Vote Night Archer.
It's not that he is doing something someone said not to. If it was that I could care less if he had a reason to do it. But he did what he did because the person said not to, which is the answer I don't like.
The fact that he then tries to pull it off as a random phase Joke is even worse and seems like someone who was caught doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing, just adds to the whole issue.
I hope this clarifies to you what I was trying to get across in my post that you apparently got confused on.
And yes the joke is still totally funny.
No, I wasn't confused before, nor do I like how you try to pass it off as me being confused.
However, I am a bit confused not. The bolded points are a contradiction.
There is no such contradiction.
The first sentence is:
It's not that he is doing something someone said not to.
Which says that he is doing something regardless of if he was told not to do it.
But he did what he did because the person said not to
This sentence says that he is doing something because he was told not to do it.
I hope this has cleared up your confusion.
OK. Time for a story to illustrate what I am trying to say.
Sentence #1: It's not that he is doing something someone said not to.
For this sentence imagine a little kid whose mother told him not to eat the cookies from the cookie jar. The kid though loves cookies and wants to have one. Therefore he goes and steals a cookie from the cookie jar.
Sentence #2: But he did what he did because the person said not to
For this sentence imagine a little kid whose mother told him not to eat the cookies from the cookie jar. The kid then decides to steal a cookie from the cookie jar to spite his mother for saying he couldn't.
As you can see the actions and end result are the same, but the motivation is completely different. If NA did what he did because of what I was saying in Sentence #1 then depending on his reasoning it might not have mattered that someone asked him not to. But since he did it because of what I was saying Sentence #2, just out of spite because he was told not to, I find that to be unacceptable behavior, especially in the random stage.
Do you understand now?
I don't like the reasonings on voting for WoD.
I don't like that he commented on random crap when questions were asked of him and he "missed" them.
FOS NightArcher
@NightArcher, how experenced in Mafia are you?
Why are you asking to hammer, then putting the first vote on someone?
srsly, why would you do this?
Deflection masked as random stage much?
Um, it could very easily be that any votes demolish an ability that could be useful to the town. (Or the scum, granted.) Why so flippantly jeopardize that?
That's 1.
2.
3.
4.
4.5. Nice little wagon you built yourself there, NA; you're a third of the way! Wanna dig a little deeper?
FOS NightArcher
(And so it begins again.)
I should stop clicking those eventually.
unvote, vote Cantripmancer for wall of texting at 11 am
OMGUS! Unvote Kpaca, Vote E_P for clearly mislabeling a Wall of Quotes as a Wall of Texting.
Creature - Wall
Whenever ~ blocks a creature, that creature loses its flavor text and ~ gains that flavor text.
~ can block an additional creature and gets +0/+1 for each flavor text beyond its own that it has.
0/5
Creature - Wall
Whenever a player casts a spell, he or she may draw a card. If he or she does, each other player draws a card.
0/3
Every text spawns a library.
@Ced: There's nothing saying that I can't acknowledge the scumminess of a player, note my concern, then hearken back to the golden age of random, especially after I missed the first 12 hours and, quite possibly, most of the random stage.
Interpretation of actions as fishing acknowledged; it seemed odd to me, so I asked him about it. But the intent wasn't to fish, but to highlight.
By the way, did you know that Cyan is town? Maybe you two should get a garage for all your hummers /third nipples and talk it out. Then go ahead and get back to us on who to lynch.
"Hi, I'd like to be the last vote of the day. It's in our best interests. But in the meantime I'll put the first vote on a person." I realize that his vote was probably random-stage based, but if he's serious, why wouldn't he indicate his suspicions via non-vote instead?
I have no reason to believe ANYONE. I put a vote on him during the random phase.... because the likelihood of it having game-altering ramifications was minute.
That's what I referring to.
Why would you choose to NOT beleive him over believing him first?
You cannot say what the likelihood of your vote has done to affect WoD.
Let me ask you this, Why do you think WoD requested not to be voted for?
Um...you're right. I might vote NArcher later in the game... /sarcasm.
Yes, actually, since I've seen it in games. The person who wants to hammer usually highlights his choice of vote with a placeholder ("I want to hammer, so I won't vote SomeGuy, but I would normally vote him now; please get him to hammer range and I'll hammer him.") instead of voting for that person.
Um, what NArcher responded with: it's possible that the person responsible for identifying the scum hasn't done so yet.
@NArcher: I'll barn Roja's questions above.
I don't like this. Are you trying to get me to delete my first post? Bad, very bad.
I like this. Funny, very funny.
So you bring up that there are no mafia roles. But you don't believe he has abilites to help the town and place a vote indicating hes mafia.
FOS NA
They hate us cause they ain't us.
That makes perfect sense. You should try to word your sentences better or something.................
The end reeks to me of scum trying to talk to each other. And supporting the wagon with just your FOS is pretty bogus and all.
Hmmm, same deal. Why not vote?
I disagree. With as analytical as you are it comes across as much more of fishing to me.
Did it ever occur to you that you could say you don't believe him, without actually voting?
Again. Why no vote?
As for the FOS, I've been over this before, but I don't mind going over it again: If I'm going to (non-random) vote, I'm going to be pretty durn committed to it. FOS is my way of highlighting suspicion (as I thought it was to be used), and actually voting usually requires more suspicion than one scummy action. Now, without jumping into the usual spat that we seem to enjoy dredging up in every game, I find that your style is often vote first and ask questions later. Nothing wrong with that; it takes all kinds. But it's not my style.
Funny: tearing me down with compliments. Did Dagger's comment really not strike anyone else as odd? I found it strange, so I called him on it. I wasn't asking about abilities, consequences, etc, but identifying what appeared to me as errant behavior.
To clarify, because it sounds like several people can't/won't read:
There is mafia/scum, but everyone has the dual information until SB PMs us with the update to identify the scum. Translation: SB might be screwing with us D1 by allowing us all to be town until a later point, since he didn't indicate when those PMs might come out. Or maybe they've been sent out already. Regardless, I think this is what NArcher is saying about the setup.
However, this:
threw me for a loop. What is that supposed to mean? Almost any?
vote Cantripmancer
And why comment on something unprovable at this time? Is it that unlikely? That surprising?
Na.
It's not terribly surprising, but it still saddens me.
As for FoSes, I can generally think of 3 reasons to do so as town:
1) You already have a vote down or no votes at all.
2) The player is nearing a lynch, but the day doesn't need to end yet.
3) The player who you want to vote has claimed that votes are detrimental to them.
Basically, the only time to FoS is if you would vote, but you can't, or shouldn't.
If you disagree, you're wrong. If you want to pressure someone, use votes. If you want to act suspicious of someone, ask questions. Your suspicion will be made obvious.
A player at 4-5 votes and equally many FoSes should be in claim range if those FoSes actually expressed suspicion. If they don't (and/or if the players holding them don't want a claim), then they should be removed anyways.
With all that in mind, my vote stands.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
On that note, NA, you seem to be acting from a scum mindset here. Voting WoD when he specifically said not to at this stage of the game is at best incredibly stupid and, more likely, an attempt by a newb scum to ice a powerful, yet precipitous ability of a power role.
Was it...Court Mafia where this idea was first used? Bertrand's role? bah, I would re-check if I thought the exact example was relevant but the point is, this is a SPECIALTY. You don't get to say what will and won't be involved with roles in here.
Pseudo-Vote NA, pending a votecount.
vote ced for being 3rd on the NA bandwagon.
I don't like how fast the wagon built on NA, however, my first reaction was to vote him myself.
I'm not sure how I feel about the "Cyan is town" comment, as Ged is either painting a bullseye on Cyan or himself. Why?
Unvote: Archmage Eternal
Vote: Shadow Knight
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
O.o Andelijah, ShadowKnight voted; how is that fence-sitting?
I feel so lost...
What, it would have been okay if he was 4th on the NA wagon? And you just said that your first reaction was to vote NA yourself.
I don't see a compelling argument here. Particularly not for voting someone. Vote Shadow Knight
He random voted.
He says he hates random voting, yet does it anyways despite there being plenty of other stuff to talk about, he dislikes the speed of the wagon yet would have joined it himself, and he has no opinion on Ged's comments, except to fish.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
1. All players, as of the start of Day 1, will know whether or not they're town or Mafia. I asked stormblind about this quite specifically. Since some of you either are not (or are claiming to not be) aware of this, I thought I'd clarify it.
2. Ged, if that's a link, it blatantly doesn't work. I don't know why or how you arrived at that conclusion but until someone clarifies I simply ignore all orange text you post, mmkay?
Thank you for the update, Wuff. I wonder why Stormblind didn't clarify that at the start of the game...
But I concur with ShadowKnight: the orange text and statement format of Ged's post combined with his whining that no one's paying attention to him seem intended to draw attention to him or Cyan or both.
What's your game, Ged?
Yeah this is so anti town. Stating that your serious negates any joke/random.
Vote Night Archer
fos Shadow Knight. Trying to lead the town away from his scum buddy
They hate us cause they ain't us.
To be more exact, it seems more like someone who has realized he made an error in pointing out NArcher's tells, but then turned around and voted someone else. Later, once his misplay was brought to light by someone else, he decided to cover his ass with a weak FOS. This along with an excuse that it was "still random stage", while the rest of that post voices the idea of moving away from the random stage and being more serious, the tone of Cantripmancer's posts, and his fishing (that he says isn't fishing) leads me to Vote: Cantripmancer
EWP: More fishing by Cantripmancer in the above post towards Ged, makes me more happy about my vote.
EWP2: Cyan brings up another good point. I'm very content with my vote.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
I told you not to do it, and you did it anyway.
I prefer Magic and Bridge, though mostly I play more video games - DotA, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, and lately I've taken to breaking out the Worms Armageddon.
Um. He unvoted Emo. Did I miss something?
They hate us cause they ain't us.