Org Mobile Site
Thread: Kung Fu Mafia III [Concluded]
Originally Posted by Renata:
I'm not, actually, though I suppose I should say so explicitly. Mafia love to make "pro-Town" suggestions, if they think it won't hurt them too much. But that can go either way. Beskar's response, on the other hand, is much more likely to come from a Ninja than a Townie.
So is what you are doing.I'm not, actually, though I suppose I should say so explicitly. Mafia love to make "pro-Town" suggestions, if they think it won't hurt them too much. But that can go either way. Beskar's response, on the other hand, is much more likely to come from a Ninja than a Townie.
Everyone has their own playstyles, and with Holmes being a big factor back in the day for quite a few of us longer term players, we know we can't stick to a playstyle.
Mafia try to appear as townies, low risk style. Going out and attacking people draws attention, but possibly draws attention away from you later.
I don't see what he has done as scummy.
I'm off to get some sleep, I get audited at work in... 9 hours.
On the contrary, I think it's one of the most Scummy things out there. Someone makes a pro-Town suggestion, and you (that is, Beskar) go "but but but ... flail about with lousy reasoning" ... that's supposed to be not Scummy?
Anyway, I made the mistake of giving that sort of behavior a pass in a recent game, thinking Mafia would at be at least a little cautious about opposing suggestions that are clearly in Town's interest, and I was wrong. Not letting it pass a second time.
Anyway, I made the mistake of giving that sort of behavior a pass in a recent game, thinking Mafia would at be at least a little cautious about opposing suggestions that are clearly in Town's interest, and I was wrong. Not letting it pass a second time.
Originally Posted by :
The person defeated in combat must rest to heal their wounds, and cannot post for 24 hours or until the end of the day phase, whichever is longer.
The person defeated in combat must rest to heal their wounds, and cannot post for 24 hours or until the end of the day phase, whichever is longer.
Vote: Beskar
I support Renata!
I support Renata!
Vote: Renata
SCUM
SCUM
Originally Posted by Death is yonder:
Darn it
Mighty suspicious.
17 more hours
2 wins in 2 days for Renata... you can say that again... Mighty suspicious Darn it
Mighty suspicious.
17 more hours
Need to brush up your math skills, you two?
Originally Posted by Renata:
On the contrary, I think it's one of the most Scummy things out there. Someone makes a pro-Town suggestion, and you (that is, Beskar) go "but but but ... flail about with lousy reasoning" ... that's supposed to be not Scummy?
You know there is a actually a line, there is disagreeing with some one then there is trying to insult them.On the contrary, I think it's one of the most Scummy things out there. Someone makes a pro-Town suggestion, and you (that is, Beskar) go "but but but ... flail about with lousy reasoning" ... that's supposed to be not Scummy?
I draw a massive fallacy in your argument, any sane Mafia would kill (or in this game, attempt) to kill any confirmed innocents straight away, because lets be honest, get to late game and you got those "confirmed innocents" and the "unknown", the Mafia would instantly be in hot water. Thus, your whole idea of a "Confirmed Town" will not be there (hence the flaw).
It isn't lousy reasoning or "but but but". It is more pointing out the big flaw in your plan. Sorry that pointing out this flaw hurt your master plan but really... Askthepizzaguy however did raise some good points, about even if the Mafia did do that, there would be certain advantages to it, this is called a "positive contribution" to the discussion, opposed to attacking some one.
I then agreed to his points and conceded to it, which was another way at looking at the situation (opposed to the one you suggested). Ergo, using your point and by the criticism and discussion that followed, we actually do as a town, have a good basis and point which puts the Ninja in a really awkward position.
Now for alternative hypothesis, are you a Ninja trying to prey on what you might perceive as an easy target using a flawed reasoning of your own as a basis, or is it more of a personal vendetta?
Originally Posted by atheotes:
2 wins in 2 days for Renata... you can say that again... Mighty suspicious
Why?2 wins in 2 days for Renata... you can say that again... Mighty suspicious
Given players of roughly equal skill, as we all start off as, in a duel one of them wins and one of them loses (or in Reenk's case, both). Coming off of the 50/50 win, she may have a slightly better duel score and thus have slightly better than 50/50 odds.
When you flip a coin and it lands on "heads" twice in a row, is it odd in any way? No... nor would it be if it happened 5 times in a row. That's the thing about flipping a coin; the result is not totally predictable. It doesn't go "heads, tails, heads, tails". Sometimes there are streaks, and it is all perfectly normal.
Vote however you please; the coin flip evidence doesn't make for a good bit of reasoning though.
Vote: Beskar blah.
I will be pretty frank ("Hello Frank!"),
I am tired and been up over 24 hours and I am going to bed. While there are people I am more interested in voting on, I don't really have much to go on (for incidence, some really susipicious overly suck-up posts, feel free to look back for them).
As the long has a chance of ending soon, and it is pretty late to start a case, and when my own participation in the game is on the line itself, I am going for this vote. If the round doesn't end, I will most likely make a case against another target this morning/afternoon my time when I wake-up.
Vote: Renata
As a posted earlier, either a Ninja trying to divert susipicion from themselves, or personal vendetta due to pointing out a flaw in the original argument or some variation between the two. It was interesting to see gross misinterpretation of what occurred, and a complete malformation of what was said, in efforts to try to get me lynched. So I can only suspect a suspicious agenda.
I am tired and been up over 24 hours and I am going to bed. While there are people I am more interested in voting on, I don't really have much to go on (for incidence, some really susipicious overly suck-up posts, feel free to look back for them).
As the long has a chance of ending soon, and it is pretty late to start a case, and when my own participation in the game is on the line itself, I am going for this vote. If the round doesn't end, I will most likely make a case against another target this morning/afternoon my time when I wake-up.
Vote: Renata
As a posted earlier, either a Ninja trying to divert susipicion from themselves, or personal vendetta due to pointing out a flaw in the original argument or some variation between the two. It was interesting to see gross misinterpretation of what occurred, and a complete malformation of what was said, in efforts to try to get me lynched. So I can only suspect a suspicious agenda.
Unvote: Beskar
Vote: Abstain
My vote was hasty, I have no problems with you, bandwaggoning was a bad idea, especially after having seen only one vote.
Vote: Abstain
My vote was hasty, I have no problems with you, bandwaggoning was a bad idea, especially after having seen only one vote.
unvote, vote: johnhughthom
You're triggering my "TevashSzat" indicator. (Lack of controversy = scum, Godfather III)
You're triggering my "TevashSzat" indicator. (Lack of controversy = scum, Godfather III)
CONTROVERSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There you go.
There you go.
One would think after your day hiatus from posting you'd be more talkative. Especially since you're paying attention to the thread.
Nothing much to say.
Oh, and I voted Renata giving no reasoning, pretty controversial in my view.
Oh, and I voted Renata giving no reasoning, pretty controversial in my view.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
You know there is a actually a line, there is disagreeing with some one then there is trying to insult them.
First, if I insulted you, I am really sorry. I realize you don't know me at all yet, but I don't try to make it habit to try to do that. You know there is a actually a line, there is disagreeing with some one then there is trying to insult them.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
I draw a massive fallacy in your argument, any sane Mafia would kill (or in this game, attempt) to kill any confirmed innocents straight away, because lets be honest, get to late game and you got those "confirmed innocents" and the "unknown", the Mafia would instantly be in hot water. Thus, your whole idea of a "Confirmed Town" will not be there (hence the flaw).
Okay, here's what you actually wrote, in response to the two comments by ATPG and me.I draw a massive fallacy in your argument, any sane Mafia would kill (or in this game, attempt) to kill any confirmed innocents straight away, because lets be honest, get to late game and you got those "confirmed innocents" and the "unknown", the Mafia would instantly be in hot water. Thus, your whole idea of a "Confirmed Town" will not be there (hence the flaw).
Originally Posted by :
Then the Mafia would obviously exploit this by feigning kills on each other or by making sure they get killed.
This was in response to both of us arguing that abstention made no sense for Townies in this game. We gave multiple reasons for that, which boiled down to: votes for Ninjas give you points; points help you survive kill attempts; survived kill attempts help Town.Then the Mafia would obviously exploit this by feigning kills on each other or by making sure they get killed.
Whatever the flaw in the details of what I said, the basic concept is solid. Actual votes (as opposed to absentions) help Town by increasing the number of Townie votes placed on Ninjas. In turn that makes it harder for them to kill us, which could make a big difference over time, in several ways. Yet you didn't acknowledge that aspect at all; you just pointed out a perceived flaw in one possible consequence.
That's what I'm objecting to, what I find scummy. A pro-Town suggestion was made (pro-Town regardless of whether I'm right or not about confirmed Town), and your snap reaction was to characterize one aspect of it (incorrectly, as ATPG pointed out) as something Mafia could exploit, never even addressing the core of it.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
It isn't lousy reasoning or "but but but". It is more pointing out the big flaw in your plan. Sorry that pointing out this flaw hurt your master plan but really... Askthepizzaguy however did raise some good points, about even if the Mafia did do that, there would be certain advantages to it, this is called a "positive contribution" to the discussion, opposed to attacking some one.
I then agreed to his points and conceded to it, which was another way at looking at the situation (opposed to the one you suggested). Ergo, using your point and by the criticism and discussion that followed, we actually do as a town, have a good basis and point which puts the Ninja in a really awkward position.
I'll just point out that you never said anything about ATPG's points being good ones until after I had voted you, which was a pretty decent time lag. Here's what you said then:It isn't lousy reasoning or "but but but". It is more pointing out the big flaw in your plan. Sorry that pointing out this flaw hurt your master plan but really... Askthepizzaguy however did raise some good points, about even if the Mafia did do that, there would be certain advantages to it, this is called a "positive contribution" to the discussion, opposed to attacking some one.
I then agreed to his points and conceded to it, which was another way at looking at the situation (opposed to the one you suggested). Ergo, using your point and by the criticism and discussion that followed, we actually do as a town, have a good basis and point which puts the Ninja in a really awkward position.
Originally Posted by :
Well, since are are talking about "confirmed innocents", wouldn't the Mafia try to make sure 'they' died? I mean, that is pretty basic stuff. Though however, Pizzaguy did mention the benefits of this happening.
Calling this agreement and concession is a bit of a stretch, but OK.Well, since are are talking about "confirmed innocents", wouldn't the Mafia try to make sure 'they' died? I mean, that is pretty basic stuff. Though however, Pizzaguy did mention the benefits of this happening.
Regarding the confirmed Town thing, by the way, I'll concede you're right to an extent. The Ninjas will, if they're smart, try to remove as many "survivors" as they can. It's not impossible they'll be able to get them all, at any given time. But they do already have two on their hands, which means if they want to get rid of them, their choices for this phase are already constrained. That's good for us. This time it was apparently down to sheer horrible luck on the Ninjas' part. Down the road it might be the success of Townie voting that makes the difference.
Originally Posted by :
Now for alternative hypothesis, are you a Ninja trying to prey on what you might perceive as an easy target using a flawed reasoning of your own as a basis, or is it more of a personal vendetta?
Beskar, honestly, how could I have a personal vendetta against you? I don't even know you! As for the other part, it isn't the case, but there's really nothing I can say about that. People will have to judge for themselves if it looks more opportunistic or more reasoned. But seriously -- vendetta?Now for alternative hypothesis, are you a Ninja trying to prey on what you might perceive as an easy target using a flawed reasoning of your own as a basis, or is it more of a personal vendetta?
Beskar and Renata are totally scum-buddies.
Vote: ATPG
For that WIFOM he used about three phases ago.
Vote: ATPG
For that WIFOM he used about three phases ago.
Ack, I just realized I forgot to do the riddle for today. Will be one tomorrow.
For the last riddle:
The driver was the conscious, the horses were the unconscious, and the man's father was the conscience.
Some people got part of it, but not the whole thing.
For the last riddle:
The driver was the conscious, the horses were the unconscious, and the man's father was the conscience.
Some people got part of it, but not the whole thing.
I don't get it 
Yeah, I didn't give any frame of reference 
Originally Posted by :
Beskar and Renata are totally scum-buddies.
Vote: ATPG
For that WIFOM he used about three phases ago.
Correction:Beskar and Renata are totally scum-buddies.
Vote: ATPG
For that WIFOM he used about three phases ago.
Beskar and Renata and I are totally scum buddies.
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
Why?
Given players of roughly equal skill, as we all start off as, in a duel one of them wins and one of them loses (or in Reenk's case, both). Coming off of the 50/50 win, she may have a slightly better duel score and thus have slightly better than 50/50 odds.
When you flip a coin and it lands on "heads" twice in a row, is it odd in any way? No... nor would it be if it happened 5 times in a row. That's the thing about flipping a coin; the result is not totally predictable. It doesn't go "heads, tails, heads, tails". Sometimes there are streaks, and it is all perfectly normal.
Vote however you please; the coin flip evidence doesn't make for a good bit of reasoning though.
the 2 wins in 2 days post was in jest... i believe DIY meant it the same way as well... if i was serious about it i would have voted Why?
Given players of roughly equal skill, as we all start off as, in a duel one of them wins and one of them loses (or in Reenk's case, both). Coming off of the 50/50 win, she may have a slightly better duel score and thus have slightly better than 50/50 odds.
When you flip a coin and it lands on "heads" twice in a row, is it odd in any way? No... nor would it be if it happened 5 times in a row. That's the thing about flipping a coin; the result is not totally predictable. It doesn't go "heads, tails, heads, tails". Sometimes there are streaks, and it is all perfectly normal.
Vote however you please; the coin flip evidence doesn't make for a good bit of reasoning though.
hmm... now i have to consider the fact that you jumped to someone' defense even though there was no vote...hmm...
Vote: Sprig.... I have no clear choices to vote on... Sprig is a replacement player and on the off-chance that he is ninja i might get some points...
No! No don't vote Sprig what has he ever done to you???
Hahaha.
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
No! No don't vote Sprig what has he ever done to you???
your sarcasm has not gone unnoticed No! No don't vote Sprig what has he ever done to you???
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
Correction:
Beskar and Renata and I are totally scum buddies.
I thought it was me, Renata and Czargo?Correction:
Beskar and Renata and I are totally scum buddies.
Oh wait... nevermind, you was trying to do a joke. Silly me.
Originally Posted by Renata:
Beskar, honestly, how could I have a personal vendetta against you? I don't even know you! As for the other part, it isn't the case, but there's really nothing I can say about that. People will have to judge for themselves if it looks more opportunistic or more reasoned. But seriously -- vendetta?
Can I change my mind and say I like you now? Beskar, honestly, how could I have a personal vendetta against you? I don't even know you! As for the other part, it isn't the case, but there's really nothing I can say about that. People will have to judge for themselves if it looks more opportunistic or more reasoned. But seriously -- vendetta?
Though, I would like to say, people have gone on a personal vendetta against me on far less.
Some people would want to kill you and your entire family, just for placing a vote against them, then try to get you first-round killed in other games because of it. They are really disturbing and messed up people.But to your other comment, yes, abstaining is a really stupid idea, though I have to be honest, do the Mafia get points for voting eachother? I would automatically presume a no, but it would be funny to watch the Mafia go about voting for each other in all the rounds, to power themselves up.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO