My Little Pony: Friendship is Mafia - Page 21

***Fenris*** · 09-26-2011, 08:49 PM

okay so

chat thing

nobody's getting punished, just don't do it again

and rules

http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=12706

I'm partial to those, but I did kind of write a big first post with rules in it too.

***Fenris*** · 09-26-2011, 09:03 PM

oh

and edit thing

fix typos and shit, but keep in mind that I am totally capable of seeing edit histories and will modkill for cheating.

Gregness · 09-26-2011, 11:28 PM

So, back on the topic of who to lynch. What ever happened to killing off the inactives? I mean, we agreed pretty early on that inactives are detrimental to the Town regardless of whether they're scum or not. So why are we wasting time trying to figure out who MIGHT be scum when we can get almost all positives from booting an inactive out?

Oron · 09-26-2011, 11:55 PM

I think the opposition to rooting out inactives is (unless I just misread everything) that we'd be lynching people who are probably town when discussing things could lead to some progress in finding scum because then we have more information. Snake wants to take Day 1 more seriously and we would be off to a stronger start Day 2.

Anyway, we've got until Thursday. Another day to talk it out before deciding on a vote later Wednesday/early Thursday.

rpgdemon · 09-27-2011, 07:23 AM

Killing inactives isn't all positives, it's just low negatives. There's a difference.

It doesn't gives us progress, it just keeps us from killing someone who would be good for the town to have around. And we burn a lynch.

Professor Smarmiarty · 09-27-2011, 07:57 AM

What?
Firstly we don't "burn a lynch", we use a lynch when no other targets are present. If we don't lynch anyone that is burning a lynch and that is about the worst thing the town can do. And we don't have unlimited time to make a decision so if no other target presents itself an inactive is a good one to go.
Why? Because a high proportion of inactives massively favour scum- they know who each other are, they can coordinate durin gthe day and don't even really nered lynches that much.
By keeping inactives you cut off the flow of information to the town by stopping discussion, you make it more likely that you are going to need to rely on scum to get lynches over the threshold and you make it easier for scum to float to the end by not getting involved in fights.

rpgdemon · 09-27-2011, 08:24 AM

What I meant is that voting an inactive isn't a first choice, but rather a way of minimizing damage/maybe getting a benefit if you don't know who to lynch.

It's burning a day because we're not killing anyone that will accomplish anything, versus voting a definitely scummy person. I was explaining why we're not all jumping on the vote fawful train.

Geminex · 09-27-2011, 08:33 AM

I kinda agree with Smarty. Lurkers or inactives are bad for the town, good for scum. It also makes sense for scum to be inactive a lot, at least to begin with. Question is, who to vote for.

Snake had suspicions about bob the merc, right?

Also, yay, not dead.

Nikose Tyris · 09-27-2011, 08:40 AM

See I had said that I was going to take those three talking and not being punished as evidence of some sort of masonry or mafia group, and since sifright roleclaimed without evidence and is apparently still in the game, I'm actually kind of partial to testing my theory here.

I support the day 1 lynch of Sifright to check if he's lying, or of Geminex to see if they are a scum group.

UNVOTE: SMARTY

I am in support of Geminex being our SACRIFICE, SACRIFICE- if Geminex comes up clean then Sifright would be a confirmed one shot PO, and bodyguard should cover him tonight while he gets his 1 investigation off.

You know unless I've completely misread somewhere on something.

So with that in mind I'll VOTE: GEMINEX

Geminex · 09-27-2011, 08:48 AM

Huh. Can I ask for the rationale of that? Like, we broke the rules, but not, I think, in such a way that we deserved a kill.

Hell, going by your logic, if the three of us ARE scum, why would we have posted the conversation at all? The only reason we did that is because we realized we had broken the rules. But you yourself said, if we were scum, we wouldn't have broken any rules.

09-26-2011, 08:49 PM	#201
*Fenris* Administrator Join Date: May 2005 Location: East Coast Posts: 6,806	okay so chat thing nobody's getting punished, just don't do it again and rules http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=12706 I'm partial to those, but I did kind of write a big first post with rules in it too. __________________ "FENRIS IS AN ASSHOLE" - shiney

09-26-2011, 09:03 PM	#202
*Fenris* Administrator Join Date: May 2005 Location: East Coast Posts: 6,806	oh and edit thing fix typos and shit, but keep in mind that I am totally capable of seeing edit histories and will modkill for cheating. __________________ "FENRIS IS AN ASSHOLE" - shiney

09-26-2011, 11:28 PM	#203
Gregness Never give up. Never give in. Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 1,034	So, back on the topic of who to lynch. What ever happened to killing off the inactives? I mean, we agreed pretty early on that inactives are detrimental to the Town regardless of whether they're scum or not. So why are we wasting time trying to figure out who MIGHT be scum when we can get almost all positives from booting an inactive out? __________________ A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - Robert Heinlein

09-26-2011, 11:55 PM	#204
Oron Curious Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 208	I think the opposition to rooting out inactives is (unless I just misread everything) that we'd be lynching people who are probably town when discussing things could lead to some progress in finding scum because then we have more information. Snake wants to take Day 1 more seriously and we would be off to a stronger start Day 2. Anyway, we've got until Thursday. Another day to talk it out before deciding on a vote later Wednesday/early Thursday. __________________ Sneaking around the forums to read your posts. Last edited by Oron; 09-26-2011 at 11:58 PM. Reason: Keep submitting before I finish my thought.

09-27-2011, 07:23 AM	#205
rpgdemon Not a Taco Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,313	Killing inactives isn't all positives, it's just low negatives. There's a difference. It doesn't gives us progress, it just keeps us from killing someone who would be good for the town to have around. And we burn a lynch. __________________ I did a lot of posting on here as a teenager, and I was pretty awful. Even after I learned, grew up, and came to be on the right side of a lot of important issues, I was still angry, abrasive, and generally increased the amount of hate in the world, in pretty unacceptable ways. On the off chance that someone is taking a trip down memory lane looking through those old threads, I wanted to devote my signature to say directly to you, I'm sorry. Thank you for letting me be better, NPF.

09-27-2011, 07:57 AM	#206
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	What? Firstly we don't "burn a lynch", we use a lynch when no other targets are present. If we don't lynch anyone that is burning a lynch and that is about the worst thing the town can do. And we don't have unlimited time to make a decision so if no other target presents itself an inactive is a good one to go. Why? Because a high proportion of inactives massively favour scum- they know who each other are, they can coordinate durin gthe day and don't even really nered lynches that much. By keeping inactives you cut off the flow of information to the town by stopping discussion, you make it more likely that you are going to need to rely on scum to get lynches over the threshold and you make it easier for scum to float to the end by not getting involved in fights.

09-27-2011, 08:24 AM	#207
rpgdemon Not a Taco Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,313	What I meant is that voting an inactive isn't a first choice, but rather a way of minimizing damage/maybe getting a benefit if you don't know who to lynch. It's burning a day because we're not killing anyone that will accomplish anything, versus voting a definitely scummy person. I was explaining why we're not all jumping on the vote fawful train. __________________ I did a lot of posting on here as a teenager, and I was pretty awful. Even after I learned, grew up, and came to be on the right side of a lot of important issues, I was still angry, abrasive, and generally increased the amount of hate in the world, in pretty unacceptable ways. On the off chance that someone is taking a trip down memory lane looking through those old threads, I wanted to devote my signature to say directly to you, I'm sorry. Thank you for letting me be better, NPF.

09-27-2011, 08:33 AM	#208
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	I kinda agree with Smarty. Lurkers or inactives are bad for the town, good for scum. It also makes sense for scum to be inactive a lot, at least to begin with. Question is, who to vote for. Snake had suspicions about bob the merc, right? Also, yay, not dead.

09-27-2011, 08:48 AM	#210
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	Huh. Can I ask for the rationale of that? Like, we broke the rules, but not, I think, in such a way that we deserved a kill. Hell, going by your logic, if the three of us ARE scum, why would we have posted the conversation at all? The only reason we did that is because we realized we had broken the rules. But you yourself said, if we were scum, we wouldn't have broken any rules.