Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 20:08:33 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jan 23, 2008 20:08:33 GMT -5
A voice booms from the heavens:
"Here is hawkeyeop's problem-causing post. All of the quoted posts are from Roosh." Let’s say there are candidates A, B, C, D and E. You think E is pretty scummy, B you can go either way on, and A, the case against is awful. A is the leading vote getter, B gets some votes, C and D get a couple, and no one else thinks E is suspicious. So if you vote for E, under story's plan you are now forced to vote for A. So maybe you vote for B originally instead of E even though you think E. is more suspicious because B is viable and we don’t get your true vote. Maybe you refuse to vote A since you don't think he could possibly be scum. Under my plan you can vote whatever you want on your first vote. You can then vote B on your 2nd vote without issue. And if voters for C and D agree with you, then B would get lynched instead of A. Plus you get great voter history. You can who someone's first choice was, who they voted among the two viable candidates, and who they didn't vote for. I think there's a simpler way to do it. Cast your first vote for E. If E is a one-off as the Artificial Deadline approaches, revote for B as your second choice and see if anyone else joins you.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 20:11:33 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 23, 2008 20:11:33 GMT -5
It's actually not a given in every game. If every role in Pleonast's Conspiracy game had been revealed at the outset, the outcome probably would have been a town loss (credit to sachertorte for pointing that out). /oog: Really? That's kinda cool. /ogg :nod: I think we can agree to disagree, Story. I agree with most of what you said there, and i'm glad to see where you're coming from, hopefully you can see where I stand too now. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Re: NAFYou have the quote RIGHT THERE and you get it wrong! Almost always is not the same as always. I never speak in absolutes (see what I did there! Funny no?) Yeah, I didn't quote you there. That was MY summing up of your thoughts. If i quoted you there, I'd use italics or cite you. What I WAS doing though, was being sarcastic. If you can think of a reason why scum would meta game I am all ears. Again, it isn't an absolute, but why use something that is basically a null tell as a scum tell. 2 quick ones: 1. Because you just said it's a null tell. That inherently makes me suspicious of it. Anything that "scum have not done before" makes me suspicious because it is not before. It is NOW. And the first thing I did last game as scum was look- "okay, what have scum NOT done. That's what we'll do." --So anything that gets referenced as being null tells or townie tells in the past, make me inherently SUSPICIOUS of the person saying them right now. Because it's basically that person trying to imply that if its a Townie tell, they themselves are trying to PUSH the agenda that they're townie across to me. And I dislike that. Let me decide if you're town or not, you don't have to tell me that your actions must be town because in the past they've been town. 2. Atarus hit this one on the head with his post. We're not dealing with Normal scum here! We're dealing with basically SKs! THEY WON'T HAVE Scum tells! They're just gonna act like normal citizens and chill out and do ALL the things that townies do, except at night, they're gonna go out and kill us. Which is uncool. So Townie tells, scum tells, and all that crap... really kinda useless now. Atarus, you're a bit more optimistic than I in that "once we nail one of them" it'd be best to find the other one. I don't see that as very easy at ALL. Because I don't see there being an easy paper trail to Follow at all. If they each play as normal townies this game or as individual serial killers, the actions/interactions between the two would be nearly NOTHING. And that's what worries me the most. I was going to vote you actually, you were my #1 suspect before I spotted the Hawkeye slip. But consider yourself HEAVILY FoSed NAF. These things don't make sense, and look scummy to me: 1. You vote for someone with a Meta-game vote (this is just icky, not scummy, however it's just not cool based on what you did next). 2. You then state/imply that "only Townies really meta-game". Therefore... hmmm... if you were metagaming. Oh! I understand now, NAF! Most uncool, buddy.3. You imply that if Cookies is town she should not vote you, and that her vote is scummy for currently voting for you. 4. Yet, Cookies Scumminess is LESS than the scumminess of the Meta-gaming of Hawkie, and so you're not going to vote for her. You will do a lot better actually reading what is written and not reading what you want to be written. The following responses are numbered to correspond with your numbering: 1. You admit that meta gaming isn't scummy, so why are you even bringing it up. Stop distracting the town with straw men. Aw how cute. A straw man. Check out what I said. I am bringing it up because of what you did NEXT. #1 is just there to provide context for #2. But you had to go and label my context a straw man. Very helpful of you there. 2. I state that using meta gaming as a scum tell has not, to this point worked, and that it usually (possibly always to this point) caught town. I am town. Yes, of course I am going to bring that up. Lynching me won't help the town. Why SHOULDN'T I defend myself, and possibly stop the proliferation of bad logic? Again. You went off on a tangent of my point. My point is that you stated that people who do X are Town (I like how now it's become a Null tell and no longer a "townie" thing). But the key thing is not just you pointing out that people who do X are Town, but the fact that you did it while you had just done X. So basically the point was, you called attention to what you were doing, and basically implying: "hey, look at me! I'm being really townie! Yep, totally townie, cuz I'm doing X. And X has always been done by Townies." That's the big reason I brought it up. But I like how you immediately dismissed my arguments as being straw men and just moved on to a non-issue of "of course I'm defending myself for calling myself Town". That's the part that's scummy to me. Because you seem to want to show off your towniness in your posts. Even in your defense. It's not even something i really was going towards in my posts vs. yours but you went to that as your defense. You're just waving the townie flag at a point in the game where its a bit early to be doing that, and isn't really necessary. That's what caught me as scummy in YOUR tone. 3. I actually say that if cookies is town she should abandon that line of logic as it is baseless and makes the vote seem opportunistic. Opportunistic voting is a proven scum tell, as opposed to meta gaming. Unfortunately good townies engage in it all the time. I don't want town to keep doing this, it make is harder on us, so if she is town I would like her to knock it off. I would say the same to lurkers and fluff posters. These all make it harder to differentiate scum from town. -This though just comes off as a threat. Basically voting for you is opportunistic voting? Really? She's suspicious, and she goes to follow through with her suspicions by voting. But you're going to decry that at this stage that her 2nd vote on you is the Opportunistic Vote of scumhood? Really? :shrug: Alright, you and I have very different scumdars then on what is "opportunistic voting". Especially because and I can't say this enough WE DON'T HAVE NORMAL SCUM, we've got INDIVIDUAL KILLERS. There can't be "opportunistic voting" because in this set up its not necessary really. -How are two people going to constitute "opportunistic voting"? In this set up scum will want simply this: -Continual Day kills. -Avoiding suspicions. That's it, there's no need for plans or ruses or sacrifice plays really. Because there's ONLY TWO OF THEM! --They're not going to be the active people voting out people, because all they have to do is lose themselves in the votes, so they don't NEED opportunism! The game's setup already seems to favor them just sitting tight and for US to just waste each other with these silly accusations (it's why I dislike the voting issue, and think its kinda silly- Scum are going to be the only ones who REALLY want to ensure a kill of SOME sort happens, especially since they work in groups of 2. So there are 6 people in this game that are going to ALREADY be Lynch-happy, and NOT gun shy to vote. Because hell, they wanna nail the other scum TOO. In fact, they HAVE to nail the last scum to finish them off anyways. That's the problem! The scum will WANT to be Townie as hell trying to lynch other scum groups. Hence the lack of a "normal scum group" but instead basically 3 SKs here! /voting rant) 4. Yup, I don't find cookies to be as scummy as hawk, so I am not voting for her. You want me to vote for someone I find LESS scummy then someone else? You also should stop acting scummy. Think of it as an FOS on you too, but more of an FOS with intent to change my vote. I am going to need to think on it a bit. You then later vote for me. Again. Interesting. "I need to stop acting so scummy". --May I ask then, NAF, what am I doing that's so Scummy? Especially, what's so scummy that I kept doing more than Cookies AND Hawkie? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RE: Hawkie"Here is hawkeyeop's problem-causing post. [/i] Don't we prefer town members making the hammering decisions? [/quote] Yes. Yes we do. However, when Townies get lynched, the guy who hammers gets the heat. So my problem was that if we do this plan, certain people of ill repute will as always make the argument that the Hammerer is the guilty one. And this certainly HAS been reinforced in the past ( Godfather Rugger's Hammering Loving actions in FireFly was it?) So it'll seem like a logical sensible idea. But it's problematic. I just foresee it happening, and don't want us to go down that road if possible of it being used as a quick and easy way to accuse the Hammer-er of being scummy. I was just warning others though to take each voter on a case by case basis, and to be suspicious of anyone who tries to use that excuse in this game (to garner heat towards the last person who votes for a preson). But yes, ideally we'd like the townies to make hammering decisions. Hawkeye: Well in the other game we failed once. So it isn't inconceivable. Again, from what I said in NAF's rant. It isn't inconceivable, but it doesn't favor SKs as much. For an SK, it's best for the Town to lynch ANYONE but them. Thus, an SK will tend to WANT a lynch no matter WHO. Thusly, they'll want to be on the majority. That's what we are dealing with here with the 20 of us. There's 2 Scum vs. 18 other people. This scenario is done 3 times. Basically the scum will NOT be gun shy as long as its SOMEONE up there besides them or their buddy. That's IT. If they wanna be bastards, they could have one vote majority, and one off vote to "hide themselves" making it even trickier to follow them. It's REALLY a pain in the ass. So as for "no lynches" i don't see it as really being a problem. Yes, it happened recently. But that was like what? Once in like fifteen to twenty or so normally carried out executions? I think the voting idea is really a moot point after Day 1, and should be treated as such. The key here is to find the Scum. And it's gonna be fucking HARD. That's what worries me the most, people. Hawkeye: If I was wrong, I wanted someone to tell me why I was wrong. I thought it was a good to use of early day 1. Get ideas on the table and then figure out what the good ones are. Fair 'nuff. Hawkeye: I thought I did explain. Did you stop reading at that point? When I started the other game I was both new to playing and new to the people. I'm the type of person who tends to lay back when getting familiar with new surrounding. When I get acclimated, I become much more expressive. So it does surprise me my tone changed from the beginning of the other game. To emphasize, my tone changed because I have gotten used to the people and the game. So this game I can come out firing, while last game I was mostly trying to get noticed and not do anything too stupid. I think you will find my tone changed during the previous game as well as I became used to it. Uh.huh. See, I'm just reading the sentence as I see it. I saw it as you going, "duh, of course the tone changed. I'm town in THAT game!" and then you posted in essence what you just said up there. Hence the slippage. But okay there. I'm willing to accept that. Unvote HawkieBut since this is me: Atarus: I'm calling you out. I want an opinion, and I want it toDay at some point: -What did you make of Hawkeye's initial statement (of tone changing), and then of my read into it? -What did you make of his defense as well? -- I want your opinion, since you're another person whose tone i am curious to hear more from, as it seems "different" to me than previously, and I just wanna hear you talk. So spill the beans, man! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you know how someone plays, you take that into account. Hell, its one of the reasons I am not voting for you [ Cookies]. -then proceeds to vote me- Again. Very Curious. You said I was scummy. You also said Cookies was scummy in voting for you. She has kept her vote on you. But here. I'll make myself look scummier in your eyes. Perhaps then you'll be able to explain why there is a difference in your actions. Vote NAF~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Is it possible that Roosh is getting more verbose? That was a monter first post mate! I'm trying to get more concise actually. And that's what happens when I miss 2 Days of a mafia game starting. (-_-) Oh well. I'll be able to keep up better now. Though I have a habit of replying to any posts with my name in it So if you want to reach me, you know how to do it!
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 20:12:52 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 23, 2008 20:12:52 GMT -5
I think there's a simpler way to do it. Cast your first vote for E. If E is a one-off as the Artificial Deadline approaches, revote for B as your second choice and see if anyone else joins you. :agreed: Vote for who you think is most suspicious. If deadline approaches, Mark X as "most suspicious", and then vote for your majority thingie or whatever as needed.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 20:53:52 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jan 23, 2008 20:53:52 GMT -5
God is dead A New Age has arisen Let this be its First Year Declare its blessings to All Creation*
The Chinese, aside from the numerous foreign religions that they absorbed and merged into their local beliefs, were by and large what a Westerner would consider "Deist": there might have been Power(s) beyond ones understanding, but by and large the Power(s) had little concern with one's individual wellbeing.
The Emperor, as the Son of Heaven, was supposed serve as the intermediary; although a particular regime's legitimacy did not rest as strongly as the European "Divine Right to Rule", would-be challengers to the status quo still made great pains to emphasize that the Fates had come to favor a different man in charge.
The rallying cry of the Yellow Turbans was therefore that the former regime had lost the Ruling Mandate, and that the new gods of the Way of the Peace (represented by the color yellow) should hold sway over the nation.
*Not a literal translation Top-of-the-page votecount:
2 - Roosh (hawkeyeop, NAF1138) 2 - NAF (ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, RoOsh) 1 - hawkeyeop (Diomedes) 1 - kolandar (Pygmyrugger) 1 - Rugger, Pygmy (Kat) 1 - Hal Briston (storyteller0910)
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 22:30:34 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Jan 23, 2008 22:30:34 GMT -5
But meanwhile... Hal, I have a bit of a problem, all of a sudden. Thing is, your characterization of the game, as you state it above - with an emphasis on "confusion and misdirection," is a way of looking at the game that I don't ordinarily expect from a player with a pro-town role. Scum look at the game that way. It's one of the things that Freudian Slit did in the other active game that seemed like a clue that her approach differed from my own. And now you've done it here. Sorry, have to disagree right back. Anyone can look at it that way. In almost every game I've been involved in, I've thrown out at least one or two nuggets of disinformation designed to flush out scum, or at least to keep them on their toes. Accepting that as a valid style of play doesn't mean one is scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 22:50:47 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jan 23, 2008 22:50:47 GMT -5
Pleonast posts some Math. (1.28) and leaves. (1.30) -Delightful. So you don't like math? Or you don't like me giving warning about some downtime? I don't like your omnibus posts of accusations. And I don't like the way you misinterpret others' posts. These are unhelpful things for Town* to do and very useful things for the Factions to do. Not much, but enough for Day One. Vote (Roosh)*What's the flavor word for players who win when all three Factions have been eliminated? Oh, it occurs to me your frownie face is because you'll miss me. If that's the case, I'll forgive you and vote for someone else.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 23:44:46 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 23, 2008 23:44:46 GMT -5
Pleonast posts some Math. (1.28) and leaves. (1.30) -Delightful. So you don't like math? Or you don't like me giving warning about some downtime? Oh, it occurs to me your frownie face is because you'll miss me. If that's the case, I'll forgive you and vote for someone else. I haven't accused you of anything, Pleo. That sentence was just that. A sentence. With a Sad face at the end of it. Don't read too much into it. I just stated the facts. You posted Maths (which incidentally I dislike, but that's just a personal thing, there's no problems with the Math being done. I was an English kid in school not a Numbers kid). And then you left. The sad face was because you left actually after having posted some math. :shrug: I tend to disregard numbers anyways, but numbers make me sad on the inside. Hence the sad face. But uh... sure. I missed you too...? That statement about you was simply facts as I observed them while I was going through the posts. I didn't accuse you of anything. If i had, I would have bolded your name, and then called you out, or FOS'ed you, or given you an "eye-face" or at the very least, a puzzled/angry face. The sad face is too cute to accuse anyone with. So uh. Yeah. :shrug: Forgive me?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 1:37:53 GMT -5
Post by nesta on Jan 24, 2008 1:37:53 GMT -5
Since it seems we're officially voting for plans on how to handle the majority vote: Vote for storyteller's original plan.If we treat the early deadline as the real deadline, and vote like normal until then, the only downside I see is a slightly shortened Day. I don't expect everyone to get on board with this, though, and the actions during the time after the early deadline will still give us information, so even that isn't completely the case. I will not be surprised if we do not actually achieve whichever system we vote for every Day. I think we should keep it looser. Set the 24 hour deadline but leave the rest flexible. If we have two people on the block of public suspicion, we deal with two. If we have one, we deal with one. If we have five, we deal with five. I won't be surprised if not everyone agrees with any voting plan either, but if most of us do it can still be effective. In the end I think it will end up with everyone doing what they want to even after the early deadline, and that's fine. I think it's helpful if most of us agree to abide by an early deadline, even if we disagree about how the runoff will work, so that we can avoid a no-lynch due to a lack of town consensus and so that we don't end up with people holding off until the last minute and then feeling like they have to vote for the leader just to get a lynch. Re: Storytellers deadlineI am actually not a huge fan of the "deadline before the deadline" idea. I don't hate it, and will go along with it if that is the towns decision, but I think forcing that kind of strict mandate takes away the flexibility needed for the town to be able to win this thing. I am, as a general rule, not a fan of any system that is intended to stay implemented without change for the whole of the game. Most of the flexibility is still there. If we treat the early deadline as just that we still have the same ability to vote for whom we think is scum up until that point. This is the reason I like storyteller's plan better: if we say that the highest X number of vote getters are on the table we are more likely to end up with a deadlock. I fully expect we'll have conscientious objectors that won't vote for the vote leader, and if enough of the town feels that way then they are free to vote elsewhere, but if the default action is to vote for the vote leader it avoids many deadlocks and rush voting. We don't need to lock ourselves into this until the end of the game. People will vote where they will, and if we decide to vote normally before the early deadline then we don't even really need to discuss it much further. If consensus doesn't form enough for everyone to switch votes to the leader then we use this information and move on. Re: Storytellers deadlineThat being said, I prefer Hawks version of the system to story's, only because it gives us more information if we have 2 people to choose from. If everybody goes for the same person we only get info from their initial vote. If we do the runoff system, we get info from both votes. More info is always better. We lose a little information by not keeping the vote open until the very deadline, but I think in the end we actually gain more information if an early deadline is agreed upon. In past games it's been common for many players to hold out until the very last minute to vote, and then to vote for the leader just to establish a majority. Sometimes this is a good way to catch scum, but I think it's actually easier for scum to hold back so that they can hide their vote behind a vote that they don't need to be accountable for. I would rather have all votes before the early deadline be accountable, and the final votes either be a strongly held belief that the lynch is incorrect, with a spotlight cast upon those who wouldn't switch to the leader, or a non-issue if they switched to the leader like we agreed upon. If the majority feels that someone else is scummier then the system breaks down, with good reason, and we go from there. I'm in favor of having a default plan, but I expect that some won't follow it, and I expect at some point the majority won't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't agree to it being the default. In my mind, at first I thought you were making this plan because it SOUNDS Townie, "oh it's to make sure that we always meet our deadline!" sorta dealie. But... it's never really been a problem in our prior games here. We are a bloodthirsty crowd, and No lynches are fairly rare, they have happened, but mostly are unpopular. I disagree that it hasn't been a problem. True, most of the time a lynch has gone through, but it's very common for there to be a last minute vote rush simply to accomplish the majority. Perhaps I'm a little gun-shy about this, but the last few lynches in the Firefly game I ended up in the situation where at the last minute the votes were split and it was my vote that would decide whom to lynch. No one else was posting or switching votes, so I had to vote simply to get anyone lynched at all. I would rather avoid that situation this game. I dislike the majority rule in general because it causes people to vote for people they don't feel are scum simply to establish a majority. An early deadline system is an easy way to negate this, and since no one is forced to vote (even though the system says that should be their default vote), it doesn't limit our options to the point where votes are automatic. In short: unless we are convinced someone isn't scum we might as well go with the plurality and lynch the best candidate. That being said, I agree that we should stop discussing the early deadline plans early in the Day and move on to looking for scum, so I'll stop posting about this unless anyone has any direct questions about my stance.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 1:58:40 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 24, 2008 1:58:40 GMT -5
Well, since skimming is a scum tell, I'm going to wait until I get to work tomorrow so I can have plenty of time to digest post #91.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 2:09:08 GMT -5
Post by nesta on Jan 24, 2008 2:09:08 GMT -5
I don't really think we can count on the Mafia-specific doctors to do much of anything for us: they not only have to outguess the mafia like the normal Doc, but they have to outguess a single one of three kills. While they only have a 33% chance at a random block they can either protect those they think the scum will likely kill or themselves. True, either option is a slim chance at blocking a kill, but it is a chance and any blocked kill really helps us. They can either try to out-guess the scum and hope that they block the right faction, or they can self-protect and hope the same. Either way we have three players who can block faction specific kills, and that can easily make the difference between a win or a loss. If they are a player that is likely to be killed and they self-protect they at least have a chance of surviving, and if they aren't they can protect those that are. They aren't as valuable as the full doctor, but a 33% chance times three is much better than nothing. I also agree that the Vig probably needs to not use his ability for the first several days. If he's still alive when the numbers start getting smaller, (given that we haven't lynched a few scum and they haven't picked too many of them off) his power becomes much more useful: at a certain point, random guessing will have a reasonable chance to hit scum, and ending any of the scum groups early will be a huge bonus for the town. While I tend to agree with the thought that the Vig shouldn't kill until he/she is sure, I don't think we should try to dictate their actions. If they aren't very sure they shouldn't kill anyone, but I think it's best to leave it up to them to decide when they should use their kill, even if it's Night 1. As far as the random vote thing goes, I'm not entirely sure what our other choices are for Day One: trying to convince yourself of the guilt of another player based on the -very- shady info we have in these first few posts isn't always healthy for townies (q.v. me/faithfool in the ongoing SD game). Even Day 1 doesn't have to be random. We have information, even if thin, and lynching based on thin information is still better than voting on no information, which is essentially what random voting is. Scum have been caught on Day 1 due to the information available, so while I'll agree to disagree about random votes early in Day 1, the lynch should be anything but random.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 2:30:59 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 24, 2008 2:30:59 GMT -5
So story's plan is a 24 hour deadline with the vote-leader at that time being the likely lynchee.
And hawk's adaptation of that plan is trying to get at least 2 candidates for the hot seat 24 hours prior to the lynch deadline.
And there seem to be a handfull of us who just think we should all agree to have a vote out and be participatory and present 24 hours prior to the lynch deadline.
Does that about sum it up?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 3:54:51 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 24, 2008 3:54:51 GMT -5
A few thoughts so far.
meta-gaming I am surprised that no-one has mentioned that scum will meta-game to find town power roles where the style of play is slightly different to being vanilla.
Saying the scum almost never meta-game is not only wrong but coming from someone who has played a fair amount of scum roles is interesting.
Vigilante Your role, your town, your actions. Do what you feel is best.
Night Kills I would be very surprised if there was not cross over between the scum groups killing each other at night. See Mafia: Conspiracy as to why. If all the scum survive the first couple of days, the chances of them not being hit at night are very low. And of course, no scum group wants another scum group to survive to the endgame. Why, because they cannot be nightkilled and town persuasion at that point becaomes necessary.
I can almost envisage a situation where the scum groups are not going to night kill to try and preserve enough townies to allow them to try and lynch another scum group.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 7:38:17 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 24, 2008 7:38:17 GMT -5
I'm still around. Busy at work. Official vote for story's plan.
I noticed something a bit earlier but don't have much time to say anything about it right this second. I'll make a post (and vote) by tonight.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 9:35:45 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 24, 2008 9:35:45 GMT -5
Well, since skimming is a scum tell, I'm going to wait until I get to work tomorrow so I can have plenty of time to digest post #91. Aww, fuck it. Unvote koldarVote Roosh
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 9:42:11 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 24, 2008 9:42:11 GMT -5
I'm still concerned that, if we follow story's plan to a tee, people may end up acting "suspicious" with their votes if several of the one-offs decide the top vote getter at the time has a horrible case against them. If it's a person who sits behind a desk all day (i.e. me), they should be able to go after the second or third place person if the votes are at all close. As much as I like the plan in theory, and realize it's much harder for scum to manipulate this game, I'd still like to see a bit of flexibility as we approach the end of the day. Of course, I expect that all votes, regardless of their absolute finality, be in before the end of the 24 hour period.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 10:23:54 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 24, 2008 10:23:54 GMT -5
I'm re-reading but don't have much to contribute right now. I already made my thoughts known on the voting issue. I think the Vigilante should do as he sees fit, but I would advise not killing unless he's pretty sure. I'll try to have a first vote soon.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 10:31:48 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 24, 2008 10:31:48 GMT -5
I am just going to respond to a few key points, and then I am going to disengage. I am fairly confident that you are scum at this juncture, so I am going to turn my attentions elsewhere. Yeah, I didn't quote you there. That was MY summing up of your thoughts. If i quoted you there, I'd use italics or cite you. What I WAS doing though, was being sarcastic. psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=rottk&thread=1201030708&page=3#1201112428Yeah you did, you even underlined parts of what I said. Check it for yourself. It's your very first quoting of me. 2 quick ones: 1. Because you just said it's a null tell. That inherently makes me suspicious of it. Anything that "scum have not done before" makes me suspicious because it is not before. It is NOW. And the first thing I did last game as scum was look- "okay, what have scum NOT done. That's what we'll do." For clarification, a null tell is something that gives us no information. Not something that exonerates one party. I am willing to concede that in this game scum MIGHT metagame, but that doesn't mean that metagaming is a scum tell. Got it? snippity snip snip Especially because and I can't say this enough WE DON'T HAVE NORMAL SCUM, we've got INDIVIDUAL KILLERS. There can't be "opportunistic voting" because in this set up its not necessary really. Of course it is. It is one of the few reliable facts in mafia, scum's only goal is to survive. The best way to do that is to vote opportunistically. It is more true because of the setup, not less true, because scum have a much smaller margin of error.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 10:42:27 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 24, 2008 10:42:27 GMT -5
I am just going to respond to a few key points, and then I am going to disengage. I am fairly confident that you are scum at this juncture, so I am going to turn my attentions elsewhere. Way-hay-hay-hay-hait just a minute, there. "I am fairly confident that you are scum" is a very significant statement at this stage of the game, and one demanding a bit more elaboration than you've given. On what basis are you confident of this?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 11:22:07 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 24, 2008 11:22:07 GMT -5
I am just going to respond to a few key points, and then I am going to disengage. I am fairly confident that you are scum at this juncture, so I am going to turn my attentions elsewhere. Way-hay-hay-hay-hait just a minute, there. "I am fairly confident that you are scum" is a very significant statement at this stage of the game, and one demanding a bit more elaboration than you've given. On what basis are you confident of this? Meh, fair enough of a question. I suppose I can't be confident in his actual scummitude. But the way he is twisting and spinning what I have said, and what Hawk has said etc. to justify his own conclusions instead of actually reading what is posted, is as scummy as I think it is going to get on Day 1. Maybe I have been playing too much three handed, but I would be genuinely surprised if Roosh turns up as a peasant. Untill I get some hard info on him he is #1 on my suspicion list. So now I am moving on to find my #2, #3 etc. I want to have a variety of people that I will be comforatble voting for by the end of the Day.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 12:13:28 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 24, 2008 12:13:28 GMT -5
I would be genuinely surprised if Roosh turns up as a peasant. Delightful. I noticed you still haven't answered the Questions i've posed to you. Namely the difference in myself and Cookies. All you've done is stated "Well, I think he's scum" and left it at that. That's really sad. And for someone who likes to accuse others of being scummy when they vote, perhaps you should take your own medicine. If you're town, you're currently having a VERY Scummy vote and your methods for it are just as bad. So "knock it off!" But No. You can't run away that quickly, buddy, cuz you have NOT found any scum yet. For clarification, a null tell is something that gives us no information. Not something that exonerates one party. I am willing to concede that in this game scum MIGHT metagame, but that doesn't mean that metagaming is a scum tell. Got it? Did I say it was a Scum tell? NO, Mr. Get-the-Context-Right when you talk about me, but not when I talk about you, I said it's not smart to assume that sort of thing at ALL in the first place. Metagaming isn't scummy. But using it to imply that you yourself are TOWN IS Scummy. Because it's so early in the game, that you don't really NEED to push that agenda of your own towniness across to anyone, yet that's what you were doing. It's not the metagaming I have an issue with. It's the fact that AFTER the metagaming, you said that Metagaming first has only been down by townies, and then once called on it, you've backtracked into saying "well now its just a null tell." Your vote currently is a very hypocritical one. You've accused ME of doing the very things that you currently are doing. You're not answering my questions, you're not addressing the issues I have asked of you, all you're doing is trying to attack me PERSONALLY [by stating I'm scum, and that you want to move on] rather than the issues that I'm questioning you on. And every time I DO ask you a question, you misquote, and mis-word it to try to make ME look like I'm saying something out of context. So Yeah. I'd like answers to those questions. 1. When you first voted for me, you accused me of being very Scummy (before I had even made full posts voting for you). I had done nothing more than what Cookies had been doing at that point. Yet you've continually put cookies on a pedestal, and voted for me. Why did you do that (AT THAT TIME PERIOD, of so early in the game, don't try to say its because of what you've seen NOW)? 2. Why are you giving Cookies the free pass, when she has brought up the very same issues I have against you, in perhaps a better form. In fact, I've not really seen you respond to cookies. All you've done for her is "I think you're town, let's move on" and avoided the issues she's brought up as well. 3. Can you explain those inconsistencies? And why do you think because I'm scum that you should move on? Are you really that high and mighty that you won't see your lynch out till the end? Or do you really think you're just going to get me lynched and find the rest of the scum all in day 1? Because that's just running away from a debate with an ad hominem attack. Defend yourself without attack ME please. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Okay, Santo rugger, why do you find me Suspicious? Considering I've got 4 votes now and they are: 1. "I'm voting for you because I dislike the fact that you called me Hawkeyepoop" 2. NAF's constant accusations of misquoting him, even though he's yet to address my own issues, and instead resorts only to calling me scummy rather than defend himself. 3. I gave Pleonast a sad face, so he's voting for me. 4. SantoRugger's- your drive by voting. Opportunistic? I don't know. I'd like to hear the reasonings. 3 of those votes are VERY VERY shitty reasons to vote someone on Day 1. I urge the rest of you to look very closely and take a look at the questions between NAF and myself, because all you've done so far is discuss voting junk. Right now there is only information really on 2 players being put out there, and EVERYONE else is being silent, which REALLY kinda sucks. If you're town, I urge you to start TALKING. If you're scum, well I know you're just gonna pick a side and vote, so you better have damn good reasons for voting the way you do. I will NOT have any drive-by votes on me without an explanation, you better back up your suspicions vs. myself as I want to hear them.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 14:34:09 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 24, 2008 14:34:09 GMT -5
<snip>Okay, Santo rugger, why do you find me Suspicious? <snip> 4. SantoRugger's- your drive by voting. Opportunistic? I don't know. I'd like to hear the reasonings.<snip> I didn't say I found you suspicious, and I didn't place a drive by vote. If you'll read the quote I posted, of myself, in the post I voted for you, you'll find I don't want to be forced to skim over your posts. If you copy and post just two of your posts on this page, that's SEVEN FUCKING PAGES of bullshit to wade through. In Bladerunner, I skimmed all your posts because they were longer than fuck, and if other players were as lazy as me, that could have been part of what cost us the game. I didn't want to be a dick about it, but I thought I made my reason clear by saying I didn't want to skim shit. Please excuse the language.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 15:00:41 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 24, 2008 15:00:41 GMT -5
Interesting position you've put me in, Roosh. Your statements simultaneously spin me into a proximity that is entirely too close for my comfort to NAF (by implying that he's somehow going easy on me) and also entirely too close for my comfort to you, by implying that our cases against NAF have been the same.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 15:37:28 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 24, 2008 15:37:28 GMT -5
But since this is me: Atarus: I'm calling you out. I want an opinion, and I want it toDay at some point: -What did you make of Hawkeye's initial statement (of tone changing), and then of my read into it? -What did you make of his defense as well? -- I want your opinion, since you're another person whose tone i am curious to hear more from, as it seems "different" to me than previously, and I just wanna hear you talk. So spill the beans, man! Meh. Personally, I couldn't care less about it. I think it's an unimportant thing to dwell on, and I think you might be trying to get my opinion on it to cause static and pointless discussion. Here, lemme get Hawkeye's quote again. Well I have no problem saying I'm town in the other game, so you are finding my tone different. I don't know that you are wrong on that, but I think your conclusion is flawed. You have to keep in mind that the other game, was the first game I've ever played and everyone was complete strangers when I began. I certainly feel more comfortable now both in terms of the game and of its players, so I'm not surprised that here (and for that matter my more recent play in the other game) my play seems more confident and more aggressive (or whatever it is you are seeing.) There are other factors, no secrets, the likelyhood of impending death making me want to get ideas out, that are causing me to play a bit differently, as well, but I think mostly once people start calling you hawkeyepoop you get comfortable not holding back. *Note: I took his whole post, not just the two sentences, but I underlined the part you quoted. Tone arguments and accusations are very fickle, and usually can't be defended against. Somebody says "I don't like your tone, it sounds different than usual" and you're like "well, how the hell am I supposed to make a rebuttal to that?" Personally, I read Hawkeye's post and thought he was saying "Okay, you find my tone different, and maybe it is since I can't judge my own tone, but the fact that you think I'm scum because my tone is different is a flawed conclusion." And that's basically a response I would give if somebody accused me of having a different 'tone.' I also find his explanation as to why his tone might be different to be completely reasonable (which you cut out when you made your accusation). So yeah, I don't find Hawkeye's post to be any sort of scum tell. --- Now, for this plan about setting an artificial deadline 24 hours before a vote, I have one question that I'm wondering about. At what point does a person claim since some people are still talking about claiming and losing powers as a viable option? We always get into issues with people claiming "too early" and such. Should we set some sort of deadline for possible claims? Is somebody that tries to claim after the artificial deadline just out of luck and they're getting lynched no matter what?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 16:12:32 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 24, 2008 16:12:32 GMT -5
Why I think Roosh is scum, I will point out just in his most recent (and most defensive) response to me. Then if anyone other then Roosh is still interested I will go back and do the same with his previous posts. (I already kind of did this, but why make y'all search) This is going to get long because I don't want to snip what Roosh posted. Sorry about that. I would be genuinely surprised if Roosh turns up as a peasant. Delightful. I noticed you still haven't answered the Questions i've posed to you. Namely the difference in myself and Cookies. I did. I said I wouldn't vote Cookies yet because I always think she is scummy as hell and I was going to wait for more persuasive evidence in her case. Cookies is special, but she is special in every game. I said the same in Bladerunner, in Seekham, and in Pirates. I say it every game I play with her. For whatever reason Cookies fucks with my scumdar. Sorry that messes you up. Here is where I first said why I wasn't going to vote for cookies psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=rottk&action=display&thread=1201030708#1201108133I have explained this. Contiuing to bring Cookies up is misdriection. Scum point #1 All you've done is stated "Well, I think he's scum" and left it at that. That's really sad. And for someone who likes to accuse others of being scummy when they vote, perhaps you should take your own medicine. Ouch, a personal attack (calling me sad) and an accusation of being hypocritical. Here is where I first say why I find you scummy: check out the end of this post. It has some good stuff. psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=rottk&action=display&thread=1201030708#1201115657Here is where I find you lying and spinning my words: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=rottk&action=display&thread=1201030708#1201188708Wanna explain why I am a sad hypocrit? Personal attacks are usually a sign of desperation, I liked using them when I was scum so people would stop thinking rationally. The attack isn't much of a scum tell. You saying I don't have reasons for my vote, on the other hand, is. Scum point #2 But if you're town, you're currently having a VERY Scummy vote and your methods for it are just as bad. So "knock it off!" You wanna tell me why it is scummy then I will take it under advisment. I am voting for you because you are spinning facts, how is that scummy? Saying it is doesn't make it so. But No. You can't run away that quickly, buddy, cuz you have NOT found any scum yet. For clarification, a null tell is something that gives us no information. Not something that exonerates one party. I am willing to concede that in this game scum MIGHT metagame, but that doesn't mean that metagaming is a scum tell. Got it? Did I say it was a Scum tell? NO, Mr. Get-the-Context-Right when you talk about me, but not when I talk about you, I said it's not smart to assume that sort of thing at ALL in the first place. Metagaming isn't scummy. But using it to imply that you yourself are TOWN IS Scummy. Hey man, you are the person who put meta gaming on the table as part of their argument against me. You made it a whole seperate point, and then said "well it isn't really part of my argument...but I am just throwing it out there" It was a nice subtle smudge. I will call that scum point #3. And I will imply and claim that I am town all day long. I am, why shouldn't I? Because it's so early in the game, that you don't really NEED to push that agenda of your own towniness across to anyone, yet that's what you were doing. It's not the metagaming I have an issue with. It's the fact that AFTER the metagaming, you said that Metagaming first has only been down by townies, and then once called on it, you've backtracked into saying "well now its just a null tell." Ok, I addressed this question in post 66 (it is linked to above) but one more time: Cookies was saying I was scummy for meta gaming. I said meta gaming isn't scummy. You said I implied that it was a town tell, I said I don't speak in absolutes (even made a joke about it) and that I really felt it was a null tell, or meaningless. You said null tells are totally scummy, at least it is scummy to point out that something is not a scum tell becasue scum might do it. I said, dude I KNOW that is why it gives us nothing. Using a non tell as the basis for a vote is scummy so I told her to knock it off if she is town. I will also tell people who are lurking and people who are posting fluff to knock it off. I made a variation on this speech in Blade Runner and created a whole game based on punishing players who behave this way, think this might be kind of a hot button topic for me? Sorry, that would be metagaming, ignore the previous paragraph. Your vote currently is a very hypocritical one. You've accused ME of doing the very things that you currently are doing. You're not answering my questions, you're not addressing the issues I have asked of you, all you're doing is trying to attack me PERSONALLY [by stating I'm scum, and that you want to move on] rather than the issues that I'm questioning you on. And every time I DO ask you a question, you misquote, and mis-word it to try to make ME look like I'm saying something out of context. I had felt I already adressed your questions, so I didn't restate. Sorry for that. You repose them, so I will address them later. For the rest of it, calling you scum isn't a personal attack, it's playing the game. (On a personal level I like you a lot, but that doens't mean you aren't scum this game) As for the rest, saying it is true doesn't make it so. I believe that the rest of that paragraph is a lie. scum point (what are we up to now?) 4 So Yeah. I'd like answers to those questions. 1. When you first voted for me, you accused me of being very Scummy (before I had even made full posts voting for you). I had done nothing more than what Cookies had been doing at that point. Yet you've continually put cookies on a pedestal, and voted for me. Why did you do that (AT THAT TIME PERIOD, of so early in the game, don't try to say its because of what you've seen NOW)? Asked and answered multiple times in this own post. I voted for you to see how you would react. Your follow up post and this one are what took made you my #1 candidate. 2. Why are you giving Cookies the free pass, when she has brought up the very same issues I have against you, in perhaps a better form. In fact, I've not really seen you respond to cookies. All you've done for her is "I think you're town, let's move on" and avoided the issues she's brought up as well. This is really the same as question 1, but it makes it look like you have more of a case against me then you actually do. Scum point #5 3. Can you explain those inconsistencies? If you are referring to questions 1 & 2 I think I already have. If not, you are going to have to be more specific. And why do you think because I'm scum that you should move on? Are you really that high and mighty that you won't see your lynch out till the end? Or do you really think you're just going to get me lynched and find the rest of the scum all in day 1? Because that's just running away from a debate with an ad hominem attack. Defend yourself without attack ME please. Again with the pesonal attacks. I am moving on because on Day 1 in a single post you have done 5 things (up to this point in the post, more is coming) that I find to be consistant markers of scum. That is pleanty for me. There are still 5 other people out there who are also scum, and it takes me too much time to respond to your posts for me to keep doing this. This post has taken me since 11:30 am to write (with stopping to actually work etc). Right now, that is an hour and a half of my time devoted to you. I like you Roosh, but I have other things going on. And am trying to avoid the tunnel vission that I know I am prone to. So I am moving on. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Okay, Santo rugger, why do you find me Suspicious? Considering I've got 4 votes now and they are: 1. "I'm voting for you because I dislike the fact that you called me Hawkeyepoop" Smudge and belittle Hawk. 2. NAF's constant accusations of misquoting him, even though he's yet to address my own issues, and instead resorts only to calling me scummy rather than defend himself. Smudge against me. Can we give this one a rest now that I have responded more fully? 3. I gave Pleonast a sad face, so he's voting for me. This isn't why Pleo voted for you. It isn't even close. psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=rottk&action=display&thread=1201030708#1201146647Put those three together I call it scum point #6. . SantoRugger's- your drive by voting. Opportunistic? I don't know. I'd like to hear the reasonings. Thought you said opportunistic voting was not a scum tell in this setup? Here's a quote: Especially because and I can't say this enough WE DON'T HAVE NORMAL SCUM, we've got INDIVIDUAL KILLERS. There can't be "opportunistic voting" because in this set up its not necessary really. I disagree, but that is rather inconsisten of you, don't you think? scum point #7 .3 of those votes are VERY VERY shitty reasons to vote someone on Day 1. I urge the rest of you to look very closely and take a look at the questions between NAF and myself, because all you've done so far is discuss voting junk. Right now there is only information really on 2 players being put out there, and EVERYONE else is being silent, which REALLY kinda sucks. If you're town, I urge you to start TALKING. If you're scum, well I know you're just gonna pick a side and vote, so you better have damn good reasons for voting the way you do. I will NOT have any drive-by votes on me without an explanation, you better back up your suspicions vs. myself as I want to hear them. I like your plea to the town to start talking. Looks like we can agree on that one. Let me know if you have anything else you want me to address, I tried to be as complete as possible.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 16:24:43 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 24, 2008 16:24:43 GMT -5
NAF,
I think your case in general is fairly strong, but to be fair to Roosh, I did initally vote for him for the nickname.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 16:26:50 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 24, 2008 16:26:50 GMT -5
Really? Huh, the one thing I didn't bother to fact check and it bites me in the ass.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 17:32:20 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 24, 2008 17:32:20 GMT -5
Evening Vote Count
Hawkeyeop (1) : Diomedes Roosh (4) : Hawkeyeop, NAF, Pleonast, Santo Rugger NAF (2) : Cookies, Roosh Hal Briston (1) : storyteller Santo Rugger (1): Kat
Edited by the other Mandate of Heaven due to a miscount from a dimpled chad.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 18:59:09 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 24, 2008 18:59:09 GMT -5
Basically, I pretty much agree with what Cookies and Kat have to say about the voting schtuff.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 19:03:38 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 24, 2008 19:03:38 GMT -5
Denouement, AKA Tragic.
Says in her first post that she's
Then mentions a "magic bag" that story calls her on later. Her response, after story's call-out, is this:
Hal jumps in and says that she shouldn't apologize. Story picks up on this, but ends up voting for Hal because his wording suggests a role that is counter to town interests.
Denouement then vanishes from the game thread. No posts since the apology.
This is all pretty strange to me. The big thing for me is that Tragic is not a noob. This whole small argument began based on the fact that she's played a game with multiple scum factions before, and apparently knows something to look for to catch them in a game of that type. She was long-lasting scum in the previous game as well. If Tragic is a noob, so am I! I don't see why she's suddenly playing the noob card. And then to get called on it, back off and apologize, play the noob card AGAIN while doing so, and then disappear from the thread...well, if Tragic WERE a noob, I'd say it's a noob scum move, but she was one of our best assets last time due to her complete inability to draw attention. Seems like she's trying the same thing again, only this time it backfired, so the only thing she can do is lurk and hope the pressure gets off of her--which it has, thanks to Roosh.
Speaking of Roosh, he tends to play a scummy townie and get a lot of attention early. His manifestos and stream-of-consciousness style annoy people, and so he's an easy target. I can't really get a read on him right now, and I tend to metagame too much with him. I have no problem keeping him alive for the time being, and focusing on him later if I think the need arises. Remember (another metagaming note) that past history suggests that those who get into vocal arguments on Day One tend to be town. For this reason, I think the case against Denouement, especially her mischaracterizations of her own past, might be a better one for toDay.
Vote Denouement
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 19:20:45 GMT -5
Post by Greedy Smurf on Jan 24, 2008 19:20:45 GMT -5
I have to admit that I'm in Santo's boat on the fact that I skim Roosh's posts. Sorry, but it's true. However I don't think that is a strong enough reason for me to vote for Roosh.
Roosh is playing this game as hardball as ever though. I'm not seeing anything in particular that screams scum, it just seems to be Roosh's normal style. However the only time I have seen Roosh play as scum I had perfect knowledge so it was hard for me to detect if there was any change in is normal style. I'm basically saying I'm not going to vote for Roosh at the moment.
2nd place votee, NAF seems to have gotten voted for due to a metagame vote. I fall in the camp of a metagame vote is not a scum tell, I don't like it, especially not in this case because the metagame reason wasn't even explained, but doesn't necesairly mark NAF as scum.
Then we have a few single vote getters.
I still haven't seen anything yet that personally trips my scumdar, but that has proven fairly unreliable so far. So I'm not sure yet were to place my vote, but we have a few days yet, so I'm happy to hold off for a little bit yet.
|
|