Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 10:54:08 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 28, 2009 10:54:08 GMT -5
This certainly looks like a form of stifling to me: "Okay, we're done here, move on citizens, move on." Well, maybe you and Ed are done here, but that doesn't mean there isn't more to be gained from the discussion of Ed and Ed's vote, or your vote on Ed based on Ed's vote or style or whatever. There is always something more to be gained from a discussion of a certain point -- including any tangents a particular discussion might wander off on to. Now, I'll admit I'm generally suspicious when two or more people seem to be dominating the discussion on a particular Day -- especially when there's a low signal-to-noise ratio (as with Ed and Meeko in the Conspiracy game), and for much the same reason I don't like it when someone suggests a particular topic is "done." The topic is done for me in the way that I don't think Ed needs to (or can) defend the vote from me anymore. I'm not the boss of mafia, so you are free to do what you want. (I thought that much was obvious, but apparently not). But even if you do take it as I wanted to stifle discussion by that quote, do you really think I've been acting scummy? I mean, if I didn't want to discuss the Special Ed issue, why did I bring it up? That just doesn't sit well with me. In fact, I'd argue that you are stifling discussion by voting for the most aggressive player so far. Basically, to sum up your post, you don't want two players to occupy most of the day, so you vote for me because I was trying to stop it? I was about to switch my vote to you, but scum or town, I can't see how your actions make sense. I do agree that we need other players to pitch in (which was what I was trying to do earlier), but I don't see how I can do anything but be aggressive.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 11:44:00 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 28, 2009 11:44:00 GMT -5
Your last sentence is my main reason to keep my current vote on Idle, who made a similar statement of 'stop talking about this' (plus an added 'or else you're suspicious' and when I did a vote for it). Still twisting things, hm? I never said "stop talking about this". Please show me where I did. Because: 1. I stopped talking about it long ago and here you are bringing it up again 2. I never instigated that extremely stupid, weak, and pointless arguement in the first place...the main reason being is because..umm...it's not scummy or shady to have voted for someone with the reasons I did, when I thought what I did. So color me confuse why you're throwing the accusation of continuing it on me. I'm the one who's been trying to tell people to end it. Yet here you are, continuing to go on about it. Yes,...yes, that is why I'm voting for you and think you are supicious for it.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 11:44:05 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 28, 2009 11:44:05 GMT -5
Yes, at the moment, I think you're showing more signs of being Scum than Town. However, as it is early on Day One, I also acknowledge that my mind is likely to change. Therefore, I don't see any particular reason to change my vote.
I am fascinated, though. This is like the third game I've been jumped by someone who accuses me of voting for them because they're the most aggressive player (and I'd argue that in this game in particular I haven't; if I were voting someone just for the aggressiveness of their actions, I'd probably have my vote on Pleo right now for his self-vote right out of the gate).
I wouldn't dream of asking you to be less aggressive. I like aggressive players.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 11:44:41 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 28, 2009 11:44:41 GMT -5
Damn you, Idle! Sneaking in there.
My last was a response to Chucara.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 11:46:25 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 28, 2009 11:46:25 GMT -5
Sorry, my ninja reflexes kicked in there.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 11:46:55 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Oct 28, 2009 11:46:55 GMT -5
Okay, so Chucara votes Special Ed for not voting in a post that Special Ed closes with (paraphrasing) "I don't see anything scummy in these actions". It's one thing to vote for someone as a joke, or because they irritate you. It's another to make up a line of reasoning based on the opposite of what has been said so far. And then again: <snip> Well, maybe you and Ed are done here, but that doesn't mean there isn't more to be gained from the discussion of Ed and Ed's vote, or your vote on Ed based on Ed's vote or style or whatever. There is always something more to be gained from a discussion of a certain point -- including any tangents a particular discussion might wander off on to. <snip> Basically, to sum up your post, you don't want two players to occupy most of the day, so you vote for me because I was trying to stop it? I'm not sure I see a couple of possibilites in what I percieve to be order of likelihood: 1.Chucara believes that the discussions in this game have been similiar to ones in the Conspiracy game. After rereading the Ed v Meeko conversation, I don't see the analogue. In that game the conversation was based around Fluff. There was little dialog about the game itself. I believe with the exception of Ed's fluff post, other conversations in this game have been related to this game. 2. The same reversal play is used as an attempt to deflect suspicion away from his/her seeming attempts to direct the format of the conversation. I would like some more elaboration from Chucara, on how he/she made these logical leaps, in case I missed something that invalidates what I'm seeing right now. So to that end: Vote: Chucara
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 13:55:24 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Oct 28, 2009 13:55:24 GMT -5
I never said "stop talking about this". Please show me where I did. I was referring to: So from here on, consider anyone making a huge deal out of it as someone I find suspicious. Which I read as 'stop talking about it or else'. So color me confuse why you're throwing the accusation of continuing it on me. I'm the one who's been trying to tell people to end it. I haven't thrown any accusation that you're 'continuing it' (assuming that 'it' refers to talking about your initial vote and vote rule misunderstanding. My last post wasn't about that.). And how is trying to tell people to end it different exactly from my paraphrase of telling people to "stop talking about it' (which you claim you never did)? To restate my last post: I get that a rule misunderstanding isn't evidence for being scum - it isn't a 'huge deal'. But with your reactions and lack of clearly better candidate I don't see a reason to move my vote for now.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 14:08:29 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Oct 28, 2009 14:08:29 GMT -5
The topic is done for me in the way that I don't think Ed needs to (or can) defend the vote from me anymore. I'm not the boss of mafia, so you are free to do what you want. (I thought that much was obvious, but apparently not). But even if you do take it as I wanted to stifle discussion by that quote, do you really think I've been acting scummy? I mean, if I didn't want to discuss the Special Ed issue, why did I bring it up? That just doesn't sit well with me. In fact, I'd argue that you are stifling discussion by voting for the most aggressive player so far. 1) Why exactly are you the most aggressive player? 2) Why is voting stifling discussion when you earlier argued that voting is good ('gets the sparks flying')?
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 15:02:18 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Oct 28, 2009 15:02:18 GMT -5
I think I agree with Chucara's "clear and concise". To me at least, that means getting to the point of what you're saying. Surely we don't want to wade through pages of clear but long posts (that is, it would be bad if everyone posted like Ro0sh). I don't think Chu meant that we only post short bits. Votes on him based on that seem ill-founded to me. However, I'm not getting Chu's vote on Ed, which seems not well thought out either. So I can understand votes on him due to that vote. I would like to hear a response from ped. Did I strike so close to home that she's laying low for a while? (Of course, I'm not able to post at my usual level, so I can hardly complain too much. )
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 15:08:28 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 28, 2009 15:08:28 GMT -5
I never said "stop talking about this". Please show me where I did. I was referring to: Which I read as 'stop talking about it or else'. So color me confuse why you're throwing the accusation of continuing it on me. I'm the one who's been trying to tell people to end it. I haven't thrown any accusation that you're 'continuing it' (assuming that 'it' refers to talking about your initial vote and vote rule misunderstanding. My last post wasn't about that.). And how is trying to tell people to end it different exactly from my paraphrase of telling people to "stop talking about it' (which you claim you never did)? To restate my last post: I get that a rule misunderstanding isn't evidence for being scum - it isn't a 'huge deal'. But with your reactions and lack of clearly better candidate I don't see a reason to move my vote for now. If you get that (that a rule misunderstanding isn't evidence for being scum), then why did you and are you voting for me? By your own admission, you have no real reason. My reactions? You mean telling you "Um, you have no real reason."? Uh huh. I'm happy with my vote too.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 15:29:41 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 28, 2009 15:29:41 GMT -5
Vote Count
Current Status: No Lynch.
Special Ed (2) Chucara (2) Pleonast (1) Idle Thoughts (1) Natlaw (1) pedescribe (1) Guy Incognito (1)
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 15:36:31 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Oct 28, 2009 15:36:31 GMT -5
is this to ped or hockey? 'cause as near as i can tell ped did vote. To Hockey. Sorry for the delay in response. Why didn't I vote? Because I don't feel that his action is particularly vote worth. I mention it as being suspicious, but I'm not going to cast a vote based on just one thing I feel is suspicious, especially when I can't unvote said vote. I could move it, but to who?
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 15:43:41 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 28, 2009 15:43:41 GMT -5
1) Why exactly are you the most aggressive player? 2) Why is voting stifling discussion when you earlier argued that voting is good ('gets the sparks flying')? 1) I'm actually taking chances by casting a vote on someone else. I said it was my own opinion. 2) I think voting is very good, and I'm fine with Coyote voting for me. I don't mind being lynched as it will probably provide some info to town. Say what you will, but at least stuff is going on now. I might be the one garnering the most votes right now, which isn't the ideal case IMO. I still maintain the right to defend what I've done. And no, I can't see any scum motivation behind my actions, unless my motivation was to raise as much awareness on myself as possible to have people think "scum would never do that". Anyway: redskeezixWhat do you want me to elaborate? I placed an illfounded vote on Ed to get the conversation started. I have not removed said vote as I see no better target. I could vote for myself, bringing me to the top of the block. I know I'm town - I don't know what Ed is. Why would I want to die over him? And I can't unvote. My vote will likely change, so what's the harm in keeping it there? I will elaborate further on my vote if it stays long enough, but I will not remove my vote because certain people think I should. I'll gladly explain my actions further on request, but please explain to me what you think the scum motivation behind my actions are? Finally, a self vote is the same as a no-vote IMO.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 16:12:13 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Oct 28, 2009 16:12:13 GMT -5
To restate my last post: I get that a rule misunderstanding isn't evidence for being scum - it isn't a 'huge deal'. But with your reactions and lack of clearly better candidate I don't see a reason to move my vote for now. If you get that (that a rule misunderstanding isn't evidence for being scum), then why did you and are you voting for me? By your own admission, you have no real reason. My reactions? You mean telling you "Um, you have no real reason."? Yes, your reactions to my vote and questions. Specifically your declaration to find anyone suspicions to make a 'huge deal' of it. I don't think I was making a huge deal of it. Then in a later post you both claim to never have told people to stop talking and that did you try to end the discussion. And when I ask about that you conveniently don't respond to this point (which is why am responding again, not because I want to make a huge deal about the original thing, but because I find your response to it lacking). And your vote for me because I 'twisted' that you were confused about the vote rules when voting Pleonast. Except that is exactly what you said here (bolding mine): I really don't get all the hooha about my not understanding the rules. I read them and the exchange in the first few posts in this thread fully and clearly and still was confused. And in the post before you say: There were only 5 posts before your post. 2 of them were comments on the voting mechanism. The voting mechanism was also discussed in the rules thread. Vote: Idle Thoughts 1. I have already said I didn't get that exchange either, until after the clarification was given. Both statements read to me as that you seemed confused about the vote rules at the point you voted Pleonast for using these specific vote rules to gain town credit (unless you read Pleonast's post, voted him for it and only then read the rest).
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 16:20:52 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 28, 2009 16:20:52 GMT -5
Yes, your reactions to my vote and questions. Specifically your declaration to find anyone suspicions to make a 'huge deal' of it. I don't think I was making a huge deal of it. Then in a later post you both claim to never have told people to stop talking and that did you try to end the discussion.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 18:34:50 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Oct 28, 2009 18:34:50 GMT -5
My base vote is for: vote Special Ed
For having made posts that seem intended to put someone under suspicion but without risking anything himself.Actually, the annoying part was only a joke, hence the smiley. I originally voted for you just to get a reaction, there really is no reason to defend much of anything this early in the game. so the first is your vote with your stated reasoning. right? the second is oh i was bullshitting with my reasoning on my first vote and just wanted a reaction. right? i mean, i agree that, especially with this crowd, we don't need a lot of clutter (a certain amount of fluffy banter not to be unexpected) but i don't know how the above would further that end. and i apologize on the front end for not really even having had much of a chance to even check in much during the day. things will loosen up tomorrow, me hopes.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 19:54:13 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Oct 28, 2009 19:54:13 GMT -5
and yaknow i am going to be normal prickly self. i will definitely use ltl as a criteria during this game.
i don't know about the rest of you folks but i'd rather be talking/posting than just staring.
justsoyaknow that's the way i will vote and play this game, other things being kind of equal.
i mean, i wanna win but not at the expense of not having some interaction. lurking/not posting equals no interaction in my book. ipso fucto those folks can get eliminated.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 2:39:34 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 29, 2009 2:39:34 GMT -5
so the first is your vote with your stated reasoning. right? the second is oh i was bullshitting with my reasoning on my first vote and just wanted a reaction. right? i mean, i agree that, especially with this crowd, we don't need a lot of clutter (a certain amount of fluffy banter not to be unexpected) but i don't know how the above would further that end. and i apologize on the front end for not really even having had much of a chance to even check in much during the day. things will loosen up tomorrow, me hopes. The first part was my reason for voting. I still think to some extent that there could be scum motivation behind such a post. A recap post is risk free, but still makes it seem like Special Ed is participating. And for an early day one vote, that was enough for me. Am I absolutely postive that Special Ed is scum? No, but I'd rather vote anyway to get his reaction than just sit and wait like some here. Again, please tell me where you think the scum motivation is in all of this? Am I scummy for not having complete confidence in my votes? Am I scummy for voting early? Am I scummy for not being very clear (which I admittedly might not always be, as I tend to not completely consider what I'm doing before post)?
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 8:24:02 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Oct 29, 2009 8:24:02 GMT -5
Wow - what a lot of posts - this could be a very long Day The topic is done for me in the way that I don't think Ed needs to (or can) defend the vote from me anymore. I'm not the boss of mafia, so you are free to do what you want. (I thought that much was obvious, but apparently not)This comment did strike me as a little strange - an odd choice of words. Looking for town cred? obviously not mafia? Not much to go on, but it's what has pinged me the most. Vote: Chucura I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Pleo's comments on voting. The inability to unvote is going to make it rather interesting when someone is on the hook and then claims - so folk will need to switch votes rather than unvote.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 12:47:33 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 29, 2009 12:47:33 GMT -5
Wow - what a lot of posts - this could be a very long Day The topic is done for me in the way that I don't think Ed needs to (or can) defend the vote from me anymore. I'm not the boss of mafia, so you are free to do what you want. (I thought that much was obvious, but apparently not)This comment did strike me as a little strange - an odd choice of words. Looking for town cred? obviously not mafia? Not much to go on, but it's what has pinged me the most. Vote: Chucura [/color] I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Pleo's comments on voting. The inability to unvote is going to make it rather interesting when someone is on the hook and then claims - so folk will need to switch votes rather than unvote.[/quote] I'm not following.. How am I looking for townie cred? I feel like I'm being lynched for speaking my opinion here, something I think is very bad for town. Once again I ask: How does any of this make sense if I am scum? Why would scum want to get this much attention? I was defending/explaning a statement I had made earlier. This one just reeks of scum jumping a bandwagon. Therefore: Vote: BillMc[/color] Not for voting for me, which is fair enough, but this is the point where scum IMO would jump in to secure a lynch. I will claim if I have to (I don't want it to be too late in the day), but I'd prefer not to so far.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 12:53:02 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Oct 29, 2009 12:53:02 GMT -5
Urgh, with six days left and all of three votes if I'm counting right, that's way premature, Chucara.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 12:55:13 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Oct 29, 2009 12:55:13 GMT -5
Even to mention claiming, that is. It's not at all a good thing to do to imply you have a non-vanilla role like that, if you're Town.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 12:57:13 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 29, 2009 12:57:13 GMT -5
I am inclined to agree with nphase. Way, way too early to even bring up claiming.
Just like waiting until there's an hour left in the day is going to be way too late to claim in this game. IMO, of course.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 12:58:15 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 29, 2009 12:58:15 GMT -5
Even to mention claiming, that is. It's not at all a good thing to do to imply you have a non-vanilla role like that, if you're Town. What would you have me do? I think people are making a huge mistakes by voting for me. Yes, I've been careless, but I don't see how that is a scum tell. And people don't seem to respond when I ask how they think my actions are scummy. I'm pretty sure I will not live to see the end of this game anyway as that early suspicion will almost always linger in the back of peoples heads. And scum will be reluctant to off me even if I have a power role as they think town will eventually lynch me. And town will, have no doubt about that. I only ásk that it not be today.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 15:06:31 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 29, 2009 15:06:31 GMT -5
Vote Count
Current Status: Chucara Lynch.
Chucara (3) Special Ed (1) Pleonast (1) Idle Thoughts (1) Natlaw (1) pedescribe (1) Guy Incognito (1) BillMc (1)
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 15:47:27 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Oct 29, 2009 15:47:27 GMT -5
Hi all, sorry to have missed the start of the game. I'll catch up this weekend and start contributing. Busy, busy week for me.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 16:29:45 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Oct 29, 2009 16:29:45 GMT -5
I'm not following.. How am I looking for townie cred? I feel like I'm being lynched for speaking my opinion here, something I think is very bad for town. Once again I ask: How does any of this make sense if I am scum? Why would scum want to get this much attention? I was defending/explaning a statement I had made earlier. This one just reeks of scum jumping a bandwagon. Therefore: Vote: BillMcNot for voting for me, which is fair enough, but this is the point where scum IMO would jump in to secure a lynch. I will claim if I have to (I don't want it to be too late in the day), but I'd prefer not to so far. Well based on that response, I'm happy where my vote is.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 18:04:35 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 29, 2009 18:04:35 GMT -5
I'm not following.. How am I looking for townie cred? I feel like I'm being lynched for speaking my opinion here, something I think is very bad for town. Once again I ask: How does any of this make sense if I am scum? Why would scum want to get this much attention? I was defending/explaning a statement I had made earlier. This one just reeks of scum jumping a bandwagon. Therefore: Vote: BillMcNot for voting for me, which is fair enough, but this is the point where scum IMO would jump in to secure a lynch. I will claim if I have to (I don't want it to be too late in the day), but I'd prefer not to so far. Well based on that response, I'm happy where my vote is. I'm glad you are. Should I be lynched, I do encourage everyone to keep an eye on BillMc. I ask you once again: How am I looking for townie cred? I feel like I'm being lynched for speaking my opinion here, something I think is very bad for town. Once again I ask: How does any of this make sense if I am scum? Why would scum want to get this much attention? I was defending/explaning a statement I had made earier.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 18:05:20 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 29, 2009 18:05:20 GMT -5
NETA: Egads.. Above quote was by me, not by BillMc.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 18:38:50 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Oct 29, 2009 18:38:50 GMT -5
ok, chuc here it is. you voted for ed as near as i can tell initially because he was "fluffing" the thread.
but then you come back and say no that's not why you are voting ed merely to get a reaction and one would assume some discourse.
then you follow it up with what ed is doing is scummy even though you are going to vote for his "reaction".
i wasn't calling you scummy in any sense of the word. i was just curious about the seemingly inconsistency in your reasoning and why you felt it necessary to justify a vote if all you were doing is poking the ant mound.
shit i recently voted bill on the dope to poke the ant mound. but at least i was clear it was because of a bullshit reason.
and yeeps a claim threat.
fcs we are barely going. this confuses me.
|
|