Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 22:40:55 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Oct 29, 2009 22:40:55 GMT -5
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. ) Not a she, not laying low. I forgot that the game switched over for a couple days. ANyway, it's not so much your initial action that made me suspicious as it was your second post. Idle had laid off. No-one else had taken particular issue with it. Yet you felt the need to trumpet your actions, and remark about how (paraphrasing) 'You won't catch me without a vote, no no!' when there was still over a week to go. It struck me as a grab for town cred. And it still does. I agree that the initial action was town. That's my point. You were drawing an inordinate amount of attention that it was town.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 29, 2009 22:43:32 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Oct 29, 2009 22:43:32 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. Seriously? It's too early to even acknowledge the possibility of claiming? That's ridiculously over-reaching. And it does not directly imply that Chuck is non-vanilla.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 6:49:12 GMT -5
Post by special on Oct 30, 2009 6:49:12 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px;">Honestly, Pleo, it looks like a play for town cred more than anything. This was followed by a vote in the next post. Basically, to me, as has been pointed out by Pleo, this looks like a vote for acting like a Townie. Pede's case seems to be that Pleo is looking Town, therefore he might be Scum. <font style="font-size: 12px;"> 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. ) Not a she, not laying low. I forgot that the game switched over for a couple days. ANyway, it's not so much your initial action that made me suspicious as it was your second post. Idle had laid off. No-one else had taken particular issue with it. Yet you felt the need to trumpet your actions, and remark about how (paraphrasing) 'You won't catch me without a vote, no no!' when there was still over a week to go. It struck me as a grab for town cred. And it still does. I agree that the initial action was town. That's my point. You were drawing an inordinate amount of attention that it was town. OK, this seems a little stronger. My problem at this point is that you waited until called on your vote before providing any evidence. Sure, you gave a very general reason, but no evidence. Only when pressed do you provide evidence, and as such, it's weak evidence. You're basically saying that by defending himself from Idle's vote, Pleo is still acting like a Townie, and therefore might be Scum. Also, it' unclear which of Pleo's post you're now referring to, can you clarify that for me? <font style="font-size: 12px;"> 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. Seriously? It's too early to even acknowledge the possibility of claiming? That's ridiculously over-reaching. And it does not directly imply that Chuck is non-vanilla. OK, first you're voting for someone for acting like a Townie. Now, you're defending someone for anti-Town play. Soft claims are anti-Town. They provide no information for Town but might give clues for Scum. Granted there's nothing definitive in Chucura's statement, but it IS a soft claim. We cannot start allowing soft claims to sway our votes, they are much too easy for Scum to fake without committing themselves.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 8:23:46 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Oct 30, 2009 8:23:46 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. Seriously? It's too early to even acknowledge the possibility of claiming? That's ridiculously over-reaching. And it does not directly imply that Chuck is non-vanilla. I agree with that last to a point, but it certainly does leave that impression. (Because why would a vanilla even say that? "Back off folks, I might claim a role that has no chance of being confirmed!" Have you ever seen a vanilla do that? I never have.) And that's my point. A legitimate Town power should be a little more concerned about protecting the power pool than that. If Chucara is town, he's made Scum's collective ears perk up with that comment. It's careless, unless by some chance he really is vanilla. It's a good move for Scum though. Has Chucara gotten any votes since that comment? I don't think he has. I don't know if I want to vote him myself.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 8:27:57 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 30, 2009 8:27:57 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. Ok, I'll try to explain.. I know I'm not being very clear, so hopefully this will help. I voted for Ed because I thought he was the most scummy. Had it been later in the game, I probably wouldn't have voted on that little, but I did anyway to get the game going. I haven't changed my mind about Ed really, I just never had that much of a reason to begin with and I wanted to be aggressive. Now I think BillMc with his "Me too" vote is scummier. I like to vote early, even if I don't have much of a reason. It gives people a chance to defend themselves. And I realize now that my soft claim wasn't the best of ideas, but I still believe there is limited harm in it as per my previous explanation. I did it mostly because I wanted to get rid of the suspicion on me as early as possible, so other people could get in the limelight, and partly because I don't know how much time I have next week. I've asked several times for an explanation from those voting on me how they would explain my actions if I were scum, but I've haven't gotten a response. I am glad that I managed to confuse you at least, considering the many many times in other games you've confused me (Last sentence is a joke, not to be considered part of the game)
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 9:56:46 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Oct 30, 2009 9:56:46 GMT -5
Dang, I never did get to post yesterday. Fortunately, I got in early today have things temporarily under control. 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: ChucuraI'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. Bill, this post is pulling me in two directions. I'm happy you agree with me, but your vote on Chucara bothers me. What exactly about the phrase bothers you? I'm not seeing it and so your vote looks very opportunistic to me. To me (this is to everyone, not just Bill) the only decent reason for voting for Chu is his vote on Ed. But that's not what players seem to be voting him for. Instead they're focusing on his defense, which seems townie to me. I guess I can see myself saying what he has. To me "I'm not the boss of mafia, so you are free to do what you want" is a simple defense for stating his point of view. It was obvious to me. It's a very borderline case. Compare to why ped is voting for me: ANyway, it's not so much your initial action that made me suspicious as it was your second post. Idle had laid off. No-one else had taken particular issue with it. Yet you felt the need to trumpet your actions, and remark about how (paraphrasing) 'You won't catch me without a vote, no no!' when there was still over a week to go. It struck me as a grab for town cred. And it still does. I agree that the initial action was town. That's my point. You were drawing an inordinate amount of attention that it was town. Which post are you referring to? The only later one I refer to self voting is Post 61, but I'm replying to specific questions from other players, directly contradicting your claims of "no-one else had taken particular issue with it". Your vote on me seems to be: Pleo did something pro-Town I didn't like and then explained it to other players. Players voting for Chu with borderline reasoning when ped is voting for me for doing typical pro-Town stuff is frustrating. Soft claims are anti-Town. They provide no information for Town but might give clues for Scum. Granted there's nothing definitive in Chucura's statement, but it IS a soft claim. We cannot start allowing soft claims to sway our votes, they are much too easy for Scum to fake without committing themselves. I agree that soft claims are bad, because of the scum-bait factor, but I don't think anyone allows them to sway their votes. If anything, a soft claim makes me more likely to keep my vote on a player. But when the reasons for voting Chucara are already weak, a soft claim isn't enough for me to switch my vote to him.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 10:21:36 GMT -5
Post by special on Oct 30, 2009 10:21:36 GMT -5
Soft claims are anti-Town. They provide no information for Town but might give clues for Scum. Granted there's nothing definitive in Chucura's statement, but it IS a soft claim. We cannot start allowing soft claims to sway our votes, they are much too easy for Scum to fake without committing themselves. I agree that soft claims are bad, because of the scum-bait factor, but I don't think anyone allows them to sway their votes. If anything, a soft claim makes me more likely to keep my vote on a player. But when the reasons for voting Chucara are already weak, a soft claim isn't enough for me to switch my vote to him. You may not be swayed by a soft claim, but I've seen others be swayed by it. Just a couple of posts back was this: [quote author=nphase board=game17 thread=1171 post=56606 time=1256909026 Has Chucara gotten any votes since that comment? I don't think he has. I don't know if I want to vote him myself.[/quote] and that is enough to give Scum motivation for a soft claim. Does it mean Chucara is definitively Scum? Of course not, but it's something Town players should avoid. I'm in agreement with you, Pleo, however, on Pede's behavior. I think it's the most questionable we've seen so far, and I'm waiting for an explanation from him.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 11:11:13 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Oct 30, 2009 11:11:13 GMT -5
I don't think the argument holds that no has voted for Chucara because of his soft-claim. It just kinda came out of the blue to me. If it was closer to lynch or the vote train was more serious than it would be more suspicious to make a soft claim like that. I can see pedescribe being okay with it, because I can see him totally make a soft claim like that as a town vanilla to draw scum fire. I don't remember Chucara playing like that though. I voted for Ed because I thought he was the most scummy. Had it been later in the game, I probably wouldn't have voted on that little, but I did anyway to get the game going. I haven't changed my mind about Ed really, I just never had that much of a reason to begin with and I wanted to be aggressive. Now I think BillMc with his "Me too" vote is scummier. I like to vote early, even if I don't have much of a reason. It gives people a chance to defend themselves. Any specific reason your vote isn't on BillMc at the moment then (as self proclaimed most aggressive player)?
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 12:34:41 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 30, 2009 12:34:41 GMT -5
I voted for Ed because I thought he was the most scummy. Had it been later in the game, I probably wouldn't have voted on that little, but I did anyway to get the game going. I haven't changed my mind about Ed really, I just never had that much of a reason to begin with and I wanted to be aggressive. Now I think BillMc with his "Me too" vote is scummier. I like to vote early, even if I don't have much of a reason. It gives people a chance to defend themselves. Any specific reason your vote isn't on BillMc at the moment then (as self proclaimed most aggressive player)? Skim much? [/color][/quote]
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 12:47:38 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Oct 30, 2009 12:47:38 GMT -5
Any specific reason your vote isn't on BillMc at the moment then (as self proclaimed most aggressive player)? Skim much? Personally, I blame the moderators. Compared to my vote counts of crystal clarity, the vote counts in this game are mud pies. It's an affront to all us right-minded, math-inclined analysts. IMHO, of course.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 13:23:59 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Oct 30, 2009 13:23:59 GMT -5
Skim much? I checked the vote count thread to that you hadn't voted him, but it isn't up to date .
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 14:32:57 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Oct 30, 2009 14:32:57 GMT -5
Bill, this post is pulling me in two directions. I'm happy you agree with me, but your vote on Chucara bothers me. What exactly about the phrase bothers you? I'm not seeing it and so your vote looks very opportunistic to me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but the statement "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)" just doesn't seem right. It's a weird thing to say - no one accused Chucara of being the boss - so why state he isn't. Add to that the claim comment in response to the vote - with so much time left in the day he's in no danger of being lynched and a claim would be premature - so why threaten it? Just feels wrong.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 15:01:12 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 30, 2009 15:01:12 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)
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 15:30:48 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Oct 30, 2009 15:30:48 GMT -5
Yes, I do mean Post 61.
And it's not that hard to understand. I'm not referring to direct actions, I'm referring to tone. The tone of post 61 had a very grandstanding, look-at-me-I'm-town sound to it.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 16:09:32 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 30, 2009 16:09:32 GMT -5
A small administrative request for the Mods.
When recording a votecount in the Player /Votecount thread, could you include the post the votecount had been made up to? Please?
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 16:12:41 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 30, 2009 16:12:41 GMT -5
A small administrative request for the Mods. When recording a votecount in the Player /Votecount thread, could you include the post the votecount had been made up to? Please? [/color][/quote] Done. It should match up with the last vote count in the main thread.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 16:17:47 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 30, 2009 16:17:47 GMT -5
Done. It should match up with the last vote count in the main thread. Many thanks. I had trouble with the Aviatory Bovine's last count; when I read it it was clearly out of date. (I assume it was correct when he made it out, and fiendish players went and mucked it up by voting. Never can trust those players. What will they think of next?)
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 16:41:26 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 30, 2009 16:41:26 GMT -5
There are currently about 17 players who might end the Day without a vote. I am not one of them. That is the point. I could have done the same thing by throwing out a random vote, but I thought putting it on myself would make it clear it's not a serious vote. The problem I have with the "vote for yourseflf" technique is that, more than anything, it's suicidal. I won't say I'd never vote for myself, but it would take something like the Sister Coyote problem to make me do so. (She was a Remorseful Vig who killed a Townie. She made the mistake of confessing this. The Mafia had a redirector. Result : One bonus kill per Night for the Mafia. We had to lynch her instead of an exposed liar. Who, when we finally did string him up, turned out to be Mafia). Voting for oneself, in this game, is anti whatever-faction-one-has. It's just bad play. Yes, doing so guarantees that you 1 will finish the Day with a vote. Suppose that, for some freak reason, you want to abstain Today? You can't. I'd rather retain my freedom of action. It's not likely to delay my vote very much anyway - I habitually vote late, and after much thought. I can't vote over the weekend (it's a D&D weekend) so don't expect my vote until Tuesday, and at least another full read. 1The generic "you."
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 17:31:12 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Oct 30, 2009 17:31:12 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal is at this point in the game. There's always going to be some random lurker or vaguely suspicious non-vote-leader to put a vote on on Day One if the vote leader or leader is deemed unsuitable. Later on, then sure.
I do see what pedescribe is getting at as regards Pleonast's tone, but I don't think I like pedescribe's vote on that basis alone. This sort of thing is not atypical of Pleonast. From what I've seen you'd have to vote him just about every game if "too self-consciously pro-town on Day one" were to be the sole criterion.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 17:35:04 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Oct 30, 2009 17:35:04 GMT -5
Bill, this post is pulling me in two directions. I'm happy you agree with me, but your vote on Chucara bothers me. What exactly about the phrase bothers you? I'm not seeing it and so your vote looks very opportunistic to me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but the statement "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)" just doesn't seem right. It's a weird thing to say - no one accused Chucara of being the boss - so why state he isn't. Add to that the claim comment in response to the vote - with so much time left in the day he's in no danger of being lynched and a claim would be premature - so why threaten it? Just feels wrong. and this will really be the pot calling the kettle out. i didn't parse it at all like you did. i took it more along the lines of: "hey, i ain't god/king/obama/cheney so you folks do whatever". i mean i can go down the bunny hole with the best of them but shoot even i don't get squat from that comment. my issue with chuc was just inconsistency initially. the outta left field claim comment is the one that has me pondering. but at this point it's a file away for now and let's see what's next. [oog]btw, idle the video where he's talking about it's not a suppository, it's for your nose cracked me up. i also like the layman's definition of the internet.[/oog]
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 17:39:40 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 30, 2009 17:39:40 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal is at this point in the game. There's always going to be some random lurker or vaguely suspicious non-vote-leader to put a vote on on Day One if the vote leader or leader is deemed unsuitable. Later on, then sure. I do see what pedescribe is getting at as regards Pleonast's tone, but I don't think I like pedescribe's vote on that basis alone. This sort of thing is not atypical of Pleonast. From what I've seen you'd have to vote him just about every game if "too self-consciously pro-town on Day one" were to be the sole criterion. Pleo's style (certainly over recent games) does seem to be to adopt a particular stance, claim it pro-Town and push its merits hard. He did this in Alien Taste II where it paid off bigtime, and he did it in Dr. Horrible, in which he read too much into his PM and, as a result, confused everyone. He's not infallible. He's also not known to be Town, so what he's advocating may be anti-Town, because Pleo is. Or he may be advocating a position that he really thinks is proTown, even though he's not Town.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 17:49:05 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 30, 2009 17:49:05 GMT -5
I can't quite put my finger on it, but the statement "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)" just doesn't seem right. It's a weird thing to say - no one accused Chucara of being the boss - so why state he isn't. Add to that the claim comment in response to the vote - with so much time left in the day he's in no danger of being lynched and a claim would be premature - so why threaten it? Just feels wrong. Someone accused me of telling people to stop discussing an issue. Maybe I was being overly defense, but in my head, that still makes sense. Again, looking at my actions (from the beginning) from a scum perspective, why would anyone on the scum team want to garner that much attention early day one? At least give me that.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 18:01:29 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 30, 2009 18:01:29 GMT -5
Oh please tell me you didn't just say "Scum wouldn't do that."
Why wouldn't someone on the scum team want to garner that much attention Day One? Are you really trying to tell us that there's no benefit to Scum to having one member of their team draw a lot of heat and flak and thereby taking a lot of Town's attention? Seriously?
Also, although I'm not ready to change my vote, there does seem to be something to Ed's comment about pede's support of your soft claim while being opposed to Pleo's potentially pro-Town action. I'm not sure I read Pleo's self-vote as pro-Town, precisely; just because an action can allow a player to claim they're acting in a pro-Town fashion doesn't necessarily mean that action actually is pro-Town. But a soft claim, especially this early in the game, isn't good for Town at all, at least IMO.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 18:02:41 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 30, 2009 18:02:41 GMT -5
I'm never going to live that remorseful vig thing down, am I.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 18:32:48 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 30, 2009 18:32:48 GMT -5
I'm never going to live that remorseful vig thing down, am I. It was a freak situation. It makes a good example of why you should never insist any specific action is always the right play. Wear it with pride. You're a living example of why Mafia is such fun.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 19:08:23 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Oct 30, 2009 19:08:23 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal is at this point in the game. There's always going to be some random lurker or vaguely suspicious non-vote-leader to put a vote on on Day One if the vote leader or leader is deemed unsuitable. Later on, then sure. I do see what pedescribe is getting at as regards Pleonast's tone, but I don't think I like pedescribe's vote on that basis alone. This sort of thing is not atypical of Pleonast. From what I've seen you'd have to vote him just about every game if "too self-consciously pro-town on Day one" were to be the sole criterion. Pleo's style (certainly over recent games) does seem to be to adopt a particular stance, claim it pro-Town and push its merits hard. He did this in Alien Taste II where it paid off bigtime, and he did it in Dr. Horrible, in which he read too much into his PM and, as a result, confused everyone. He's not infallible. He's also not known to be Town, so what he's advocating may be anti-Town, because Pleo is. Or he may be advocating a position that he really thinks is proTown, even though he's not Town. No argument there.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 30, 2009 23:47:02 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Oct 30, 2009 23:47:02 GMT -5
Again, looking at my actions (from the beginning) from a scum perspective, why would anyone on the scum team want to garner that much attention early day one? At least give me that. ok ed and meeko Day 1 in C3. Oh please tell me you didn't just say "Scum wouldn't do that." well if you hadn't have already said it i was certainly going to do so. and sheesh chuc i haven't come out and said squat, yet. but sheeps alive when you get to the bottom of the hole some time it's wise to stop digging.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 31, 2009 8:55:21 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Oct 31, 2009 8:55:21 GMT -5
Oh please tell me you didn't just say "Scum wouldn't do that." I do believe he did. but sheeps alive when you get to the bottom of the hole some time it's wise to stop digging. Such a philosopher!
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 31, 2009 8:55:25 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Oct 31, 2009 8:55:25 GMT -5
Hey everyone, well I caught up and here is my thinking of what I have read... I never said "stop talking about this". Please show me where I did. I'm not trying to stifle discussion, I'm trying to get someone else than me and Ed into it. Talk about it all you want - I just don't see what else there is. Most of the discussion started from my loosely reasoned vote. So if I am getting it right, not so much stop conversation as simply saying, why are we still talking about this? I mean are we not beating the dead horse here by going over it still...Since it was explained and now it almost seems like some seem to be trying to draw you guys into repeating your self over and over and...well you get it. 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')? Correct me here but is it not the voting that is appearing to stifle the conversation but the "why are you goign after me for simply making a vote" That is being repeated over and over. I say appear cause I think it is less stifle and more, tired of repeatedly saying reasons over and over.... 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. I do agree with others, I think it is a bit early to being suggesting a claim. However at the same time, I think claiming is something that each must make there own decision on and you have to do when you feel right. So I personally won't be saying no you can not claim, I may feel it was not the best idea, but it was your choice to do so. As for voting for soft claim's I may but not for it's self, I think soft claims are a piece of the puzzle but not the sole reason that should be used to vote. So it may make me want to pay more attention but certainly not vote over it alone. 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. I think thing is, and I myself fall into this...feeling you need to repeat over and over to everyone defending ones self...You have defended your self, so leave it at that. If anyone else brings it up, just move past it...I think by going over and over the same thing only helps dig your own grave...something I have taken along time to get, but starting to realize. Let's face it we win as a team so I think the ones more worried of lynches are scum, cause well there is less of them, so the point is the more you fight it, the more it looks bad on you. But hey that is just my 2 cents worth. Well actually being canadian for me it would be 1.8 cents ;D The problem I have with the "vote for yourseflf" technique is that, more than anything, it's suicidal. How about the border style game where you place 3 votes and that one game where the scum won cause there were 2 3rd place votes on me, they came in at the last minute and did 2 number 1 votes and with the 3rd place ones, were enough to force a lynch and win. Now this game is not like that at all, but it does show, we have no clue what will happen and so you do have to be causious when doing things, cause it could come back to bite us in the ass. Oh please tell me you didn't just say "Scum wouldn't do that. Dude I totally agree with this...I mean I also hate when people say things like "If I were scum" or something similar to that. Sorry for the long post, I will try and get on more often so it will not be so long. As I said this just my thoughts on what I have seen.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 31, 2009 9:42:05 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 31, 2009 9:42:05 GMT -5
How about the border style game where you place 3 votes and that one game where the scum won cause there were 2 3rd place votes on me, they came in at the last minute and did 2 number 1 votes and with the 3rd place ones, were enough to force a lynch and win. Now this game is not like that at all, but it does show, we have no clue what will happen and so you do have to be causious when doing things, cause it could come back to bite us in the ass. Borda count voting opens a whole new can of worms. If you have to put votes on three players to get one vote to count, you also have to watch the second and third votes to make sure they don't upset your applecart. I remember in the Borda vote games I've played that, if I decided I wanted to vote one player, I was careful to place my second and third votes on people who (a) had little or no chance of being lynched instead, and (b) weren't me. I paid careful attention to who was being affected by positional changes, though, just in case. Thgis game is somewhat different, as there is only the traditional one vote. I just dislike placing a vote on myself. What happens if I do that, then suddenly get a job and can't post during the week? We'd wind up with me voting for myself and unable to do anything about it. No, if you must vote early, vote someone you are suspicious of. But don't vote yourself unless you actually want to be lynched.
|
|