|
Day 1
Feb 25, 2010 18:37:49 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Feb 25, 2010 18:37:49 GMT -5
Perhaps you can see it that way, but it isn't my aim to equip scum with anything. I don't like any strategies that limit my options to play as I feel is in Town's best interest. PedeMod has given us a tool, Borda voting, and while that tool can be useful to scum it can also be used by Town. Pede is a good mod, he wouldn't include a voting system that heavily favors scum and risk unbalancing his game. There are ways to use Borda to our advantage. And I think it is telling that he has decided to no longer require three votes in order for a vote to count. I agree that simply disagreeing with the majority or having a different opinion in itself is not scummy. But you do have to ask, "could there be a possible scum motivation in what they are advocating?" I am also in favor of using the Borda system in the way I feel is most fruitful. I just have not seen any case made that it would be more fruitful for players to place multiple votes than to simply place one 3 point vote. I understand the paranoia. Obviously, there was an element of that in my perception of your post. I did realize that it might look like I was just trying to lay suspicion on you and let someone else take off with it. I considered voting you simply so that wouldn't be a consideration. (Well, obviously I could still be trying to start a bandwagon on you, but I wouldn't be trying to dodge responsibility for it). In the end, though, I decided that your post didn't rise to the level that would normally get a vote from me so I didn't cast it. I may still have to cast a vote for you yet, though. I don't really have a case on anyone else, and I feel it is anti-Town not to vote. At this point, though, it would simply be a vote for the least bad choice, not a strong call for a lynch. I realize that if there are town that believe I am wrong, then the scum will just let them do their thing and draw the heat. That is part of what makes it so frustrating for me. We are not coming into this blind. There has been a game with a Borda count where three votes were required. It is the consensus opinion of the players in that game that it was something that definitely favored scum. It would seem to me that we would want to avoid that. I have also tried to think of situations where it would be to Town's benefit to have players casting multiple votes and I cannot think of anything where scum would not benefit more. Now, I am not saying I cannot be wrong, but I would like to see someone make a specific case for when it would be to Town's benefit to have players casting multiple votes.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Feb 25, 2010 18:56:49 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Feb 25, 2010 18:56:49 GMT -5
I don't know that this hypothetical-on-top-of-hypothetical discussion is useful, but I would not have voted for him just for such a proposal alone. It is early in the game and people are still getting their heads around things. It could be a data point towards a larger case, though. That thought frankly crossed my mind. It does clue me in, however, on how patient one needs to be with the game.
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 25, 2010 19:10:30 GMT -5
Post by special on Feb 25, 2010 19:10:30 GMT -5
I do believe that everyone casting but one vote is probably the best course of action. It keeps the Scum ability to manipulate the vote to what we are used to. I don't see anything scummy in Dirx, he suggested casting 3rd place votes. It's academic which votes we cast. If we all cast the same level of votes, they're all equivalent. Now, granted Scum can swoop in and change the vote quickly with 1st level votes. I welcome that But, I'm a realist. I know people won't agree to limit themselves to just one vote. Some people will find more reasons to vote (and that doesn't make them scummy just impatient or maybe self-important) And the odds of them being Scum probably aren't all that great. (I really have no idea how probable to be honest, that's the problem)
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 25, 2010 19:11:23 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Feb 25, 2010 19:11:23 GMT -5
well the thing is a mandatory borda is pro scum. this is the first time i have seen a kind of optional borda so probably in the overall scheme of things makes it more even.
but i don't like the idea of one vote = one vote per dirx. that's bad policy, not that i would ever follow policy anyways.
and fluid if i mischaracterized then you are right, off line is the way to go.
i was just trying to get out the hold no grudges speech that is typically done by those more eloquent than i.
vote 1st place fluid
i keed, i keed.
unovte 1st place fluid
crud, at least wanted to get a vote down.
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 25, 2010 19:36:00 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Feb 25, 2010 19:36:00 GMT -5
I didn't actually propose placing only 1pt votes, I just used that as an example of "if we agreed to generally stick to X, but someone suddenly does Y..."
I do kinda like the idea of sticking to one vote, but haven't decided what level vote I think would be best. I'm also not so sure the one-vote idea should be strictly adhered to. While borda is new to me, questioning the motives behind votes isn't. If someone places extra votes, they just get looked at more closely. Simple. It encourages players to have good, solid reasons for placing those votes, and reduces the chances of scum throwing out additional votes "for the hell of it" or as minor FOS votes to secretly muck up the tallies.
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 25, 2010 19:38:57 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Feb 25, 2010 19:38:57 GMT -5
I would like someone to show me a specific example where it would be in town's best interest to have any or all players placing multiple votes. I realize any example at this point would be hypothetical, but I would like to see an example with actual numbers of town and scum. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I see no situation in which we wouldn't be better off with each player just voting once. Well first I have to say, nearing the end, lets say for hypothetical reasons you are highly suspicious of 2 people, and as it turns out they are the last 2 scum, by placing even a 2nd place vote, makes the person nervous and the more nervous they are the more chance they may make a slip. Why? Cause they now know your onto them. So in that hypothetical situation it is good to place a 2nd place or a 3rd place vote. The 2nd thing is, lets be honest here, how often do we really have a single unanimous vote for one person? So if we have all 1 place votes but spread out across many players then with out even all number one voting someone they can force a lynch. Especially when we can not even come to a agreement on whether we should all only vote one time or more. So a player excersising there right to place a 2nd vote, does not solely mean in my opinion they are scum. After all like it or not, that is part of having a borda vote system. It is why I do agree with what others have said, we will never get an agreement on restricting votes, nor do I think it is good because it leaves an open door just as much for biting us in the end. So to me I think it is best to examine each vote we do choose to make and see if there is good cause for said vote. So another words since we do not have to place 2 or 3 votes, when we do, it is not just for the sake of making it but for valid and good reasons. Atleast this is just my thinking here. Maybe I am wrong or I maybe right but this is just my thinking. Shaggy, thanks for letting me see your thinking. I still find the actual examples less than convincing, but it does give me some insight into how others might view it as a good idea. It is my opinion, though, that any benefit that Town may get from multiple votes is more than offset by the scum being able to vote multiple times. They can game the vote even more subtly, and hide what they are doing easier (though it would be not as bad in this game, since they are not required to place three votes and so it should make it easier to hold them accountable than when it was required).
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 25, 2010 19:59:24 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Feb 25, 2010 19:59:24 GMT -5
True, but some topics are more fruitful than others. Not all conversation is created equal. I'm not going to argue that point, no. On the other hand, sometimes an offhand comment on a less-fruitful topic is exactly the tell that someone was looking for. I'm just saying. Talking is good for us. Silence helps Scum. 1. confusedled 2. policy kind of statment 3. kind of something about strategy discussion 4. this. hmmm. who is looking marginally participatory and not really saying squat?
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 25, 2010 20:04:29 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Feb 25, 2010 20:04:29 GMT -5
because here is where i will definitely consider a policy vote. first for whom i think the scummiest, second for a durn clean noser (patent pending via sach) and third for a lurker.
not that i will do that blindly, however. and not that that is where i will land ultimately.
second vote on siscoyote if you please mr. mod.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Feb 25, 2010 20:24:58 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 25, 2010 20:24:58 GMT -5
Vote Count: Peeker: 1. 2. Sis Coyote 3.
Sis Coyote(2): peeker
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 25, 2010 21:19:30 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 25, 2010 21:19:30 GMT -5
Oh, for God's sake, peek.
Weak. Even for Day One. And I am still a little confused. But whatevs
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 25, 2010 22:14:07 GMT -5
Post by special on Feb 25, 2010 22:14:07 GMT -5
Oh, for God's sake, peek. Weak. Even for Day One. And I am still a little confused. But whatevs what are you confused about still?
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 0:06:20 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Feb 26, 2010 0:06:20 GMT -5
I thought peeker's vote was rather weak. Then I realized that I don't really have anyone that I am all that keen to place a vote on, and there is less than two days left in the Day. I imagine there will come a flood of votes tomorrow for all sorts of weak reasons (since I don't really see anything that is going to draw a lot of votes). Which will lead to a late claim. I am not sure how much internet access I will have on Saturday. I would rather get the ball rolling sooner rather than later.
I am going to go ahead and vote:
1st vote (3 points) for paulwhoisaghost
I know it is a rather weak case, but I don't have anything better and want to get a vote down.
I certainly cannot blame anyone for voting a lurker or any other policy vote at this point though.
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 0:51:46 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Feb 26, 2010 0:51:46 GMT -5
I think it's a bit early in the Day to be calling people lurkers. And what makes SisC a cleannoser compared to the rest of the posters, Peeker?
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 1:04:47 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 26, 2010 1:04:47 GMT -5
I do believe that everyone casting but one vote is probably the best course of action. It keeps the Scum ability to manipulate the vote to what we are used to. I don't see anything scummy in Dirx, he suggested casting 3rd place votes. It's academic which votes we cast. If we all cast the same level of votes, they're all equivalent. Now, granted Scum can swoop in and change the vote quickly with 1st level votes. I welcome that But, I'm a realist. I know people won't agree to limit themselves to just one vote. Some people will find more reasons to vote (and that doesn't make them scummy just impatient or maybe self-important) And the odds of them being Scum probably aren't all that great. (I really have no idea how probable to be honest, that's the problem) You might welcome a scum risking the exposure in the early game, but later? I think not. And if you're not going to try to enforce a "place only 1pt vote" policy consistently all the way through, why bother because I doubt everyone will agree about when it does become acceptable. We've been down this road before. Policy, if not universal, just defers the hard part until later in the game, which doesn't necessarily make it more potentially damaging to scum, or to the town, but there will be very likely be a fractioning of town at some point in all cases of self-imposed policy voting.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 2:16:04 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Feb 26, 2010 2:16:04 GMT -5
In which the entire game begins a downward spiral, making votes on no reason at all.
Which then fuels others to vote for the people voting on no reason at all.
Which then draws it's own heat in time.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 2:46:47 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Feb 26, 2010 2:46:47 GMT -5
I thought peeker's vote was rather weak. Then I realized that I don't really have anyone that I am all that keen to place a vote on, and there is less than two days left in the Day. I imagine there will come a flood of votes tomorrow for all sorts of weak reasons (since I don't really see anything that is going to draw a lot of votes). Which will lead to a late claim. I am not sure how much internet access I will have on Saturday. I would rather get the ball rolling sooner rather than later. I am going to go ahead and vote: [][]1st vote (3 points) for paulwhoisaghost[][] I know it is a rather weak case, but I don't have anything better and want to get a vote down.I certainly cannot blame anyone for voting a lurker or any other policy vote at this point though. Bolding / size mine. I don't see a case at all here, Mental. Yet, you imply that all votes should have reasons. You state that there will be a flood votes tomorrow for all sorts of weak reasons. Interesting that you would like those votes to have reasons, but not your own. I wonder if you have scum motivation [My kingdom if I could have know that phrase before we started this game.] on 1. Voting this early 2. Voting without reason, 3. Claiming to be away from internet 4. Wanting to force a claim already 5. Wanting to ""get the ball rolling"". -- Is vote mongering a term? It is indeed a weak case, and I think I think I have a better one, and we all need to get a vote down. I think there are some solid questions here, but I don't think Town could make a 3 point vote on Day 1. - I just don't see where the confidence comes from. Despite my previous post, let me try this on for size, and get in here on all of this action. Two point vote for MentalAt least Peeker had a reason. Two points, simply because I don't have that much to go on, but I think there needs to be a considerable response to your vote. Hence I rule out 3 and 1.
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 7:45:48 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Feb 26, 2010 7:45:48 GMT -5
I think it's a bit early in the Day to be calling people lurkers. And what makes SisC a cleannoser compared to the rest of the posters, Peeker? well i looked at her posts. four at the time i cast my vote. i summarized them in my own fashion. four votes does not make one a heavy poster, doesn't make one a non participant and is kind of above the threshhold of lurker. so number wise kind of middle of the pack. but very little content in those posts. ipso, clean noser. and this stuff about it being Day one so blather blather blather. i'll be the first to admit is it a great case, probably not. but is it something, yes. so feel free to agree or disagree as you see fit. and regarding policy. i think universal policy is about like herding cats in this game. probably not going to happen unless it is lynch all liars. however, individual policy i don't have a problem with and actually i think kind of helpful. a player kind of outlines their thought process and the actions that will result. then if during the game they start acting in contrast to said policy it becomes a place to focus attention. for instance i tend to go ltl on Days two to four. now does this mean that i believe everyone should follow this policy. you betcha it does. but does it mean that i think they are scummy because they don't, not a bit. so that's why i tried to outline at a thirty thousand foot level how i would be considering placing my votes for this game. so you may not agree with my decision but at least you can hold me accountible to it.
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 7:59:02 GMT -5
Post by special on Feb 26, 2010 7:59:02 GMT -5
I do believe that everyone casting but one vote is probably the best course of action. It keeps the Scum ability to manipulate the vote to what we are used to. I don't see anything scummy in Dirx, he suggested casting 3rd place votes. It's academic which votes we cast. If we all cast the same level of votes, they're all equivalent. Now, granted Scum can swoop in and change the vote quickly with 1st level votes. I welcome that But, I'm a realist. I know people won't agree to limit themselves to just one vote. Some people will find more reasons to vote (and that doesn't make them scummy just impatient or maybe self-important) And the odds of them being Scum probably aren't all that great. (I really have no idea how probable to be honest, that's the problem) You might welcome a scum risking the exposure in the early game, but later? I think not. And if you're not going to try to enforce a "place only 1pt vote" policy consistently all the way through, why bother because I doubt everyone will agree about when it does become acceptable. We've been down this road before. Policy, if not universal, just defers the hard part until later in the game, which doesn't necessarily make it more potentially damaging to scum, or to the town, but there will be very likely be a fractioning of town at some point in all cases of self-imposed policy voting. Your points are valid, if I was advocating breaking from the policy later in the game, but I'm not. Later in the game, casting multiple votes becomes much more powerful for Scum. However, I agree that we won't get everyone to agree on a policy, even if it is apparently pro-Town to most players.
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 8:03:06 GMT -5
Post by special on Feb 26, 2010 8:03:06 GMT -5
I think it's a bit early in the Day to be calling people lurkers. And what makes SisC a cleannoser compared to the rest of the posters, Peeker? well i looked at her posts. four at the time i cast my vote. i summarized them in my own fashion. four votes does not make one a heavy poster, doesn't make one a non participant and is kind of above the threshhold of lurker. so number wise kind of middle of the pack. but very little content in those posts. ipso, clean noser. and this stuff about it being Day one so blather blather blather. i'll be the first to admit is it a great case, probably not. but is it something, yes. so feel free to agree or disagree as you see fit. and regarding policy. i think universal policy is about like herding cats in this game. probably not going to happen unless it is lynch all liars. however, individual policy i don't have a problem with and actually i think kind of helpful. a player kind of outlines their thought process and the actions that will result. then if during the game they start acting in contrast to said policy it becomes a place to focus attention. for instance i tend to go ltl on Days two to four. now does this mean that i believe everyone should follow this policy. you betcha it does. but does it mean that i think they are scummy because they don't, not a bit. so that's why i tried to outline at a thirty thousand foot level how i would be considering placing my votes for this game. so you may not agree with my decision but at least you can hold me accountible to it. I was going to comment on how you'd changed from your usual lynch the lurker stance, but then you explained it. I'm still not satisfied with your vote, but that's not a scum tell
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 8:50:12 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Feb 26, 2010 8:50:12 GMT -5
I would like someone to show me a specific example where it would be in town's best interest to have any or all players placing multiple votes. I realize any example at this point would be hypothetical, but I would like to see an example with actual numbers of town and scum. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I see no situation in which we wouldn't be better off with each player just voting once. A specific hypothetical example - a cop gets lucky and finds 3 scum. The cop reveals the information, and votes for all three, in the order they think they should be killed off. A second hypothetical example - who says only one person gets lynched each day - or that there is no mechanic that allows the lynch leader to dodge and it to go to the second place player. Towns primary weapon is the vote.
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 9:43:36 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 26, 2010 9:43:36 GMT -5
Bolding / size mine. I don't see a case at all here, Mental. Yet, you imply that all votes should have reasons. You state that there will be a flood votes tomorrow for all sorts of weak reasons. Interesting that you would like those votes to have reasons, but not your own. I wonder if you have scum motivation [My kingdom if I could have know that phrase before we started this game.] on 1. Voting this early 2. Voting without reason, 3. Claiming to be away from internet 4. Wanting to force a claim already 5. Wanting to ""get the ball rolling"". -- Is vote mongering a term? It is indeed a weak case, and I think I think I have a better one, and we all need to get a vote down. I think there are some solid questions here, but I don't think Town could make a 3 point vote on Day 1. - I just don't see where the confidence comes from. Despite my previous post, let me try this on for size, and get in here on all of this action. A few questions about your play meeko: If you can't see a scum motivation in his actions meeko, why are you voting for him? Where did you get #4 from? I disagree that this is an early vote (It's halfway through the day). How is getting the ball rolling on casting votes, scummy?
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 9:48:37 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Feb 26, 2010 9:48:37 GMT -5
I thought peeker's vote was rather weak. Then I realized that I don't really have anyone that I am all that keen to place a vote on, and there is less than two days left in the Day. I imagine there will come a flood of votes tomorrow for all sorts of weak reasons (since I don't really see anything that is going to draw a lot of votes). Which will lead to a late claim. I am not sure how much internet access I will have on Saturday. I would rather get the ball rolling sooner rather than later. I am going to go ahead and vote: [][]1st vote (3 points) for paulwhoisaghost[][] I know it is a rather weak case, but I don't have anything better and want to get a vote down.I certainly cannot blame anyone for voting a lurker or any other policy vote at this point though. Bolding / size mine. I don't see a case at all here, Mental. Yet, you imply that all votes should have reasons. You state that there will be a flood votes tomorrow for all sorts of weak reasons. Interesting that you would like those votes to have reasons, but not your own. I wonder if you have scum motivation [My kingdom if I could have know that phrase before we started this game.] on 1. Voting this early 2. Voting without reason, 3. Claiming to be away from internet 4. Wanting to force a claim already 5. Wanting to ""get the ball rolling"". -- Is vote mongering a term? It is indeed a weak case, and I think I think I have a better one, and we all need to get a vote down. I think there are some solid questions here, but I don't think Town could make a 3 point vote on Day 1. - I just don't see where the confidence comes from. Despite my previous post, let me try this on for size, and get in here on all of this action. Two point vote for MentalAt least Peeker had a reason. Two points, simply because I don't have that much to go on, but I think there needs to be a considerable response to your vote. Hence I rule out 3 and 1. I apologize for not really stating my case in that post. What little case I had was made in post 80. It is mainly that it looks like paul could be setting scum up to get by with anti-Town play. I stated that people would be voting for all sorts of weak reasons, I did not say I faulted them for this. I believe weak reasons are all we have right now. As far as your five points: 1. I don't consider less than two days left in the Day to be early. 2. I did have a reason, it may not be a strong reason, but it was there. 3. My son has his district academic team tournament on Saturday. I will not be at home, and will not be able to use the internet during the tournament. I will probably be able to get online some in the morning. The afternoon will just depend on how late the tournament goes, which is out of my control. It is scheduled to end in time, but I have had enough experience to know there are always overtime matches, non-working buzzers that have to be replaced, etc. It is very likely I will not be able to be on before end of Day. 4. I do not necessarily want to force a claim, but I think one is inevitable. If it is the person I am voting for who winds up claiming, then I would like for it to happen in time for me to change my vote if I feel it is the best thing to do. I realize it could then move to my next vote recipient, but there are some things that are out of my control. 5. In getting the ball rolling, I meant that I wanted players to start casting votes and responding to them. I have already stated that I intend to have one single three point vote at any time because I feel that if everyone were to do that, the scum would have the least ability to game the vote. I don't see what the fact that I made a three point vote instead of a two point vote really has to do with anything if I am only going to make one vote anyway. If that is the player I would most like to have lynched, why would I not make it a three point vote?
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 9:57:38 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 26, 2010 9:57:38 GMT -5
>< Is it possible to make it so that you don't see someone's posts? I think I might benefit from just not reading Meeko's. Meeko, do you have Asperger's? I only ask because you didn't seem to understand anything Cookies was saying, while I understood everything she was saying. I mean, she said she would eat her hoodie and it confused the shit out of you. Seriously, what exactly was the point of this post, especially the first paragraph? It's tangentially game related, and it looks a lot like baiting to me. (Which has been shown to be a valid scum strategy in other games). Vote: paulwhoisaghost (3 points)
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 10:31:28 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Feb 26, 2010 10:31:28 GMT -5
I would like someone to show me a specific example where it would be in town's best interest to have any or all players placing multiple votes. I realize any example at this point would be hypothetical, but I would like to see an example with actual numbers of town and scum. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I see no situation in which we wouldn't be better off with each player just voting once. A specific hypothetical example - a cop gets lucky and finds 3 scum. The cop reveals the information, and votes for all three, in the order they think they should be killed off. A second hypothetical example - who says only one person gets lynched each day - or that there is no mechanic that allows the lynch leader to dodge and it to go to the second place player. Towns primary weapon is the vote. In your first example, I agree that it would not really harm anything for the cop to place three votes in that case, but I also don't see it as necessary since with three revealed scum, the scum would not really be able to game the vote anyway. In the specific example of your second case, I believe it would still be best for each player to just cast one vote. That said, it did get me thinking. There is a possibility the mod included powers that are contingent on the player either gathering or casting 2nd or 3rd place votes. I doubt this is the case, but I will admit it is a possibility.
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 10:34:26 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Feb 26, 2010 10:34:26 GMT -5
I meant to add on that last post, that I agree the Town's primary weapon is there vote. My concern is that by allowing multiple votes of different values you are diluting the power of that weapon.
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 11:26:47 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on Feb 26, 2010 11:26:47 GMT -5
I thought peeker's vote was rather weak. Then I realized that I don't really have anyone that I am all that keen to place a vote on, and there is less than two days left in the Day. I imagine there will come a flood of votes tomorrow for all sorts of weak reasons (since I don't really see anything that is going to draw a lot of votes). Which will lead to a late claim. I am not sure how much internet access I will have on Saturday. I would rather get the ball rolling sooner rather than later. I am going to go ahead and vote: 1st vote (3 points) for paulwhoisaghostI know it is a rather weak case, but I don't have anything better and want to get a vote down. I certainly cannot blame anyone for voting a lurker or any other policy vote at this point though. a weak case? I am not seeing a case at all. Please could you reiterate what your case is here? in the mean time 2pt vote on mentalguy
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 11:26:58 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 26, 2010 11:26:58 GMT -5
Vote Count: Peeker 1., 2. Sis Coyote, 3. Mentalguy 1. paulwhoisaghost, 2., 3. Meeko 1. paulwhoisaghost, 2., 3. Redskeezix 1. paulwho..., 2., 3. Luvbfwc 1., 2. mentalguy, 3.
Paulwhoisaghost (9): Mentalguy, Meeko, Redskeezix Mentalguy(2): luvbfwc Sis Coyote(2): peeker
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 11:30:40 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 26, 2010 11:30:40 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px;"> <font style="font-size: 12px;">I meant to add on that last post, that I agree the Town's primary weapon is there vote. My concern is that by allowing multiple votes of different values you are diluting the power of that weapon. I'm not sure how b follows from a, in this comment. But I'll get there. I'm not ready to vote yet, but I'm bothered both by paul's swipe at Meeko (remember the game where Ed and Meeko were both Scum, and tried to use an argument to give one or the other or both Town cred?) and by mentalguy's vote without reason oh wait I gave a reason you just didn't see it.
|
|
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 11:31:05 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on Feb 26, 2010 11:31:05 GMT -5
doesnt Meeko have a 2 pt'er on mental?
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Feb 26, 2010 11:34:17 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Feb 26, 2010 11:34:17 GMT -5
Pede, I don't follow your counting.
I made a 2 point vote on Mental, as did Luv.
I don't see how Red can therefore have a 5 point vote.
|
|