|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 4, 2007 11:48:13 GMT -5
Maybe they decided it wasn't worth it. The scum have no idea how many blocking type roles there were. If there's 1, they had a 50% chance, if there's 2 (which is entirely possible) then they had only a 25% chance. Maybe it's because I don't have a math mind, but I don't necessarily see how that follows. Maybe there is another bodyguard-type role out there, or a full-fledged Doc...what are the chances that they were both protecting two different people? I can only assume they can't communicate and plan out their Night targets. Quite true, and I think something we'd have to consider if one or both don't get nightkilled soon. Right now, I'm relatively certain that Diomedes is telling the truth. The jury is still out on wtf. Perhaps. I myself didn't have a read on zeriel one way or the other, so I think my premise is based on the fact that I don't see a case for zeriel being a good scum target. Having only played scum for one day, I don't really know too much about their night planning. Taking what panamajack said as truth, how do you figure? That, to me, is one of the most plausible outcomes of what happened last night, if we are to believe that the scum were responsible for zeriel's death. And this, to me, is another very plausible idea. But there's only a few people who know (or are relatively certain) that this is the case, and I don't think one of them should be Roosh. Yes, I am assuming the Vig exists. If I were scum, I'd think it would be worth it at this point to roll the dice on whether or not one of the power roles were protected, because a) they are more dangerous to me than an unknown, and b) killing an unknown gives a smaller pool in which I can hide. Obviously, your strategy differs. And I would also not use "they" to refer to someone who may or may not be an individual. I think it's the difference in mindset between an attorney approaching the game and a math guy approaching the game. I tend to focus more on the language that people use. One contains the presumption that more than one person was responsible for zeriel's death. It's as if Roosh didn't even consider the possibility that a Vig could have been involved.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Oct 4, 2007 11:53:59 GMT -5
Rawr. Post deleted 3x Fuck this. Me not able to sign on till 11pm. Me cannot do analysis at school. Thanks for chiming in, sorry I posted when issue was already covered. I like CatinaSuit AND Blastermaster's issues on thier people (not ST, but Db). Will look at more at home. @12am. Didn't like Drainbead's "they" issue. Felt really really petty esp. this stage of game. "Honestly, who throws a shoe???" Is how i feel on matter.
???Please post this up there???
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Oct 4, 2007 11:55:20 GMT -5
Maybe they decided it wasn't worth it. The scum have no idea how many blocking type roles there were. If there's 1, they had a 50% chance, if there's 2 (which is entirely possible) then they had only a 25% chance. Maybe it's because I don't have a math mind, but I don't necessarily see how that follows. Maybe there is another bodyguard-type role out there, or a full-fledged Doc...what are the chances that they were both protecting two different people? I can only assume they can't communicate and plan out their Night targets. Oh and on the 50%. I could have easily lied. Did I say 50%? I meant 33%. Or maybe 25% Or was it 66%. I forget so easily these days. Oh well. Only one way to find out. :pours white wine out for scum:
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 4, 2007 11:58:44 GMT -5
Did lemurs steal Roosh's wireless device?
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Oct 4, 2007 12:01:48 GMT -5
I Can log in in 10 min bursts. This is dumb.
But also point: Why would I want to mention a Vig if I suspect him in game? Best to leave Vig in Shadows if I believe he exists, and let him do what he does best.
And see who DOES mention Vig. Because Vig will not speak up to claim his kills. So If i state scum killed all kills, Vig isn't gonna go "Oh wait! No! I did that one! Me!"
I don't like talking about Vig. Rather assume Scum. If Vig. Then Vig had his own reasons and I cannot bother on that. Not trying to lynch the Vig. This is MAFIA. Roosh out.
hopefully this written in less than 7mins. Pleasework??? If not, I'mgonnaleaveanyways, this is my last post on issue and for now. Class calls. Peaceout.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 4, 2007 12:03:32 GMT -5
I think someone has just found a way to slow Roosh down.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Oct 4, 2007 12:28:55 GMT -5
I know I don't have a vote, but I don't want to leave my defense until I do. It looks strange to me when people don't acknowledge other people's suspicions. How would it look if I just let those posts lie unaddressed? You, Idle, and now Diomedes have all said recently that I am scum. I know I am not, but I can't really address those suspicions until I know what they specifically are. Idle posted his, and I answered. I'm getting defensive because there have been numerous smudges, but no votes against me, and I'm getting tired of the smudges. Back it up with a fucking vote or back off. And yeah, I consider your sig line to be a constant and continuous smudge.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 4, 2007 12:30:31 GMT -5
Now, Idle Thoughts was making the point that we could not keep backing off from people who were claiming names from Firefly. Cookies has applied this to dnooman who was the first to claim with a vanilla role. The problem is that I consider dnooman well cleared for reasons other than claiming a name within the FireFly universe. And if Cookies had had the same PM's as myself, Idle Thoughts and other vanilla crew members, she would know why he was cleared instead saying that some suspicion should be placed back on him. Right. That was me with a super-cool-ace-ninja-reverse-psychology move to pile onto dnooman . Let's revisit that statement, shall we? [I don't know if I'm remembering this reason as to why dnooman is less suspicious exactly right or not, so I'll admit that my memory is involved and slap a ? on the end] + [Anyway, I don't suspect him very much compared to the rest of of the pool of claimed people.] That's what him being somewhat "absolved of re-scrutiny" means in that sentence. Now you happen to be on the list of people who have name claimed with no counterclaim, and you've claimed to be vanilla. Welcome to the Pool of Scrutiny without the perk of being absolved. Yup, you're right we should revisit it. What you said is that should absolve him of re-scrutiny " A little bit". In other words you still are considering him to be possibly scum, as his name has not been counterclaimed and so he belongs in the Pool of Scrutiny with the rest of us. The problem is that dnooman was cleared for reasons completely apart from his name claim not because of it. So there was no reason to mention him in that context at all. Not to mention that dnooman was under some pressure when role-claimed for his own supposed slip. Oh and my only powers are those of deduction and the ability to make a really good coffee.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 4, 2007 12:31:09 GMT -5
And yeah, I consider your sig line to be a constant and continuous smudge. If the sig line is bothering you, look at the statements directly below the one smudging you and me - they're kind of funny, if you read them as a continuation rather than as their own entity.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 4, 2007 12:33:33 GMT -5
Hockey Monkey
My only reason for suspecting your scumminess was due to your call for lynching during day 1 followed by a lack of action towards the end of day 1.
If I run out of scum suspects, I will revisit it at some point, but there are others out there who look much scummier at the moment,
*cough*Cookies*cough*BlasterMaster*cough*
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Oct 4, 2007 12:39:44 GMT -5
And yeah, I consider your sig line to be a constant and continuous smudge. If the sig line is bothering you, look at the statements directly below the one smudging you and me - they're kind of funny, if you read them as a continuation rather than as their own entity. To me they look like separate thoughts. If I were scum, I would probably sit back and laugh at it, but I am not and I don't want to be lynched because everybody sublimates the idea that I am scum. If I am going to be accused, I want to be able to defend.
|
|
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:
|
Post by Death By Irony on Oct 4, 2007 12:41:52 GMT -5
Hey, all. As I mentioned in the going away thread, I've joined the world of employment, so I spent most of this morning catching up. But anyway, back to the game - and since it's page 2 already, I'm gonna jump feet first into going over my suspects list.
My suspicions for Idle Thoughts are on the back burner for now pending another re-read. Like I said before, most of my funny feelings for him center around metagamish reasons, so he's just got an unofficial Eyeball of Suspicion.
Storyteller and Blaster Master are just about equal in suspicion level, again with a little bit of metagaming. Neither of them sounded this...weird, for lack of a better term, even in Asylum Lane.
mtgman...hasn't posted enough to get a solid read on him. Right now the biggest point against him is when he jumped into the story/Mad feud on Day One. Hopefully he'll be more active in future days.
But the player who's gotten my most attention right now is drain bead. Her "me too" posts are looking less like coincidence and more like convenient bandwagoning. And there was the whole "why did such-and-so-die" thing that I don't like (and I saw what you did there, Roosh! Most uncool. +1 suspicion point!).
vote drain bead
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 4, 2007 12:43:28 GMT -5
So the other people dinging my scum-o-meter, before WTF inexplicably started voting like a total psycho, were Cookies, BLAM, Idle, and hockey, pretty much in that order. I'll start my day off with a vote for Cookies. There's something else jumping out at me too...I'm going to check on that and post again. And me because, why? Because you're my number one suspect? Heh. But you can take that argument (at least where I'm assuming you're going with that) and turn it around on the scum. Why would the scum go for zeriel when there are two claimed power roles out there? Wouldn't it be better to role the dice and try to knock off the bodyguard or watcher role, rather than go for a complete unknown? I'm confused over why you'd think this. Being a Host AND Scum before (and you should know this too being Scum before), they always seem to go after the people who you LEAST expect. Someone out of the way. Not the prominent ones. So why you're bringing this up and questioning it, I don't know. That's exactly the sort of thing scum would do, I think. I was hardly alone in my uncertainty was I? I didn't feel great about my one-off vote, but I didn't think zumachan was scum. I changed my mind on a position I had voiced earlier. If I had dropped the hammer on zumachan, you would be calling for my head over that. I wouldn't assume this because I think it's bad. Not even I know what I'd think unless it happened. How YOU have any idea what I'd think makes me wonder. Yeah, I can. I'll go look for it. The only way I won't be able to find it is if it was in those posts that were lost. But you did say something akin to: "Well we don't have time to jump on someone else and get them to claim". I even replied to that post saying "oh, yeah, let's all jump on as many people as we can and when they claim, we'll move on to someone else" rather sarcastically and you never replied to it. I did. Two things. In the same post. I don't know why you think that someone couldn't find those things suspicious. I feel they show you in a suspicious manner. Idle Thoughts - 4/5 CIAS - 4/5 drainbead - 4/5 pygmyrugger - 4/5 FCOD - 4/5 hockeymonkey - 4/5 greedysmurf - 3/5 storyteller - 3/5 BlasterMaster - 3/5 dnooman - 3/5 Roosh - 3/5 Where do you get your info from? I was on THREE, not four. I unvoted dnooman when he had only two votes on him. Roosh and I. I'd hardly call that a bandwagon. Deliberatly twisting things, I see. For instance, I find your hyper-defensiveness suspicious. Why are you so worried about being able to defend yourself when you're clearly not the number-one target of those expressing the most suspicion in you? Why are you so defensive when you don't even have a vote? And why are you attributing false bandwagons to people, hockey? You do that with Roosh too? He was voting for dnooman with me, but again, it was JUST him and I. Two people. Yeah, that's such a bandwagon. So if you did also account that as being one for him, I think he should just have TWO on that list then. And if you didn't..... ...then why didn't you him and yet, you did it to me (when there were just him and I on that "bandwagon")? (I can't remember all who he voted for and what "bandwagons" he was on, thus, I don't very well know if you included him on the " dnooman bandwagon" of us two or not)
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 4, 2007 12:45:15 GMT -5
By the way, I'm going to Vote Drainbead.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 4, 2007 12:49:14 GMT -5
Maybe it's because I don't have a math mind, but I don't necessarily see how that follows. Maybe there is another bodyguard-type role out there, or a full-fledged Doc...what are the chances that they were both protecting two different people? I can only assume they can't communicate and plan out their Night targets. Well, the point was, if they're "rolling the dice", certainly they'd have considered that it is likely that at least one protecting role was likely choosing between the claimed power roles. I won't bother to explain the numbers unless asked (since apparently people here don't like math) but the bottom line is, assuming they thought the protectors were protecting the power roles, they'd have also known they'd have had a low chance for success. Meanwhile, if they thought that, then the chance that any of them were self-protecting was much lower. Hence, my conclusion that they probably thought it wasn't worth it to go after them, especially since neither is particularly useful at this point, and hope to hit someone they had a bead on and, if he is a doctor-type, get him while he's protecting someone else. But that's exactly the point. Unless they start producing usable information, what harm are they doing to the scum? Meanwhile, we're left questioning their alignment, and some of us get trigger happy and do their work for them. OTOH, if they're scum, we can keep feeding them rope and they're bound to misstep eventually. The bottom line is, we can't allow the scum to control the thought of the town through what kills they select; otherwise, it's just that much more leverage they have over us. I will re-evaluate my stance on those roles if/when they screw up and/or the others of whom I'm suspicious are either exonerated, dead, or lacking traction. If you don't see a case for zeriel being a good scum target, and you have no read on him, why would you then guess he'd be a better Vig target? No... what I meant was the only evidence we have in favor of the Vig is that panamajack claimed to have been attacked at night. Other than that, we can easily explain the deaths on Night One and Two without a Vig. Including the Vig, makes things a lot more complicated because we then have to figure out where the other two kills went. IOW, I think it's reasonable to assume the Vig MAY exist, but I think it's VERY dangerous to assume he DOES exist. You seem to be pushing hard for the latter which, true or not, is helpful to scum because it hurts our ability to draw conclusions the the events of the Night. Further, as I previously stated, it stinks of PIS (Perfect Information Syndrome). So I'm confused, do you think the scum killed him or the Vig killed him? Right, he should have no way of knowing if he's telling the truth. But you haven't demonstrated in any believable way that he DOEs know anything. You keep pressing this point, but you're not acknowledge the argument that I, storyteller, and Roosh put forth to state how it is entirely likely (and in fact probable) that it is NOT a slip. First of all, it is well established, I think, that early scum strategy is generally to eliminate people who have power roles and that the "pool in which to hide" is of minimal concern. Look at it this way, only one person is virtually 100% confirmed and that's Mad with dnooman not too far behind him, everyone else is well in the air (some to more of a degree than others). That's a MASSIVE pool in which to hide. If their certainty that someone is a power role times their estimate on the kill succeeding is greater than the inverse of the number of unconfirmed, then the kill is reasonable. In zeriel's case, if I had a potential power role read off of him, it's reasonable to assume I'm not the only one who did including, especially, the scum. Consider also, as explained above, that he was VERY unlikely to be protected and compare that to the large pool of unknowns. It seems VERY reasonable in that context, doesn't it? No, it does not. This is a VERY common grammatical construction in English to mean precisely the opposite of what you claim. Further up, you said you wouldn't use "they", so what WOULD you use then?
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Oct 4, 2007 12:51:53 GMT -5
I was counting both votes AND unvotes. Just because you didn't stay on a bandwagon didn't mean you weren't on it, and just because you got off early, it's not a bandwagon? Where should I start counting what makes it a bandwagon?
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 4, 2007 13:13:07 GMT -5
If you don't see a case for zeriel being a good scum target, and you have no read on him, why would you then guess he'd be a better Vig target? Because other people's reads may differ. A Vig could have seen something that made him think that zeriel was flying-under-the-radar scum, just as scum could have had a power-role read on him. I'm not ruling anything out. See above about not ruling anything out. I'd lean toward scum, but I don't know for sure, and I'm suspicious of those who seem like they do. Roosh has explained his wording, and while I'm taking that explanation at face value, I don't buy it as much as I would have had he been the one to say it without you giving him the out by saying it first. I don't defend other people because I don't know they're town. I only trust myself, and a couple of roles that have been relatively well confirmed in my mind. Roosh is not one of those. Yes, just as it's likely that Cookies wasn't making a slip. But if I see something that I think might be a slip, I'm damn well going to point it out. Hell, I have Idle getting on me for being a follower, then when I am finally the first person to find something, it becomes the reason that three people vote for me. I don't particularly think my logic was bad or scummy. I just wanted to hear Roosh explain what he meant. Instead, I get YOU explaining what Roosh meant, which weirds me out a bit. Earlier you said it was poor grammar, and now you're saying it's very commonly used to mean the opposite of what I think it means? Buh?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 4, 2007 13:29:59 GMT -5
Earlier you said it was poor grammar, and now you're saying it's very commonly used to mean the opposite of what I think it means? Buh? "That's the man I was thinking of." is poor grammar, but is very commonly used nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 4, 2007 13:33:09 GMT -5
Earlier you said it was poor grammar, and now you're saying it's very commonly used to mean the opposite of what I think it means? Buh? "That's the man I was thinking of." is poor grammar, but is very commonly used nonetheless. ...as opposed to what, "That is the man of whom I was thinking?" What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 4, 2007 13:36:58 GMT -5
Because other people's reads may differ. A Vig could have seen something that made him think that zeriel was flying-under-the-radar scum, just as scum could have had a power-role read on him. I'm not ruling anything out. While that is possible, I simply don't think that's how a Vig would work if he's read up on how the role has been played in the past. The Vig has incredible power because he can generate large amounts of information, take out difficult scum, and do it all with few tells in game. So WHY would a scum go after someone who was largely unsuspected and would generate little information? The point is, it makes as little sense for the Vig to target him as you claim it does for the scum to do so. However, it DOES fit in with established scum behavior and, since I run on the theory that the scum are at least as smart as I am, if I picked up on potential power role tells, then it's fair to assume they probably did too. Either way, you've made no case to demonstrate why you think it's MORE likely that he was a Vig target and not a scum target. At the very least, based on what you said, he would be equally likely to be a target from either, but there's definite scum motivation to convince us it was the work of the scum OR there's extra scum knowledge because you're scum and didn't target him. I do not see any town motivation behind this behavior. I'm not ruling it out either, but I'm not going to make certain illogical assumptions. At this point, the evidence makes it hard to believe that the Vig targetted Zeriel or, to a lesser extent, that he even exists. Further, I'm not "defending" Roosh in this regard. I found his "slip" innocuous and I find your motivations behind pointing it out highly questionable. That is, I don't have to endorse Roosh to find an argument against him spurious; similarly, I don't have to endict him becuase I find an argument in favor of him spurious. In fact, the identity of the accused is immaterial except that it is opportunistic. Huh? That doesn't even make sense. There is plenty of stuff that is poor grammar, yet said repeatedly and understood. For instance, it is generally considered poor grammar to end a sentence with a preposition. Yet, plenty of people still use it and pretty much everyone still understands it. In this particular case, I consider it poor grammar and try to avoid using it (though I still do from time to time), but that doesn't mean I'm not familiar with it's meaning. This AGAIN stinks of opportunism... you're trying to create an inconsistency in my argument over word usage. Goodness gracious.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 4, 2007 13:37:08 GMT -5
"That's the man I was thinking of." is poor grammar, but is very commonly used nonetheless. ...as opposed to what, "That is the man of whom I was thinking?" What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Well, Blaster Master's point seems to be that while Roosh's use of "they" as a gender and number-ambiguous pronoun is not grammatically correct, it is common. You have objected to this statement. I'm pointing out that the two things - gramatically incorrectness and common usage - are not mutually exclusive. It is not correct to use "they" the way Roosh has here, but it is also not an uncommon error, and thus a pretty poor basis for suspicion.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 4, 2007 13:38:27 GMT -5
And I used the phrase "grammatically incorrectness" in my post about grammar, for which I will now have to go flagellate myself with a copy of Strunk & White. I'll be back.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 4, 2007 13:39:27 GMT -5
Well, Blaster Master's point seems to be that while Roosh's use of "they" as a gender and number-ambiguous pronoun is not grammatically correct, it is common. You have objected to this statement. I'm pointing out that the two things - gramatically incorrectness and common usage - are not mutually exclusive. It is not correct to use "they" the way Roosh has here, but it is also not an uncommon error, and thus a pretty poor basis for suspicion. Thank you. This is a more succinct way of making my point.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 4, 2007 13:42:34 GMT -5
Well, Blaster Master's point seems to be that while Roosh's use of "they" as a gender and number-ambiguous pronoun is not grammatically correct, it is common. You have objected to this statement. I'm pointing out that the two things - gramatically incorrectness and common usage - are not mutually exclusive. It is not correct to use "they" the way Roosh has here, but it is also not an uncommon error, and thus a pretty poor basis for suspicion. Thank you. This is a more succinct way of making my point. I understand what you mean now. Sorry for getting snippy. It's the copy editor in me.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 4, 2007 13:44:24 GMT -5
<clunk> <CatinaSuit hits the floor gibbering.....> They're agreeing.... They're agreeing.... They're agreeing.... </gibber>
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 4, 2007 14:27:53 GMT -5
Another thing I'd like some more explanation on is why PygmyRugger was the hammer vote two days running.
He, in fact, said he'd explain something at the end of yesterDay, when apologizing to Story for doing it:
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 4, 2007 15:16:23 GMT -5
I was counting both votes AND unvotes. Just because you didn't stay on a bandwagon didn't mean you weren't on it, and just because you got off early, it's not a bandwagon? Where should I start counting what makes it a bandwagon? I don't get your logic here. It seems twisted again. My definition of bandwagon is someone who has at least five or six votes against them already. Although it also has how many people are currently in the game wagered in. If someone votes for someone else, and they are the only ones doing so, and they later unvote said person...and then even LATER a whole mishmosh of others vote for said person, I would not say that the very first person to do so was on the "bandwagon". I actually think it would be wrong to say that and very misleading. Hence, more suspicion for you.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 4, 2007 16:00:43 GMT -5
Whew! Last night was rough! No more 32 oz gin and tonics for me for a looong, looong time!
First order of business:
Vote Cookies
If you need an explanation from me, you haven't been following the game.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 4, 2007 16:01:40 GMT -5
How's about a vote count?
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Oct 4, 2007 16:06:34 GMT -5
I was counting both votes AND unvotes. Just because you didn't stay on a bandwagon didn't mean you weren't on it, and just because you got off early, it's not a bandwagon? Where should I start counting what makes it a bandwagon? I don't get your logic here. It seems twisted again. My definition of bandwagon is someone who has at least five or six votes against them already. Although it also has how many people are currently in the game wagered in. If someone votes for someone else, and they are the only ones doing so, and they later unvote said person...and then even LATER a whole mishmosh of others vote for said person, I would not say that the very first person to do so was on the "bandwagon". I actually think it would be wrong to say that and very misleading. Hence, more suspicion for you. zumachan Post # Action Player Current Tally 205 vote Idle Thoughts 1 232 vote sinjin 2 363 unvote sinjin 1 473 unvote Idle Thoughts 0 836 vote Idle Thoughts 1 839 vote diomedes 2 984 vote roosh 3 989 vote hockeymonkey 4 991 vote catinasuit 5 993 vote cookies 6 996 vote madtheswine 7 1004 vote blastermaster 8 1006 vote pygmyrugger 9 1029 vote sinjin 10 1030 vote drainbead 11 1040 vote greedysmurf 12 1052 unvote hockeymonkey 11 1054 unvote cookies 10 1057 unvote diomedes 9 1069 unvote Idle Thoughts 8 1070 unvote pygmyrugger 7 1075 unvote drainbead 6 1076 unvote madtheswine 5 1135 vote diomedes 6 1147 unvote blastermaster 5 1167 vote cookies 6 1185 vote drainbead 7 1203 vote diggitcamara 8 1247 unvote greedysmurf 7 1260 unvote diomedes 6 1316 vote hal briston 7 1322 vote zeriel 8 1325 vote madtheswine 9 1330 vote fcod 10 1332 vote diomedes 11 1388 vote mtgman 12 1397 vote Idle Thoughts 13 1420 vote blastermaster 14 1442 vote pygmyrugger 14
CatInASuit Post # Action Player Current Tally 1066 vote atarus 1 1084 vote yattara 2 1086 vote pygmyrugger 3 1097 vote diomedes 4 1113 vote idle thoughts 5 1135 unvote diomedes 4 1147 vote blastermaster 5 1191 vote storyteller 6 1209 vote fcod 7 1252 vote hockeymonkey 8 1254 vote captainklutz 9 1260 vote diomedes 10 1265 vote zumachan 11 1269 vote dnooman 12 1292 vote panamajack 13 1309 unvote diomedes 12 1311 vote diomedes 13 1318 unvote zumachan 12 1323 unvote storyteller 11 1330 unvote fcod 10 1332 unvote diomedes 9 1337 unvote panamajack 8 1338 vote panamajack 9 1339 unvote atarus 8 1357 unvote hockeymonkey 7 1358 unvote dnooman 6 1397 unvote idle thoughts 5 1420 unvote blastermaster 4 1442 unvote pygmyrugger 3
Roosh Post # Action Player Current Tally 54 vote idle thoughts 1 96 vote blastermaster 2 157 vote storyteller 3 205 unvote idle thoughts 2 283 vote zeriel 3 350 vote drainbead 4 363 vote sinjin 5 364 vote dnooman 6 365 vote hal briston 7 382 unvote storyteller 6 566 vote cookies 7 598 vote catinasuit 8 605 unvote catinasuit 7 610 unvote zeriel 6 633 unvote drainbead 5 637 unvote hal briston 4 660 unvote cookies 3 723 unvote sinjin 2 911 unvote dnooman 1 1004 unvote blastermaster 0
dnooman Post # Action Player Current Tally 100 vote fcod 1 312 vote drainbead 2 350 unvote drainbead 1 354 vote greedysmurf 2 355 unvote greedysmurf 1 355 vote hockeymonkey 2 366 vote zumachan 3 447 vote captainklutz 4 452 vote pygmyrugger 5 455 vote panamajack 6 458 vote roosh 7 485 vote catinasuit 8 519 unvote hockeymonkey 7 522 unvote fcod 6 527 unvote zumachan 5 541 unvote panamajack 4 542 unvote roosh 3 574 unvote captainklutz 2 593 vote roosh 3 598 unvote catinasuit 2 638 unvote pygmyrugger 1 643 vote idle thoughts 2 644 unvote roosh 1 653 unvote idle thoughts 0
MadTheSwine Post # Action Player Current Tally 382 vote storyteller 1 424 vote atarus 2 512 vote greedysmurf 3 522 vote fcod 4 633 vote drainbead 5 661 unvote drainbead 4 753 vote catinasuit 5 763 vote drainbead 6 769 unvote drainbead 5 788 unvote storyteller 4 823 vote hockeymonkey 5 896 unvote greedysmurf 4 909 vote roosh 5 911 vote dnooman 6 931 unvote hockeymonkey 5 940 vote drainbead 6 960 unvote catinasuit 5 969 unvote drainbead 4 984 unvote roosh 3 1006 vote pygmyrugger 4 1006 unvote pygmyrugger 3 1017 unvote atarus 2 1061 unvote dnooman 1 1077 unvote fcod 0 |
By your own definition: I was on CatInASuit's at vote #8, and was vote #5 on MadTheSwines. You got on zumachan's at vote # 13, and CatInASuit at vote #5. So what's your beef about me and bandwagons? Seems we've got an equal amount.
|
|