xkcd

by **roband** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:05 pm UTC

This is a little mod-note to say thank you to you all for actually posting well in a turbo!
Keep it up

Oh, and I forgot to say, 11 players = 6 to lynch.

by **Chandani** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:11 pm UTC

I had a post, but I lost it.

Zid, I don't find anything wrong with your spacing.
I guess there's a vig out there, since a SK wouldn't fit the theme?

I'm tired, and I'm going somewhere for a test. Sadly, my brain isn't working, so I can't post anything more. (This doesn't bode well for the test....)
So it won't surprise you that the current discussion over Mav is confusing me.

I can't do anything more. Loud voices are giving me a headache (and no, it's not that).

by **Zid** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

just had to quickly research the difference between Vig and SK as I thought they were synonyms, although I guess Chandani could be right when taking flavour into account.

by **ForAllOfThis** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:53 pm UTC

Didn't realise the day had re-started (have been absent from my computer). I'm inclined to agree anyone who didn't vote for m_p is looking dangerously scummy.

Top of my list at the moment is Weeks. Looking over the posts Weeks re-iterated "Read the damn thread/posts before you post" so many times to m_p it seemed like Weeks was getting really annoyed, and partially trying to help m_p get out of his hole by shouting advice down to him. One possible reason for this source of irritation would be that Weeks is scum with m_p. Weeks also did lots and lots of attacking on m_p but didn't follow through with a vote, an attempt in my books to look like town by joining their side but not placing a vote down incase m_p could get out of the situation somehow.

FoS: Weeks

Mav is probably next, only because I'm use to her playing a lot more aggressively when town. However, Mav knows this so may have toned down her pro-towniness so she's not getting killed N1 in every game shes not scum.

Finally, Wei's early FoS today of cjdrum I am finding a little strange. It seemed to me that cj was one of the main protagonists of voting off m_p, so seems unlikely to be scum (could be a gambit though). I do however think scum might try to captialise on cj & mpolos exhange from D1, by killing mpolo. For that reason:

FoS: Weiyaoli

by **weiyaoli** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:15 pm UTC

Well to be fair, I didn't vote for more_people because at the time I was online, he had two votes, one of which was from cjdrum for using plural pronouns. He wasn't exactly the scummiest person around. I would have voted for cjdrum instead, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't really want to read too much into the exchange between cjdrum and more_people. With a game where there are moles and such around, I don't think saying he wouldn't have pushed a lynch on more_people if he was scum is a good thing to do.

And additionally, my only reason for fos-ing (hence not a vote) cjdrum was mpolo voting for him. I'm really at a loss how they would have been able to kill mpolo after D1, especially since mpolo attracted some negative attention for this whole back and forth with cjdrum and so unless like I stated above they had a day cop of some kind to find moles specifically, and then followed it up with a NK (Which seems slightly unbalanced to me unless town could do the same) it could have been something to do with cjdrum. The other possibilty is of course that the scum mass-claimed in nightchat and then killed the false claim by luck or other factors to decide, but I just think that that would have achieved the same effect as everyone mass-claiming in this main thread and probably would have been banned in some way.

Zid wrote:Reading this from the newest post (D2 flavour) downwards, here are my thoughts:

Well damn, we got French.. and he was the roleblocker. What this means to me is that I am now suspicious of anyone who did not vote for him by default, if mafia chose to bus, they wouldn't have done it with their roleblocker... unless they have more than one to counteract the mole element? I don't think this is likely.

Scum don't get specific roles in every game, so they didn't necessarily know more_people was the roleblocker. I mean, with moles present in the game, I doubt they were given rolenames of the other scum either.

by **weiyaoli** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

EBWOP:

Just realized that the last sentence was phrased badly, hopefully this is a clearer way:

"The scum don't always get the roles and rolenames of other scum in their role PM. It is also entirely possible that they just got a list of players X,Y and Z who were their scum buddies and not roles and/or rolenames. I don't think they would have included rolenames because there are moles. Therefore as there was no N0 and scum could have had no opportunity to chat unless they had daychat (unlikely I would say though) they didn't necessarily know that more_people was a roleblocker"

by **Wooy`** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:09 pm UTC

I don't think not voting for someone is really that good of a reason for omg-heavy suspicion. I purposefully did not vote for him, because he had enough votes for deadline. I did not want to end the day prematurely (all it takes is people going "Oh I got ninja'd!" or "I didn't count the votes.") And yes, I didn't want to be seen just taking the easy vote.

VZ's argument of mav "you're so good, scum should have killed you. They did not, ergo you are scum" is ridiculous. Of course the scum could just leave mav alive, because someone would pull this line of reasoning. As likely as mav is going to be scum because they aren't dead, VZ is likely to be scum just so they could pull this off.

by **Weeks** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:23 pm UTC

Guys, you're doing it wrong. When Zid says you are suspicious because you didn't vote, you respond with:

Zid wrote:lol

by **Gopher of Pern** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:49 pm UTC

Zid wrote:lol

Did I do it right?

The three-way between VZ, Weeks and Mav is very confusing, but I would bet one of them is mafia.

Weiyaoli, so you think the reason for mpolos death was that cjdrum wanted revenge for a vote? and thats enough suspicion on cjdrum?

by **weiyaoli** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:09 pm UTC

I'll admit it sounds farfetched, but that was my logic for the fos.

by **Chandani** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:24 pm UTC

Now I can think! YAY!

Wei: I don't think that your FOS has much to it. I doubt that cjdrum would be able to convince his scummates to kill off mpolo because of his one vote. Unless you're telling me that cjdrum has a separate kill that he was able to use. Which doesn't make that much sense.

Also, it's possible that mpolo wasn't in the nightchat and thus the kill was total luck. I kind of think that's unlikely, though, just percentage wise.

Got to go.

by **PhoenixEnigma** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:07 pm UTC

Wooy` more or less summed up a lot of my thoughts, particularly in regards to the "Gee Willikers you didn't vote them you are so so so scummy" thing. I don't get it - if there were voters #7 and 8, we'd be looking at them suspiciously for hopping on a bandwagon that'd already left town as a way to get townie-points, and people are suggesting that players who opted out of being in that position, with no loss, are scummy? I dunnot get it.

There's a couple players that I don't really have a great feeling about, but at this point I don't have anything to back that up, and I'd rather not throw baseless accusations about. Time to grab some coffee and see if I'm imagining things or not.

by **Zid** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:42 pm UTC

weiyaoli wrote:EBWOP:

Just realized that the last sentence was phrased badly, hopefully this is a clearer way:

"The scum don't always get the roles and rolenames of other scum in their role PM. It is also entirely possible that they just got a list of players X,Y and Z who were their scum buddies and not roles and/or rolenames. I don't think they would have included rolenames because there are moles. Therefore as there was no N0 and scum could have had no opportunity to chat unless they had daychat (unlikely I would say though) they didn't necessarily know that more_people was a roleblocker"

s'ok I got what you meant in the first draft. It's a good point that I didn't consider. After having a brief think about it, it could also be said that, since as you say there was no N0 and no way to test abilities that bussing D1 would be incredibly risky and therefore unlikely.

Wooy that excuse for not voting is lame. That day was done, it was inevitable and if you wanted to see something that would have changed that, then you should have stepped up. You didn't.

Weeks, there was a different between my statement of not voting m_p being suspicious and your accusation of me active lurking... only one of them is true. I don't get it, Weeks, I don't get why you're doing this. I don't think you're a jester since.. well a jester has died. So maybe roband has borrowed a mechanic from the TVTropes game that he's co-modding that

ALIVE PLAYERS IN TVTROPES MAY NOT READ. MODS PLEASE READ

Spoiler:

PE, that's exactly why I added my disclaimer. I will grant you the fact that you may have been sleeping while the last few votes came in, but that's it.

by **Zid** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:49 pm UTC

EBWOP (From now on I should call these "Zid"s cause it's shorter to type and it means the same thing)

Skipped a point:

Gopher you sly little.. gopher. Tried to bury yourself right in there with the "lol" defense as an easy way out of making an excuse.

by **Gopher of Pern** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:58 pm UTC

worth a try

My excuse is the same as the others basically. They were already getting lynched, so they didn't need my vote. I'll also admit I wasn't paying too much attention to this game, what with the mind-fuck over in Necro.

I think we need to find more reason to find someone scummy than "they didn't vote for more_people" especially as it doesn't point too much either way.

by **Chandani** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:01 pm UTC

Zid,I hope there isn't anything important to understand under that spoiler.

by **ForAllOfThis** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:03 pm UTC

I disagree that we shouldn't be looking at yesterday's non-voters.

I've been in my fair share of games where lynch targets can completely change at the last minute and it's even more likely to happen in turbos. On the off-chance that this would happen it would be in scums best interest not to vote for m_p. Even more so when you consider the fact that there's no soft lynch. A few changed votes would of got him off, and scum wouldn't have had to risk looking scummy by changing because m_p would have been spared (so no role information) and theres no risk of a NL so that doesn't look bad. Especially with someone as scummy-acting as misterk lurking around yesterday, this could have easily happened if a vote had changed to him.

Those people who attacked m_p and didn't follow through with a vote just show reluctance. If you are finding someone particularly scummy acting and you're town, you should be placing votes not sitting back.

by **Zid** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:07 pm UTC

Quick post: Apologies Chandani, I didn't compare player lists and didn't realise there are people in both. That spoiler can be read as soon as the next day starts in tropes, but the important bit inside that spoiler is:

Zid's Spoiler wrote:FoS:Weeks
vote:Weeks
unvote

please lay off.

by **roband** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:12 pm UTC

As the mod in both games can I ask Zid to stop meta-gaming and for Chandani to not worry about it. Thanks

by **Weeks** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:20 pm UTC

Zid wrote:Weeks, there was a different between my statement of not voting m_p being suspicious and your accusation of me active lurking... only one of them is true.

That's what you think.

When I posted saying you were active lurking a little, you'd made about three posts filled with obvious statements. I felt at the time I had to call you out on it. It looked to me like active lurking.

For reference:

Post 1; Zid wrote:Pretty reckless outbursts, very interesting discussion emerges namely concerning everyone's opinion on cjdrum's answers. I like cjdrum's answers, don't much care for the reasoning behind not answering them, whatever.. we've got answers now and there's discussion.

mpolo I think you had a solid suspicion, I have it too. I can't say I'm ready to throw a vote on just yet but that's me. What's interesting is the vote from misterk... please explain yourself.

ninja: Ninjaed by FOAT... what he said!

I think this post could be reduced to:

I like cjdrum's answers. [However, ]I think [mpolo] had a solid suspicion. mister k...please explain yourself.

If you don't want to concede that the rest is just fluff, then at least you can see how I thought your tone seemed like that of "Let me just comment on everything that has happened with obvious statements"?[/quote]

Post 3;Zid wrote:With votes racking up I want to even this out for the time being, I don't want any player making it through a day of a turbo without making a single post. (confirm doesn't count)

The deadline is approaching.

vote:more_people

I still want to see what misterk has to say.

Leaving aside the fact that you were attempting to even things out for no apparent reason, and that everybody knew the deadline was approaching...the only substance to this post is the vote and the short reasoning for it.

Zid wrote:Quoted me but conveniently left out the necessary context.. knock that off ¬_¬

mpolo's suspicion of cjdrum was solid, I felt. You can still be suspicious of someone even after the answers they gave made sense. You just don't vote on them.

Like I said, my vote was to make the votes even. I would be annoyed if more_people made it through to D2 by doing nothing at all.

As for the active lurking accusation... lol.

As I already explained, I don't understand how "Pretty reckless outbursts, very interesting discussion emerges namely concerning everyone's opinion on cjdrum's answers. I like cjdrum's answers, don't much care for the reasoning behind not answering them, whatever.. we've got answers now and there's discussion" is necessary context for "I like cjdrum's answers". I didn't misquote you. I had also misunderstood your post, but it turns out that I have no idea how your mind works, so maybe you liked his answers, and so didn't find him so suspicious after all? Whatever.

And finally, a lol is not an answer.

I haven't played many games with you so I don't know your meta, but as you might have noticed, I don't take active lurkers kindly. For this reason I try to post as much content in as little posts as possible without leaving the game for like, a whole day. This includes things like...surprise! Defending and accusing.

(You later started adding more to the discussion, which I found was nice. I wasn't expecting it.)

Of course, you might point out that I haven't accused people like, say, GoP, PE or Chandani who've been pretty...redundant. (I think an analysis is in order)

And. As many others have said (redundancy notwithstanding...): simply restraining from voting for someone who already has 6 votes, and will surely be lynched no matter what the fuck, doesn't say much about a player. If suddenly there'd been a bandwagon forming against mister k, sure, I would've been inclined to vote for the scummiest of the lot. (Who, as we found out today, not yesterday, was m_p. Had I been considering a jester since the beginning, I'd probably been quicker to vote m_p, but I daresay that knowledge wasn't accesible to us at that point...)

I don't understand how Mav thinks voting for a player who we now know is scum, but were uncertain about yesterday for lurking, not even active lurking makes someone look better. I also don't think voting because someone uses different pronouns is a town move. It is playing based on emotions. Sadly we can't win games based on that alone, yet.

by **Zid** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:45 pm UTC

That post, yeah I'll agree with you that I could have written it more concisely . I'll agree with that about a lot of my posts as that is an accurate fault of my writing style.

I don't think saying "about three posts filled with obvious statements" is a fair comment. Yes, some if not all of it is obvious to you because you've seen the film. At the time the conversation was about rolespec and flavour. I was providing role speculation and flavour knowledge.

lol is not an answer, no. I was offended by the accusation and chose to show you I was ignoring it rather than outright ignoring it because... well I'm pretty spiteful.

But to be honest if you don't think the same thing now well then I guess this doesn't matter anymore.

by **Zid** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:04 am UTC

Weeks wrote:I also don't think voting because someone uses different pronouns is a town move.

If this is directed at me, I didn't vote for that reason.

by **Gopher of Pern** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:08 am UTC

Zid wrote:
Weeks wrote:I also don't think voting because someone uses different pronouns is a town move.

If this is directed at me, I didn't vote for that reason.

No, that was cjdrum.

by **Zid** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:17 am UTC

Gopher of Pern wrote:
Zid wrote:
Weeks wrote:I also don't think voting because someone uses different pronouns is a town move.

If this is directed at me, I didn't vote for that reason.

No, that was cjdrum.

quoted because we have to go deeper.

Ok fair enough.

by **cjdrum** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:52 am UTC

Hello. Sorry for voting on m_p for plural pronouns, it was just that there was nothing going for anyone, so I picked a random thing which seemed to be bugging everybody (except for roband, apparently). I get that it isn't the best move, but according to quite a few people, it was better than no move at all...

It won't happen again, now that we have 3 dead and real reasons for things.

by **Wooy`** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:11 am UTC

ForAllOfThis wrote:I disagree that we shouldn't be looking at yesterday's non-voters.

I've been in my fair share of games where lynch targets can completely change at the last minute and it's even more likely to happen in turbos. On the off-chance that this would happen it would be in scums best interest not to vote for m_p. Even more so when you consider the fact that there's no soft lynch. A few changed votes would of got him off, and scum wouldn't have had to risk looking scummy by changing because m_p would have been spared (so no role information) and theres no risk of a NL so that doesn't look bad. Especially with someone as scummy-acting as misterk lurking around yesterday, this could have easily happened if a vote had changed to him.

Those people who attacked m_p and didn't follow through with a vote just show reluctance. If you are finding someone particularly scummy acting and you're town, you should be placing votes not sitting back.

So, if vote changes are so common, wouldn't the best strategy have been to try and get a wagon on someone else? I'm fairly certain the best idea for scum wouldn't be "sit back and hop to god someone else starts a wagon on someone not m_p" but rather "try and start a wagon on someone not m_p."

We had someone with 6 votes, on 8 to lynch. There's a few good reasons to not bother with voting at that point:
1: Self-preservation: he could have been a jesterbomb (though that ended up being misterk). Also, taking the 7th or 8th vote would have caused someone to come under suspicion anyway. Pretty much after the 4th or 5th vote, you're kinda fucked when it comes to voting.
2: Claims: yes, it was doubtful he was coming back at deadline (he said he wouldn't be on) but there's no point in completely denying an opportunity for someone to claim an important role. Obviously it was fine in this case.

But really, you mean votes like "I don't like his pronoun usage" and "Oh, to avoid a NL" (when there's no chance it'll end up in a NL) are okay, but not voting isn't?

by **VectorZero** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:15 am UTC

What would have been nice was to have some actual game content discussed, rather than people just sitting around letting the deadline approach. Lets not do that again, ja?

by **PhoenixEnigma** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:55 am UTC

With some rereading, I've realized I'm crap at this "here's an idea, here's all my evidence" thing.

So, wei was pinging me, and I couldn't quite figure out why. Rereading, they seem to be very reserved, for lack of a better word. They haven't been horribly active, and a lot of what they've said strikes me as "well, maybe, but I dunno." I haven't played a game with them in quite a while, but I'm pretty sure that's par for the course with them (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I still don't like it.

I am also very distrustful of the VZ/FOAT position of suspecting people who didn't vote yesterday. Advocating that the townie thing to do would have been to (needlessly and knowingly) place oneself in a place to be suspected, creating wine and, arguably, increasing the odds of town being lynched day 2 is...well, wtf inducing, really. If I could vote for two people, I'd vote for both of them. As I can't, and don't really believe in FoS'ing...gah...scerw it, I'm not going to vote right now, because it's going to force me to come back and make another post in order to vote, and I need the motivation.

by **Zid** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:11 am UTC

VectorZero wrote:What would have been nice was to have some actual game content discussed, rather than people just sitting around letting the deadline approach. Lets not do that again, ja?

I think the problem is that we've created a situation where nobody wants to be that first vote, cause it's gonna cause all kinds of aggro.

by **roband** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:12 am UTC

Just under 34 hours until deadline

by **Zid** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:17 am UTC

Is that an extension? I thought it was 7pm Tonight?

by **roband** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:21 am UTC

I messed up. I said 7pm, Thursday 25th - 53 hours from day start.

Obviously, the 25th is Friday. So no, not an extension.

by **VectorZero** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:26 am UTC

Zid wrote:
VectorZero wrote:What would have been nice was to have some actual game content discussed, rather than people just sitting around letting the deadline approach. Lets not do that again, ja?

I think the problem is that we've created a situation where nobody wants to be that first vote, cause it's gonna cause all kinds of aggro.

That's a shame. I probably wouldn't have put a vote on Mav in a normal game, but given is is a turbo I'd have thought we should be a little more proactive. Which is kind of why I'm irritated that not much occurred in the last hours of yesterday.

PhoenixEnigma wrote:I am also very distrustful of the VZ/FOAT position of suspecting people who didn't vote yesterday. Advocating that the townie thing to do would have been to (needlessly and knowingly) place oneself in a place to be suspected, creating wine and, arguably, increasing the odds of town being lynched day 2 is...well, wtf inducing, really.

I apologize for my misunderstanding. It was only this morning i realized there was no minimum to lynch at deadline. I concede that not voting in this game is not as bad as in other games. Still, that's not a reason to not vote at all.

by **ForAllOfThis** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:47 am UTC

[quote="PhoenixEnigma"I am also very distrustful of the VZ/FOAT position of suspecting people who didn't vote yesterday. Advocating that the townie thing to do would have been to (needlessly and knowingly) place oneself in a place to be suspected, creating wine and, arguably, increasing the odds of town being lynched day 2 is...well, wtf inducing, really. If I could vote for two people, I'd vote for both of them. As I can't, and don't really believe in FoS'ing...gah...scerw it, I'm not going to vote right now, because it's going to force me to come back and make another post in order to vote, and I need the motivation.[/quote]

Yes because ignoring day one information is a townie thing to do? Whilst we're at it why don't we just ignore all the posts that were made on day one as well?

If you had read my posts you'd realise that I wasn't going "Gee Willikers you didn't vote for scum you MUST all be scum!!!" because that would be stupid. However, using it as evidence alongside how people were acting yesterday and today and you'll realise there is a pretty solid case for suspicion towards some individuals. You'll notice I haven't singled out anyone for not voting and based that on the sole reason for my suspicion.

by **ForAllOfThis** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:47 am UTC

EBWOP:

PhoenixEnigma wrote:I am also very distrustful of the VZ/FOAT position of suspecting people who didn't vote yesterday. Advocating that the townie thing to do would have been to (needlessly and knowingly) place oneself in a place to be suspected, creating wine and, arguably, increasing the odds of town being lynched day 2 is...well, wtf inducing, really. If I could vote for two people, I'd vote for both of them. As I can't, and don't really believe in FoS'ing...gah...scerw it, I'm not going to vote right now, because it's going to force me to come back and make another post in order to vote, and I need the motivation.

Quote fail.

by **Mavketl** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:54 am UTC

ForAllOfThis wrote:I disagree that we shouldn't be looking at yesterday's non-voters.

I've been in my fair share of games where lynch targets can completely change at the last minute and it's even more likely to happen in turbos. On the off-chance that this would happen it would be in scums best interest not to vote for m_p. Even more so when you consider the fact that there's no soft lynch. A few changed votes would of got him off, and scum wouldn't have had to risk looking scummy by changing because m_p would have been spared (so no role information) and theres no risk of a NL so that doesn't look bad. Especially with someone as scummy-acting as misterk lurking around yesterday, this could have easily happened if a vote had changed to him.

This is exactly the reason that I didn't vote. That lynch was based on more_people acting like a troll, and there is no way that what he was doing was good play for scum. If someone would turn up to be more scummy than him, I wanted us to be able to change the lynch.

Zid wrote:And Mav because of reasons such as 'I told him he was wrong and he said he was wrong'. Just because someone believes you does not make you right.

His vote was based on a misunderstanding. I thought what was actually going on was rather obvious by that point (apparently it wasn't?), so I thought his vote was weird. Your "just because someone believes you does not make you right" seems to suggest that you still disagree with my reading of the situation at the time and that I was wrong about what cjdrum meant to say. If that is the case, please argue about that. Tell me why I was wrong. If that's not the case, then your argument makes no fucking sense.

Weeks wrote:I don't understand how Mav thinks voting for a player who we now know is scum, but were uncertain about yesterday for lurking, not even active lurking makes someone look better.

I assumed that if you know someone is your scumbuddy, you're a lot less likely to cast the first and second vote for them when they aren't even really under suspicious yet (just really annoying).

Aaaanyway, I think I'll be voting for Chandani shortly. Half of her posts consist of "yeah sorry I'm not posting" and the other half is short and doesn't have much content at all. It looks like textbook active lurking to me, and either she's not reading the thread or she's not responding to people calling her out on it on purpose.

Zid wrote:I think the problem is that we've created a situation where nobody wants to be that first vote, cause it's gonna cause all kinds of aggro.

Well, alright then.

Vote: Chandani

by **Zid** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:43 am UTC

Mavketl wrote:
Zid wrote:And Mav because of reasons such as 'I told him he was wrong and he said he was wrong'. Just because someone believes you does not make you right.
His vote was based on a misunderstanding. I thought what was actually going on was rather obvious by that point (apparently it wasn't?), so I thought his vote was weird. Your "just because someone believes you does not make you right" seems to suggest that you still disagree with my reading of the situation at the time and that I was wrong about what cjdrum meant to say. If that is the case, please argue about that. Tell me why I was wrong. If that's not the case, then your argument makes no fucking sense.

What I mean by that is referring to you using solely that to re-enforce your reasoning as part of your argument to defend yourself in the face of a vote at that time.

by **Zid** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:52 am UTC

Zid:

I should add that I don't actually believe in the reasons a vote was placed on you, anyway. But it was an Early D2 vote, it was justified only if you look at it from a perspective of it being to see how you reacted to it.

I do agree with the vote pressure for Chandani, the same could be said for a few other players right now.

by **weiyaoli** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:46 pm UTC

Mavketl wrote:
ForAllOfThis wrote:I disagree that we shouldn't be looking at yesterday's non-voters.

I've been in my fair share of games where lynch targets can completely change at the last minute and it's even more likely to happen in turbos. On the off-chance that this would happen it would be in scums best interest not to vote for m_p. Even more so when you consider the fact that there's no soft lynch. A few changed votes would of got him off, and scum wouldn't have had to risk looking scummy by changing because m_p would have been spared (so no role information) and theres no risk of a NL so that doesn't look bad. Especially with someone as scummy-acting as misterk lurking around yesterday, this could have easily happened if a vote had changed to him.
This is exactly the reason that I didn't vote. That lynch was based on more_people acting like a troll, and there is no way that what he was doing was good play for scum. If someone would turn up to be more scummy than him, I wanted us to be able to change the lynch.

Wait, why did you quote FAOT? His post seems to be explaining why people should have voted for more_people if they thought he was scummy, and then you go on to say that was the exact reason you didn't vote? How is this a defense of not voting? If anything it just implicates you as scummy.

by **Mavketl** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

weiyaoli wrote:Wait, why did you quote FAOT? His post seems to be explaining why people should have voted for more_people if they thought he was scummy, and then you go on to say that was the exact reason you didn't vote? How is this a defense of not voting? If anything it just implicates you as scummy.

ForAllOfThis is saying that if "only" six people voted for more_people, there was a chance that someone else could still be lynched. I'm saying that I considered that a good thing: if we got any clues about someone being scum, I wanted us to be able to switch. Because we didn't know that more_people was scum at the time. Note that "I want us to be able to lynch someone who does something incredibly scummy" does not equal "I disagree with this lynch". Because, as I said, I didn't.

If it seems like I'm repeating myself that is probably because I'm repeating myself. Because I'm running out of ways to explain this very simple thing.

Who is online