|
lol, I'mma straight out respond to that.
On July 19 2010 00:50 chaoser wrote:
##vote abstain
for now, didn't want to get modkilled
I got a pm from BM saying please vote, I voted by abstaining. Later on, I couldn't make up my mind on whether I should vote for Hyperbola or not and I didn't want to vote for anyone else because no one else struck me as suspicious. So I decided to abstain. I felt that no one deserved my vote. If i had voted for someone and later somehow that vote ended up painting me as mafia and the only explanation I had was, I didn't want to vote Hyperbola so I voted a random dude, I'd be digging my own grave.
On July 19 2010 03:46 chaoser wrote:
It's already been established that not lynching someone on the first day is a horrible decision, why are you still pushing for it?
How did I contradict myself? I said it would be bad if we all abstained and no one was lynched. Clearly someone was going to be lynched. Just because I vote abstain doesn't mean I didn't want anyone lynched. I didn't contradict myself.
On July 19 2010 09:05 chaoser wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
So basically you just said: "lawl, i messed up/made a mistake but oh well, not going to change." Anyone else find that suspicious?
and no one else has made that claim? I noticed his statement was weird and pointed it out so others could analysis it too. If you've noticed, that's what I do. I organize/point out information so that others can have an easier time thinking about things.
BrownBear votes for Hyperbola at 6:30 - "oops mistake, didn't know you could absain, oh well, nothing I can do now."
Those were the votes of people in the last 4 hours, starting with BrownBear's vote for Hyperbola
Just putting the info out there
How did I disagree with my own vote? I was pointing out that his reasoning is FLAWED. He said he voted Hyperbola cause he didn't know he could abstain and then said, oh well, I'm not going to change. I voted abstain because that was the choice I agreed with most at the time. I didn't think anyone was suspicious enough in my mind that I would want to vote for them and also give a good reason as to why I thought they were suspicious.
On July 20 2010 23:02 chaoser wrote:
And to be truthful, I don;t really believe that BrownBear is townie just from the way he's posting. For the first day he pretty much posts nothing and bandwagons with no real reason. When people point him out of it (that he voted before reading) he goes oh well, it doesn't matter now when it CLEARLY did, the vote ended 6-5. Then, after a whole DAY of people pointing fingers at him he decides to come in and post about vets claiming and basically giving horrible advice. I'm inclined to say he's mafia who fucked up the first day and now he's trying to play dumb townie. Also, his whole ramble about claiming is pushing us off the topic of Subversion's suspicious vote as well as his little statement about how mafia isn't really making mistakes.
I'm not 100% clear on my vote yet but I'm watching BrownBear for now. And I also think we should vote double lynch. It's going to be 52 hours till the next lynch give or take, you guys don't think we'll have more than enough information then?
After the first day had passed, I started to get a better inkling of what was going on and there was information I could work with. I pointed out BrownBear again and tried to be logical about why I thought his actions were suspicious. What's wrong with that?
On July 21 2010 06:02 chaoser wrote:
Also, I'm going to put in my vote for Subversion. So far I don't know how I feel about BrownBear. At first I wanted to vote him. He's been playing badly and didn't do anything day one. But then at the same time people jumped all over voting for him in the beginning until just recently when people switched to Subversion, or at least it feels like that.
Subversion's little mafia mistake statement is just weird all in all and was part of that voting block (everyone's already mentioned this) so I'll put my vote on him for now but I'll have to see. Still a full day left.
##vote Subversion
Please read my post, I 100% explained why I didn't vote BrownBear. I also state I'll have to see about the Subversion vote. He has yet to respond so I'm waiting for that before 100% deciding.
All in all, I don't think I've done anything scummy. You've tried to paint a lot of my actions as scummy even though they weren't. I can't tell if that's because you just came to the wrong conclusion or if you're trying to divert attention away from the BrownBear/Subversion/Darth situation on voting right now.
Maybe you could look at the situation better if I organized all my posts together into one post for you?
|
On July 21 2010 07:00 Pandain wrote:Double crud( I am the epitomy of epic fail  ) Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 06:53 Pandain wrote:Just to note this for the future, in case it turns out that BB was innocent. On July 19 2010 09:05 chaoser wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2010 08:36 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 08:08 Hyperbola wrote:Brown BearOn July 19 2010 06:29 BrownBear wrote:
Ahhhh shti!
I am back, sorry. Is it too late to avoid modkill? On July 19 2010 06:30 BrownBear wrote:
###Vote: Hyperbola On July 19 2010 06:31 BrownBear wrote:
Whew, looks like I got back in time. Sorry about that. Time to go read the thread. Really dude? Jumping on a bandwagon before even reading the thread? My bad, didn't realize you could abstain. Should have done that, but at this point it's not like it really matters :/ So basically you just said: "lawl, i messed up/made a mistake but oh well, not going to change." Anyone else find that suspicious? When I say "just in case BB is innocent." I am saying that chaoser was the one who started the bandwagon.
Also, how did I start the bandwagon? I noted what I thought about him but didn't VOTE. How did I start a bandwagon against him? I was posting my own thoughts on the situation and seeing how other people thought about it.
|
On July 21 2010 07:31 BrownBear wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say chaoser started a bandwagon on me, as others were already against me to begin with. But there's been so much hate against me coming from him.
So. Much.
:'(
Hey, look on the bright side, at least I didn't vote for you =]. I'll go buy you a snow cone later if you're not mafia.
|
You vote an inactive in order to get them to talk more, you vote someone who you think has to justify a certain response. But you don't just abstain because you don't know who to vote for,
But then you don't say to youngmini, who was abstaining for the same reason you were (We have to be sure), that he's stupid.
I've never voted like that before but I can see where you're coming from. Usually when I vote I just vote for who I actually believe is suspicious. Next time I'll be sure to use my first day's vote to get people to talk.
Also, I don't think I said youngminii was stupid.
Yes. Yes it does mean you contradited yourself. You said it was bad if we abstain, and then you abstained. And Yes, if you vote abstain it means you didn't want anyone lynched. What else does it mean?
I said it was bad to use the strategy of "no-lynch" on the first day, I didn't say it was bad to abstain. If I did I met it as part of the "no-lynch" strategy and not that abstaining by itself is bad. If i really thought abstaining was bad 1) I wouldn't have abstained lol and 2) I would have been vocal about others abstaining that first day.
I'm just noting that you made the claim first. This is all part of my own theory that you wanted the town to double lynch Subversion and Brown Bear. After making sure people were suscipious of Brownbear, you decide to jump on Subversion.
And agian, you did the same thing. You say your going to change the vote from abstain later, but then you don't. You don't even say "Hey, I'm unsure who to lynch. Can (person) please clarify what they mean by this.) And yes you do organize/point out information. But as I point out, it isn't always unbiased.
I don't think I was the first to make the claim and I don't want to double lynch BrownBear and Subversion, that's not even possible, if we vote double lynch today we'd get it the NEXT day in which case, if things are as they are now, either Subversion or BrownBear will have been lynched. Ok so I didn't reaffirm my decision about abstaining the first day. I'll make sure to do it if I continue to believe Subversion is the one I want to vote for after he talks ok?
Mmm... nice. That responds to my argument in no way at all. Maybe you quoted the wrong thing?
With that, please quote MY statements, not yorus. Makes it incredibally hard since I have to scroll up and down and just takes alot of effort .
I don't know what you're referring to and I think I was confused on what you were referring to in your original statement with this line:
In addition, you yourself disagree with your own vote. I find that suscipious.
Mm, I think that's all of it? To conclude, I'm not mafia. And I don't want to continue this thread of conversation. There is more evidence/weird things going on for BrownBear/Subversion than for me at this moment. I'd be more than happy to continue the next day but for now I'd like to focus on the issue that was being talked about before. Right now I feel like I'm just helping you in derailing the thread and so I'd like to continue this conversation in PMs and post those up if people want later.
|
How were my responses sub-par? And I don't see why PM=scummy. People use to PM all the time when I played like a year ago. I was actually going to just post my PMs with you on the thread but decided against it cause I figured you might be against it/didn't want to.
|
##unvote
##vote abstain ...for now
|
Are you still going on about me? Pandain and I have pretty much squared away the problem he had with me:
THIS IS FROM HIM
"Did you see the "A final word" thing. That pretty much sums up this argument from my side. I'm saying that you criticizing youngmini for saying "hey lots not lynch people" and your decision to abstain both come from the same reason: We don't have enough info. And thus, since you criticize Youngmini, you are contradicting yourself.
Do I make myself clear?"
-----------------------------------------
Original Message: THIS IS FROM ME
In response to:
On July 19 2010 03:46 chaoser wrote:
It's already been established that not lynching someone on the first day is a horrible decision, why are you still pushing for it?
and that I am pointing out that you are contradicitng yourself by saying that abstaining is bad and abstaining yourself.
no where in there did I say I was against abstaining. I said not lynching someone on the first day is a horrible decision. Individuals abstaining doesn't mean no one will be lynched. I was against the plan of EVERYONE abstaining, not the idea of abstaining in general. Sorry, if I was confusing about that. No had feelings either way lol.
The contradiction comes from the fact that though I voted abstain because I didn't have enough information and yet I criticized youngminii (your) call for us all to "no-lynch" on day one because there wasn't enough information
I voted for Subversion because I didn't like the initial bandwagon on BrownBear and was starting to have doubts because of Subversion's perceived bad play in Day 1 as well as his "slip" that the mafia made no mistakes so far. If you're going to say, omg that's bandwagon too then every majority vote is "bandwagoning". To me, bandwagoning is when there's a huge amount of votes for one person over a very short amount of time. I don't think I bandwagoned. Also, after reading what Subversion has said as well as some things that Pandain stated in the thread, I've moved my vote off him.
Get off my back. Thanks =]
|
On July 21 2010 11:19 SouthRawrea wrote:
Um this is getting a bit too heated in my opinion but this may all just be coming from the fact that chaoser is furiously trying to get the town's suspicion placed on Subversion or he's reading wayyy too much into the words typed out by Subversion. This is his first game and I can emphasize with him because you don't quite think out every thing you type especially in your first game. If I try to help my team (because I've played a couple of forum games before) I generally type furiously without reading over what I've typed and trying to think how that would read to another player. Also, I'm pretty sure Subversion hasn't mentioned you. I do think you're trying too hard to tunnel him (not sure if that term is used here). However, it's not like you're voting him or anything which makes me inclined to think that you're just trying to defend yourself and help the village in general. I don't see why you'd go for Subversion instead of an inactive such as me.
##Vote Chaoser
I would abstain but we can afford a mislynch now and we have a bit of information to work with especially because the detectives have their reports and we have a claim. This generally works in our favour as there hasn't been a lucky kill for the mafia and there is alot more text to read upon for scumtells. Also we get more info now. (Not quite sure how this works in my head but I imagine a detective claim from someone getting lynched day 2 is much more convincing than one on day 1 especially because they have a report now)
You'll notice that 1) In my previous post I stated I no longer was that suspicious of him. 2) I'm not even voting for him anymore 3) I was initially arguing for BrownBear's lynch. So wrong on all three counts. Thanks for trying to misrepresent me though.
|
Oh, you too Pandain. The contradiction is hardly any contradiction and the only remaining part of your argument against me is that I was very suspicious of BrownBear but then moved on to Subversion when I clearly explain why I did in my post about voting for Subversion.
|
On July 21 2010 11:39 SouthRawrea wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 11:30 chaoser wrote:
You'll notice that 1) In my previous post I stated I no longer was that suspicious of him. 2) I'm not even voting for him anymore 3) I was initially arguing for BrownBear's lynch. So wrong on all three counts. Thanks for trying to misrepresent me though. 1) It could very well possible you act that way because of the pressure beginning to build on you now shown with 2 votes +mine. 2) Addressed that already. 3) WUT Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 11:01 chaoser wrote:
I didn't like the initial bandwagon on BrownBear Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 11:30 chaoser wrote:
I was initially arguing for BrownBear's lynch. Explain #3
I'll be more clear, I initially stated that I thought BrownBear was suspicious. I didn't vote because I didn't like the initial bandwagon on him. As the game wore on, I started to think Subversion was suspicious.
Also, I changed my vote on him AFTER he spoke which just so happened to be after youngminii and pandain voted for me. It's not even that much pressure since I clearly felt like I haven't done anything scummy at all. Just read my posts. And finally, point three is about how you say "chaoser is furiously trying to get the town's suspicion placed on Subversion"
when I clearly haven't. Whatever, i'm going to sleep. See you all in the morning.
|
On July 21 2010 11:38 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 11:36 chaoser wrote:
Oh, you too Pandain. The contradiction is hardly any contradiction and the only remaining part of your argument against me is that I was very suspicious of BrownBear but then moved on to Subversion when I clearly explain why I did in my post about voting for Subversion. What? It's not much of a contradiction that you appear to be pro town by rallying against youngmini for advocating no-lynching yet all the while abstain yourself (thus helping the mafia).
So does that mean all abstainers are "helping the mafia?" If I remember correctly, you at one point also considered abstaining.
Pandain United States. July 18 2010 10:44. Posts 428 PM Profile Report Quote #
Yeah I think we should lynch, just because isn't the mafia going to kill one of us by the next day?
Then again, I'd feel horrible if I lynched a good person. I might abstain, but I'll have to see both sides first. I'll decide later.
You also advocated against no-lynching in that quote up there as a response to Tricode.
|
On July 21 2010 12:02 Pandain wrote:Fuck it I sound mean. Here, I'll clarify more  . Read the bolded part above and you'll see my stance. I say "I MIGHT abstain", but that's just because this is my very first game so I had to see both sides. However, I said "I think we should lynch."
Saying you MIGHT abstain means you have a similar thought process as me, that there's not enough information. And I already say that you were for lynching aka against, the no-lynch plan.
|
On July 21 2010 05:49 chaoser wrote:
Does anyone know when day is ending? Tomorrow at 12?
So far the votes have been
Divinek votes for BrownBear at 13:59
DarthThienAn votes Divinek at 13.59
tree.hugger votes Subversion at 14:03
DarthThienAn unvotes Divinek, votes BrownBear at 14:34
d3_crescentia votes DarthThienAn at 14:50
Amber[LighT] votes BrownBear at 22:15
bumatlarge votes DarthThienAn at 22:59
~OpZ~ votes BrownBear at 1:01
rastaban votes BrownBear at 1:59
Misder votes DarthThienAn at 3:18
Tricode votes BrownBear at 4:02
Pyrrhuloxia votes DarthThienAn at 4:57
bumatlarge unvotes DarthThienAn, votes Subversion at 5:25
DarthThienAn unvotes BrownBear, votes Subversion at 5:30
NEW VOTES:
chaoser votes Subversion at 6:02
BrownBear abstains at 6:52
Pandain votes chaoser at 6:53
Jayme votes Subversion at 8:20
youngminii votes chaoser at 8:32
chaoser unvotes, abstains at 9:25
LaXerCannon abstains at 9:27
SouthRawrea votes for chaoser at 11:19
chaoser votes for Subversion at 12:34
hmm, let's test something. this is either going to bite me in the ass or go very well for me
##vote Subversion
End result:
BrownBear - 5 (Divinek, Amber[LighT], ~OpZ~, rastaban, Tricode)
Subversion - 5 (tree.hugger, DarthThienAn, bumatlarge, Jayme, chaoser)
DarthThienAn - 3 (d3_crescentia, Misder, Pyrrhuloxia)
chaoser - 3 (Pandain, youngminii, SouthRawrea)
abstain - 2 (BrownBear, LaXerCannon)
People yet to vote:
xelin, SiNiquity, lakrismamma, Infundibulum, Subversion, BloodyC0bbler, Citi.zen, zeks, protactinium, roffles
|
Also, youngminii, what happened to your suspicions of Infundibulum?
|
On July 21 2010 13:05 Pandain wrote: Can't make up your mind eh?  If you're testing something, might be good not to say you are. If you really do want to vote for Subversion, care to explain what led to the decision?
wait till the test results are in and I'll tell you =]
|
Starting to think BM is mafia for getting the votelist wrong again -_-
5]BrownBear (Divinek, Amber[LighT], ~OpZ~, rastaban, Tricode)
*note, rastaban wrote Vote BrownBear in Bold but didn't have ## in front, does that count?
5]Subversion (tree.hugger, bumatlarge, DarthThienAn, Jayme, chaoser)
6]DarthThienAn (d3_crescentia, Pyrrhuloxia, Misder, XeliN, zeks, Subversion)
3]chaoser (Pandain, youngminii, SouthRawrea)
3]Abstain (BrownBear, LaXerCannon, SiNiquity)
People Yet to Vote:
lakrismamma, Infundibulum, BloodyC0bbler, Citi.zen, protactinium, roffles
Double Lunch
iNfuNdiBuLuM
|
Please check to see if my list is wrong
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 20 2010 23:02 chaoser wrote:
And to be truthful, I don;t really believe that BrownBear is townie just from the way he's posting. For the first day he pretty much posts nothing and bandwagons with no real reason. When people point him out of it (that he voted before reading) he goes oh well, it doesn't matter now when it CLEARLY did, the vote ended 6-5. Then, after a whole DAY of people pointing fingers at him he decides to come in and post about vets claiming and basically giving horrible advice. I'm inclined to say he's mafia who fucked up the first day and now he's trying to play dumb townie. Also, his whole ramble about claiming is pushing us off the topic of Subversion's suspicious vote as well as his little statement about how mafia isn't really making mistakes.
I'm not 100% clear on my vote yet but I'm watching BrownBear for now. And I also think we should vote double lynch. It's going to be 52 hours till the next lynch give or take, you guys don't think we'll have more than enough information then?
+ Show Spoiler +On July 21 2010 06:02 chaoser wrote:
Also, I'm going to put in my vote for Subversion. So far I don't know how I feel about BrownBear. At first I wanted to vote him. He's been playing badly and didn't do anything day one. But then at the same time people jumped all over voting for him in the beginning until just recently when people switched to Subversion, or at least it feels like that.
Subversion's little mafia mistake statement is just weird all in all and was part of that voting block (everyone's already mentioned this) so I'll put my vote on him for now but I'll have to see. Still a full day left.
##vote Subversion
The only two times when I mention the problems I have with Subversion. Where am I jumping at "small holes?" I'm saying the same thing everyone else is, that his statement about mafia's mistake seems weird.
|
On July 22 2010 06:03 Pandain wrote:
Right now I believe the two viable decisions are either Chaoser or Darth. They are the two most likely canidates for actually being mafia. BB and Subversion are just new and people are jumping on them for really miniscule posts. The only one thing that could lead to one of them being mafia is Subversions deciding vote in favor of Hyperbola, however that is still unlikely because it is just as likely that
1)The Mafia didn't know of BM's miscount
2)He just voted at an unlucky time.
So all those who are picking either BB or Subversion (especially BB) I urge you to change your vote and vote for either Darth of Chaoser.
I would suggest Chaoser, just because I find him more likely to be mafia than DTA. To me, it still seems that Chaoser is just trying to get people lynched and DTA could be plannign something. Of course we should keep an eye on DTA, but let's not just lynch him and ruin anything he might be doing.
I would urge you to vote Chaoser, but at the very least I humbly request all those not voting either DTA/Chaoser to unvote and pick one of them.
that's very scummy of you to say isn't it? Your suggestion gives mafia license to stack votes instead of having to worry about spreading it over different potential targets (4) right now. If later people ask, they can be like well, Pandain suggested it. And how am I more likely as mafia than DTA? Look at Pyrr's huge statement against him against the two weak points you bring against me (that I abstained after saying don't go with the no-lynch plan (which others did too) and then voted Subversion today.)
If I get lynch and I flip non-red, people should carefully examine all the people who are hardcore gunning for me (Pandain, youngminii)
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 18 2010 11:38 LaXerCannon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2010 10:40 youngminii wrote:On July 18 2010 10:13 SiNiquity wrote:On July 18 2010 09:59 youngminii wrote:On July 18 2010 09:51 Bill Murray wrote:
EVERYONE abstaining? I guess it'd no lynch. Didn't expect that to happen! Okay so everyone should abstain imo. If you have any objections to this idea, please raise it asap because we need everyone to switch their vote to abstaining. Even one vote = lynch and that will be very suspicious of the person who left their vote by 'accident'. ##Unvote Pyrr
##Vote Abstain I'm not sure I like it. The inactives will get modkilled, no one gets lynched, the mafia kills 2 more people, and then we're back at square one, no? On July 18 2010 10:16 Jayme wrote:
No-Lynch?
Oh hell no absolutely not.
I don't understand how a no-lynch is beneficial to the town if you're going to kill an inactive anyway. You learn absolutely nothing from it, you don't even have a CHANCE at hitting a red, and you're basically wasting a whole day on nothing.
No lynch is a terrible idea. If we lynch someone on the first day without any good reason there's a solid chance (12/15) that we'll hit a townie. That's 80%. There's also a better chance of lynching a blue than there is of scum. A no lynch is a gift that we should utilize instead of RVS. Bad idea, there's no incentive for town to post -> silent town = dead town
LaXercannon does it.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 18 2010 10:30 Tricode wrote:
##vote abstain
Just doing this if I don't make it tomorrow to vote. My dad is spending his last full day at home before he has to leave for a few months for work.
Other then that, I do suggest we lynch an inactive.
1.if we keep abstaining cause we are always uncertain of what to do, we will never push to killing and finding a mafia member if we went at that rate.
2. That person who is being inactive is probably useless to us anyways just because they are not doing anything to participate.
3. One of the inactive are likely to be mafia just because there is usually one or two guys that are inactive or just post a little bit just so they can stay alive.
Either case, we won't accomplish anything by abstaining, it might even hurt us cause if we keep the option in our head we might use it to much in fear of constantly killing townies/blues and such. So I suggest try keeping abstains as placeholders or if you are truly uncertain in what to do.
Otherwise I encourage and highly suggest that we always use our lynches.
tricode does it.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2010 09:59 SouthRawrea wrote:
My take on this is we should take it easy Day 1 and just individually take note of inactives/suspicious individuals until we get our power roles in action tonight. Sure we may end up lynching one of the Reds and it does indeed help to lynch scummy players in order to lessen the number suspects in a future lynch but Random Lynching on Day 1 also allows Reds to gain a foothold in swaying the opinions of players in a future 50/50 situation (ex: Player X is active since Day 1 and seems to be pro-town but is in actuality a mafia. Both him and a Player Y, a cop, counter-claim each other with conflicting reports several days later and the town is given a 50/50 shot at lynching the right person but the other cop hasn't been speaking as much in fear of revealing the fact that he is a cop to the mafia through unintentional, implicit clues. The rest of the village trusts Player X because he seems to be more Pro-Town than Player Y.) and we risk the possibility of lynching one of our power roles early on. Just my 2 cents on why I voted to abstain from lynching.
SouthRawrea actually believes it's better not to lynch anyone day one and then abstained so I guess he's not contradicting himself?
the last two, protactinium and zeks, don't really mention no-lynching but they both advocate lynching someone (an inactive the first day). They both abstained.
So are these guys suspicious cause they contradicted themselves as well? Bring a better argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
