|
On September 26 2012 06:26 strongandbig wrote:
So lets have a boring policy discussion to get us dicsussing something until someone does something scummy!
This is the first game I've played with instant majority lynch. It seems like it can cut off day time and bring nights faster, which presumably would help scum. What are people's opinions on establishing a second nonbinding vote system and agreeing not to vote for real until like 24 hours or more into a day?
Also lets random lynch day 1!
If you are the last person to vote and there is still time on the clock, let the thread know who you are voting for in advance so a discussion can still be made. Excellent policy. I agree 100% and would like to see this every time.
I will be against rng this game because of the inevidable dilemma of: "I am fine with a random lynch as long as I'm the one who picks because I trust no one." The only way we'd have someone we can trust is if Boxer's in the game and he claimed; I don't think Boxer should claim day 1. Also the games I've played on TL there's usually no problem finding a target day 1. No reason to waste a day killing a random if there's a legitimate target.
Last time I suggested a rng it was my first game of mafia and I got crucified for it. I've never had an rng work. It's kind of a curious suggestion. Why did you suggest random vote?
|
On September 26 2012 15:28 phagga wrote:
Wow, 9 hours into the game and we don't even have 2 pages.
I am against a random lynch because in an instant majority game it might shortcut the discussion and therefore won't be helpfull. Also, there is the trust issue.
Sinensis, why dont you want the Boxers to claim?
Also, where is Bluelightz? 4am has long past.
I've been thinking of Boxer as a mayor type role. Claiming Day 1 is bad cause then Boxer probably dies night 1 and ESPORTS along with it. It's better to save it for later in the game when we're in a pinch.
On September 26 2012 10:33 strongandbig wrote:
I thought there might be enough new players in the game that the scum team wouldn't have seen palmar do it in the past and would thus take it seriously. It only needed one or two townies to go along with it to get them freaked out, but I guess the townies in this game don't know why palmar does it, either.
I asked why YOU wanted to random lynch not why Palmar sometimes random lynches. Palmar isn't even in this game. Why are you dodging? I'm not going to go searching for a random Palmar post about mafia and I'm not going to let you drop Palmar's name like that's an excuse to do something that is widely reguarded as a bad move.
|
On September 27 2012 02:35 strongandbig wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 26 2012 17:23 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 15:28 phagga wrote:
Wow, 9 hours into the game and we don't even have 2 pages.
I am against a random lynch because in an instant majority game it might shortcut the discussion and therefore won't be helpfull. Also, there is the trust issue.
Sinensis, why dont you want the Boxers to claim?
Also, where is Bluelightz? 4am has long past. I've been thinking of Boxer as a mayor type role. Claiming Day 1 is bad cause then Boxer probably dies night 1 and ESPORTS along with it. It's better to save it for later in the game when we're in a pinch. Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 10:33 strongandbig wrote:
I thought there might be enough new players in the game that the scum team wouldn't have seen palmar do it in the past and would thus take it seriously. It only needed one or two townies to go along with it to get them freaked out, but I guess the townies in this game don't know why palmar does it, either. I asked why YOU wanted to random lynch not why Palmar sometimes random lynches. Palmar isn't even in this game. Why are you dodging? I'm not going to go searching for a random Palmar post about mafia and I'm not going to let you drop Palmar's name like that's an excuse to do something that is widely reguarded as a bad move. .... Ugh So the thing about random lynching is you never want to actually random lynch, it doesn't give you enough info for layer. But what you can do is, if you can get a little momentum going for a random lynch, it freaks scum the fuck out if they don't know what's going on. They know that unless they fuck up, there is little chance for them to get lynched normally on day 1. The information advantage and the ability for their teammates to push other bandwagons guarantee that. So when they think a random lynch might actually happen, they start to behave weirdly and you can pick that out.
Makes sense. I'll try to remember that for future games.
On Septem[spoiler]ber 26 2012 22:11 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 17:23 Sinensis wrote:On September 26 2012 15:28 phagga wrote:
Wow, 9 hours into the game and we don't even have 2 pages.
I am against a random lynch because in an instant majority game it might shortcut the discussion and therefore won't be helpfull. Also, there is the trust issue.
Sinensis, why dont you want the Boxers to claim?
Also, where is Bluelightz? 4am has long past. I've been thinking of Boxer as a mayor type role. Claiming Day 1 is bad cause then Boxer probably dies night 1 and ESPORTS along with it. It's better to save it for later in the game when we're in a pinch. Actually, I think this could be a nice point to get some discussion. Boxer claims. Need to go read GSL 1 to see how they played out that game if the setup rolled Boxer(s). Sinensis can you pin down "later" to something more specific and give your thought process on why you'd want later claims?
I can't pin down later to a specific moment but I think if/when Boxer claims it should accomplish something significant. Something more significant than just having a confirmed townie. Once everyone knows who Boxer is it's very unlikely we'll be able to save him; there is only one possible setup with both Boxer AND medic. An example of a good time for Boxer to claim would be if several people were voting him and it is close to majority lynch; he can claim to help prove his innocence.
|
Okay given the two pages I have to work with, so far my FoS is at austinmcc. I'll break down why:
On September 26 2012 11:01 austinmcc wrote:
Random lynch still dumb, as always. I don't even like it as a discussion starter.
Moreover it's equally useful for a townie to hammer a scum without warning? A townie to hammer a townie? I don't know everyone's scum play here, but I'd imagine we have a few who blend in and try not to stick out. Hammering someone makes you stick out. Hammering someone with no warning whatsoever makes you stick out. If scum want to stick out and be visible, I don't have a problem with that.
We've got 9 players. We've got a couple different timezones represented. We can't be waiting for someone to have hammer-1 votes and then ask them to pick things up at that point. The time zone thing is really going to affect our ability to build votes on players and find a time where the majority of thread could even be around to hear someone try and defend themselves.
"Random lynch still dumb." While I disagree with a random lynch, it is how it's presented that I have a problem with. He just says it's "dumb." Not why it's dumb or better why -he- thinks it's dumb. Just dumb. This is not indicative of alignment and I think it's dodgy.
He goes on to say that hammering someone makes you stick out, and since it makes you stick out scum wouldn't do it. This is "too scummy to be scum" reasoning and is wrong. Under no circumstances should someone town aligned be advocating hammering, and he says he has -no problem with it-. All it does is cut discussion short every time. This is the biggest red flag to me.
I don't think it would atm. I didn't advocate a D1 claim. It's not an IC role since there's no mod-confirmation, but I hope that if we've got a boxer it's not something that gets claimed only in case of mislynch. ++++Depending on how our lynches go, there's some value to just claiming it D2 or D3 and giving us a little insight into the setup, a possible confirmed townie, etc.++++
Before anyone says Boxer claims give scum insight into the setup, they already have way more than we do. They know whether or not they have an RB, so for scum, this setup is a random role between only TWO options (either the two RB options or the two non-RB options). Town has no knowledge like that at this point.
This is the other post I got a red flag from and that's because I personally don't believe it's worth it for Boxer to claim D2 or D3 for no reason. Hypothetical situations if Boxer claims:
The best that could happen is that we luckily have a medic, Boxer is safe, and there is no role blocker leaving us with a confirmed townie; there is a 33% chance of this outcome. The other possibility is that there isn't a medic and Boxer(s) are vulnerable; there is a 66% chance of this outcome.
All things considered I think if Boxer is among us he needs to stay anonymous until he can save himself/someone else by claiming.
|
On September 27 2012 04:45 phagga wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 03:35 thrawn2112 wrote:On September 27 2012 00:16 phagga wrote:On September 26 2012 06:07 thrawn2112 wrote:
sup. how about that LoL? I fear we may all be out of a job soon On September 26 2012 06:38 thrawn2112 wrote:
i would be down for rando lynch
i will flip a coin.
heads it's me, and tails it's you? On September 26 2012 11:34 thrawn2112 wrote:
most boring start to a mafia game i've been a part of yet. at least we're not spending forever talking about lurkers tho
who wants me to write walls of text barf text this game? don't test me, i'll do it. On September 26 2012 23:10 thrawn2112 wrote:
yeah but I'd assume that goes without saying So much for talking about "useless shit". Also I was trying to shut the discussion about time zones down immediatly. Meanwhile all you have done (besides the quotes above) is talking about hammering someone, and you are just echoing others. How about you start contributing some? Do you actually think those posts aren't contributions or are you just jumpy because I ragged on something you were posting about? I see you've made a nice spin-doctored and out of context version of my filter. Serious question btw Texting from mobile cause cable modem is broken. Yes they are out of context, but they don't improve when read in context. . I quoted them because you said I was posting useless stuff, when you had done exactly that yourself. I just wanted to show that you were contradicting yourself. But tell me, thrawn, who is a scummy person in this game, and why? Do you already see someone?
You guys have spent several posts shifting around blame for nothing. I'm just making a note of it.
|
@ ShaoPi: SnB explained himself perfectly clearly and without being a dick. That goes a long way. All I wanted was for him to explain why he wanted to rng, and he did. And honestly it makes sense and is something I may try in future games myself. It has produced discussion.
This is what I said about austinmcc reguarding "Random lynch still dumb.":
"While I disagree with a random lynch, it is how it's presented that I have a problem with. He just says it's "dumb." Not why it's dumb or better why -he- thinks it's dumb. Just dumb. This is not indicative of alignment and I think it's dodgy."
I don't know if I can explain myself any more clearly than that. The reason I didn't pressure you about it is because you did exactly what I did, you asked SnB to explain himself and he did. That made you look like you had a town agenda. Iamperfection also went on to explain why rng is stupid here:
On September 26 2012 08:38 iamperfection wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 26 2012 07:59 strongandbig wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 06:56 iamperfection wrote:On September 26 2012 06:38 thrawn2112 wrote:
i would be down for rando lynch
i will flip a coin.
heads it's me, and tails it's you? As someone who has suggested random lynches in the past i will be against it this game because it is stupid. Why did you suggest it in the past and why is it stupid now i cant talk about why i did in rockband because its an ongoing game but from my exp when palmar suggested it in my previous game it seems to be somewhat good generator of discussion but it seems to catch more stupid townies then it does scum.
austinmcc just sort of said rng was "dumb" and gave no indication of a town agenda or a desire to communicate. He didn't ask SnB to explain why he suggested an idea he thought was dumb. He just said it was dumb. Period.
|
Ideal: "I think your idea is dumb because <reason>, please explain why you want to do your idea."
Good: "I think your idea is dumb because <reason>"
Good: "I think your idea is dumb. Please explain why you want to do your idea."
Bad: "I think your idea is dumb."
Maybe this will help. This is my thought process.
|
Missed this the first time. Looking for more responses austinmcc.
On September 27 2012 05:01 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 04:42 Sinensis wrote:
SNIPPED
This is the other post I got a red flag from and that's because I personally don't believe it's worth it for Boxer to claim D2 or D3 for no reason. Hypothetical situations if Boxer claims:
The best that could happen is that we luckily have a medic, Boxer is safe, and there is no role blocker leaving us with a confirmed townie; there is a 33% chance of this outcome. The other possibility is that there isn't a medic and Boxer(s) are vulnerable; there is a 66% chance of this outcome.
All things considered I think if Boxer is among us he needs to stay anonymous until he can save himself/someone else by claiming. I know I mentioned earlier this game having value in "confirmed townie," but the more I think about it, the less I like that and the less value I see in boxer claims at...any time? Is a boxer claim really going to save someone? It's the easiest fakeclaim in the world, "Guys I'm blue but can't do anything so there's no actions you can confirm." "Guys I know that other guy also claimed boxer, maybe we're in the 2-boxer setup." I guess we'll see how this plays out, but now the whole claiming boxer thing feels weaker at any point in time. It's essentially claiming "Guys I'm town" except with the potential to give town some info about the setup? You suggest that a claim would be best in the setup with a medic who can keep Boxer "safe." But do we care if a/the boxer(s) die, moreso than we care about a VT dying?
It's not the -easiest- fake claim in the world. More hypothetical situations:
- If 1 Boxer claims and no other Boxers claim then there is either a doctor OR a parity checker. The parity checker can check Boxer and since he is a unique class, it should come back as different from everyone. There is a probability of failure since the parity checker is not a full investigator but it's better than nothing. The doctor can protect Boxer and we will have a confirmed townie to work with.
- If two Boxers claim and one is fake, then the doctor/parity checker will know since there are no doctors/parity checkers in the 2 Boxer setup.
- If zero Boxers claim, then none of this applies, so yeah.
If VTs fake claim, then we can not use this information for our benefit.
@Austinmcc: Also, you wrote:
Hammering someone makes you stick out. Hammering someone with no warning whatsoever makes you stick out. If scum want to stick out and be visible, I don't have a problem with that.
In my FoS post against you I pointed this out. This post implies you don't mind the last person to vote hammer voting. Most of us have expressed we are against this because all it does is cut discussion short. I am against it and I think your reasoning parallels "too scummy to be scum" logic. You still haven't responded to my criticism about this.
|
On second thought that first bullet, this:
The parity checker can check Boxer and since he is a unique class, it should come back as different from everyone. There is a probability of failure since the parity checker is not a full investigator but it's better than nothing.
I didn't understand the parity checker role so disregard that.
The point I'm trying to make is that as long as town doesn't fake claim Boxer, then if mafia does fake claim Boxer we should be able to figure it out. The other blue roles will know, this is how:
3 Boxers claim -> 1 or 2 Boxers are mafia; if there is a non-boxer blue, 1 boxer is fake; if there are no non-boxer blues, 2 Boxers are fake
2 Boxers claim, no other blue roles -> no fakes
2 Boxers claim, 1 non-boxer blue role -> exactly one boxer is fake
1 Boxers claim, 2 non-boxer blue roles -> Boxer is fake
1 Boxers claim, 1 non-boxer blue role -> no fakes
Sorry for spamming but no one wants to talk so... this is what you get.
|
On September 27 2012 21:40 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 04:52 Sinensis wrote:On September 27 2012 04:45 phagga wrote:On September 27 2012 03:35 thrawn2112 wrote:On September 27 2012 00:16 phagga wrote:On September 26 2012 06:07 thrawn2112 wrote:
sup. how about that LoL? I fear we may all be out of a job soon On September 26 2012 06:38 thrawn2112 wrote:
i would be down for rando lynch
i will flip a coin.
heads it's me, and tails it's you? On September 26 2012 11:34 thrawn2112 wrote:
most boring start to a mafia game i've been a part of yet. at least we're not spending forever talking about lurkers tho
who wants me to write walls of text barf text this game? don't test me, i'll do it. On September 26 2012 23:10 thrawn2112 wrote:
yeah but I'd assume that goes without saying So much for talking about "useless shit". Also I was trying to shut the discussion about time zones down immediatly. Meanwhile all you have done (besides the quotes above) is talking about hammering someone, and you are just echoing others. How about you start contributing some? Do you actually think those posts aren't contributions or are you just jumpy because I ragged on something you were posting about? I see you've made a nice spin-doctored and out of context version of my filter. Serious question btw Texting from mobile cause cable modem is broken. Yes they are out of context, but they don't improve when read in context. . I quoted them because you said I was posting useless stuff, when you had done exactly that yourself. I just wanted to show that you were contradicting yourself. But tell me, thrawn, who is a scummy person in this game, and why? Do you already see someone? You guys have spent several posts shifting around blame for nothing. I'm just making a note of it. "just making a note of it" Wanna say anything further than that?
No, do you?
"Ur useless!"
"No ur useless!"
"No ur uselesser!"
Isn't helping anyone and is probably making both of you angry. There's no reason to do that.
On September 27 2012 22:55 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 22:39 ShiaoPi wrote:
@thrawn:
from what I got from the last game I played with SnB he is neither dickish nor too unclear as scum. So I would say that the remark from sinensis was unrelated to meta, especially since he was not referring to it anyway.
What strikes you as confusing in the little talk between SnB and me? I would also be interested in your read on ottoxlol. My bad I was confusing you with Sinensis in that post about their interactions. Here was his post: Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 10:50 Sinensis wrote:
@ ShaoPi: SnB explained himself perfectly clearly and without being a dick. That goes a long way. So that post about interactions between you and snb + Show Spoiler +On September 27 2012 21:49 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2012 10:50 Sinensis wrote:
@ ShaoPi: SnB explained himself perfectly clearly and without being a dick. That goes a long way. All I wanted was for him to explain why he wanted to rng, and he did. And honestly it makes sense and is something I may try in future games myself. It has produced discussion. I have no idea what snb's meta is. Based on the bolded part I'm thinking you see snb's meta as unclear and dickish? So if that is your impression of his meta then why, when he deviates from that meta, would it not set off alarm bells? applies to him. Nothing much about ottoxlol other than his defense to bluelightz was bad and I want to see a better one. Just because something is hypocritical doesn't mean that it's invalid.
I wasn't implying SnB's meta is unclear and dickish. I've played many games with him and he's never been a dick to me. I was implying that being clear and undickish (that's a word I promise) is a good way to be in general. It makes communicating easier. That's all I was saying with that. Communicate clearly and undickishly and I'll be happy to give anyone my time.
@ShaoPi: I already realized that error. The main point I'm trying to drive home is that if there is a fake Boxer claim, the blues will know about it, and that is PROGRESS for town. If town fake claims Boxer, our blues will not know if there is a fake claim, so if you are town, don't fake claim!
@Austinmcc: This is the second time I've posted this, I'm voting for you until I get a response.
Hammering someone makes you stick out. Hammering someone with no warning whatsoever makes you stick out. If scum want to stick out and be visible, I don't have a problem with that.
In my FoS post against you I pointed this out. This post implies you don't mind the last person to vote hammer voting. Most of us have expressed we are against this because all it does is cut discussion short. I am against it and I think your reasoning parallels "too scummy to be scum" logic. You still haven't responded to my criticism about this.
##Vote: Austinmcc
|
On September 28 2012 04:52 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 04:42 Sinensis wrote:@Austinmcc: This is the second time I've posted this, I'm voting for you until I get a response. Hammering someone makes you stick out. Hammering someone with no warning whatsoever makes you stick out. If scum want to stick out and be visible, I don't have a problem with that. In my FoS post against you I pointed this out. This post implies you don't mind the last person to vote hammer voting. Most of us have expressed we are against this because all it does is cut discussion short. I am against it and I think your reasoning parallels "too scummy to be scum" logic. You still haven't responded to my criticism about this. ##Vote: Austinmcc SOMEONE is going to be the hammer vote. In every vote. It's going to happen. Being the hammer vote with no reasoning given is going to stick out and make you look quite bad. Maybe I have more faith in TL towns, but I'd assume at least SOME reasoning is going to be given with a vote. Giving no reason in a full-size majority extended lynch often raises eyebrows and is frowned upon. Giving no reason for a vote in a mini this small when you hammer someone would raise all eyebrows. So ... I'm not worried about people hammering with no reasoning. They're going to stick out. They're going to get scrutinized. Yes, it would cut discussion short. But I don't think anyone is realistically just going to pop in and drop a hammer vote with no reasoning. Maybe someone will prove me wrong about that. But until then, I'll have faith in my fellow townies and assume it's not going to happen. Why should I be worried, then, about hammer votes with no reasoning? No townie should be doing that, period. So it's the exact opposite of "too scummy to be scum." It's "hammer voting with no reasoning is so scummy you're scum." That's why I don't care if someone does it. Because anyone doing it is basically claiming scum, and everyone in both alignments should know that.
So lets say someone hammer votes today with no explanation. Are you going to vote for them tomorrow?
|
On September 28 2012 05:00 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 04:57 Sinensis wrote:On September 28 2012 04:52 austinmcc wrote:On September 28 2012 04:42 Sinensis wrote:@Austinmcc: This is the second time I've posted this, I'm voting for you until I get a response. Hammering someone makes you stick out. Hammering someone with no warning whatsoever makes you stick out. If scum want to stick out and be visible, I don't have a problem with that. In my FoS post against you I pointed this out. This post implies you don't mind the last person to vote hammer voting. Most of us have expressed we are against this because all it does is cut discussion short. I am against it and I think your reasoning parallels "too scummy to be scum" logic. You still haven't responded to my criticism about this. ##Vote: Austinmcc SOMEONE is going to be the hammer vote. In every vote. It's going to happen. Being the hammer vote with no reasoning given is going to stick out and make you look quite bad. Maybe I have more faith in TL towns, but I'd assume at least SOME reasoning is going to be given with a vote. Giving no reason in a full-size majority extended lynch often raises eyebrows and is frowned upon. Giving no reason for a vote in a mini this small when you hammer someone would raise all eyebrows. So ... I'm not worried about people hammering with no reasoning. They're going to stick out. They're going to get scrutinized. Yes, it would cut discussion short. But I don't think anyone is realistically just going to pop in and drop a hammer vote with no reasoning. Maybe someone will prove me wrong about that. But until then, I'll have faith in my fellow townies and assume it's not going to happen. Why should I be worried, then, about hammer votes with no reasoning? No townie should be doing that, period. So it's the exact opposite of "too scummy to be scum." It's "hammer voting with no reasoning is so scummy you're scum." That's why I don't care if someone does it. Because anyone doing it is basically claiming scum, and everyone in both alignments should know that. So lets say someone hammer votes today with no explanation. Are you going to vote for them tomorrow? "hammer voting with no reasoning is so scummy you're scum" is hyperbole. But it's NOT a good indicator of towniness. It's more than enough reason to really scrutinize someone, and poke at them pretty hard. I'm still unconvinced that this is actually going to be a problem. Have faith.
That was a yes or no question. Not a dodge with short answer and claim none of this matters question.
|
On September 28 2012 04:46 phagga wrote:
Sinensis, while you are here, I would like to know your stance on Ottoxlol.
I think Ottoxlol believes he's being unfairly voted for. I'm null on him. I think the worst thing he's done is instead of formulating a proper defense (against something that really didn't need defending against), he tried to shift the blame onto others...BUT he wasn't trying to shift the blame onto 1 or 2 other people, he was trying to shift the blame back onto everyone. That's why I think he just believes he's being treated unfairly and is just lashing out at everyone else. This doesn't strike me as scummy so much as just bad town play.
Aside from that all he's done is be critical of SnB's play. Which I understand because SnB has been posting weird stuff this game. First there was the random lynch suggestion. He posted this too:
On September 27 2012 05:22 strongandbig wrote:
what about vt's fakeclaiming boxer
lets all claim boxer
I've said a lot already about why VTs shouldn't be fake claiming. Was SnB fishing for people to agree with him or is he suggesting something that benefits mafia on purpose?
ANYWAY I just think Ottoxlol is understandably concerned with SnB's play, and I think in the future Ottoxlol should start making proper defenses instead of blaming everyone else.
|
On September 28 2012 07:06 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 04:42 Sinensis wrote:
No, do you?
"Ur useless!"
"No ur useless!"
"No ur uselesser!"
Isn't helping anyone and is probably making both of you angry. There's no reason to do that. When you say something like "I'm making a note of it" to me that suggests that you're implying there's something scummy going on but you don't want to come right out and say what it is, but that's not what I'm getting from this last response. Were you suspicious of how we were interacting?
Mafia members sometimes have useless little disagreements like you were doing, especially early on, in order to create distance between them in the town's eyes. So I made a note of it.
On September 28 2012 07:55 strongandbig wrote:Ebwop Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 05:29 Sinensis wrote:
I think Ottoxlol believes he's being unfairly voted for. Why do you say this please elaborate. This is important
Because his defense was "everyone else is playing bad, not just me." He feels if he is in the spotlight and being voted for, than anyone could be because his town play is at least as good as everyone else's; so he believes. This is a bad defense by him and he needs to do better, maybe not take personal offense when someone points out one of his mistakes. I understand why he was critical of your play SnB, you freaked him out with your rng suggestion, but I don't really understand why he voted for thrawn other than that thrawn is playing more aggressive than he is.
|
On September 28 2012 11:43 austinmcc wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Ottox, here's how random lynch would really work.
There'd be some outside random generator. Palmar, when actually suggesting this, had a site set up. Based on the time, it kicked out a name at random, iirc. Everyone could go to the site at x time, and whoever it picked at that time would be the lynch.
Nobody had to report in anything special, you couldn't game the system by going to an RNG website and just roll 30 or 40 lynches and post a screenshot of whatever one you liked best. It was verifiable by everyone in the game because they could check the site at x time, but wasn't controlled by anyone in game, so you knew it was actually popping up a random name.
On D1, as far as I can tell, scum usually can get themselves better odds on not getting lynched than pure chance gives. In that case, a random lynch is scary because they can't plan for out, can't get out from under it, and don't have any control over the situation. Town's just gonna kill someone and it's got a whatever out of whatever chance of being scum.
I'll look over things again tomorrow morning and make sure, specifically check some other games of Ottox, but right now I don't think he's scum. Going to unvote for now, and will find a new target unless his past games give me a bad feeling.
The entire lack of a defense and lack of any effort at actually putting one up doesn't feel scummy to me. Other thoughts on that? I've had that feeling all afternoon, but was hoping maybe there would be more action created, votes or unvotes, or other candidates filtering up. It didn't generate too much, but oh well.
##Unvote
Hey can you post that website?
|
##Unvote austinmcc is being logical, compliant, and is saying things I agree with so I can't justify voting for him today anymore. Even though I disagree with him about hammer votes, he is right about it being largely irrelevant.
@Bluelightz: Your vote had the least amount of analysis behind it of any vote so far. Are you sticking with your vote or was that just to put pressure on austinmcc to start scum hunting? I will be curious to see if you and austinmcc have a dialog.
@Thrawn2112: I accuse you of only going after other people in order to direct attention away from yourself, and I accuse you of picking easy targets. Also, I accuse you of trying to disrupt communication between other players. You're quick to nit pick every post we make but you rarely follow through with your nit picking.
What do you have to say about that?
|
EBWOP Disregard my question Bluelightz
|
On September 28 2012 13:19 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 13:14 Sinensis wrote:
##Unvote austinmcc is being logical, compliant, and is saying things I agree with so I can't justify voting for him today anymore. Even though I disagree with him about hammer votes, he is right about it being largely irrelevant.
@Bluelightz: Your vote had the least amount of analysis behind it of any vote so far. Are you sticking with your vote or was that just to put pressure on austinmcc to start scum hunting? I will be curious to see if you and austinmcc have a dialog.
@Thrawn2112: I accuse you of only going after other people in order to direct attention away from yourself, and I accuse you of picking easy targets. Also, I accuse you of trying to disrupt communication between other players. You're quick to nit pick every post we make but you rarely follow through with your nit picking.
What do you have to say about that? First what are you talking about with this part? " Also, I accuse you of trying to disrupt communication between other players" Also could you be more specific with the accusations?
I am accusing you of sabotaging meaningful discussion by nit picking everyone's posts. I think you're doing this because people are voting for you and you're looking for ANYTHING that will get the spotlight off you. The problem isn't with 1 or 2 of your posts, it's most of them. How would you like me to be more specific?
|
That's not a response, that's a bunch of semi sarcastic questions; half of which you answered yourself. No thanks.
##Vote: Thrawn2112
I'm keeping my vote here for now. I'd like to see what everyone else thinks too.
|
On September 28 2012 15:14 strongandbig wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 07:55 strongandbig wrote:Ebwop On September 28 2012 05:29 Sinensis wrote:
I think Ottoxlol believes he's being unfairly voted for. Why do you say this please elaborate. This is important
top of page 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
