Mini 277 - Webcomic Mafia - Game Over!
-
-
bertrand
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
Fuldu wrote:In this particular case, for example, it's bertrand's non-random votes, invariably followed by an unvote, that have piqued my interest. Either he's got some sort of trigger, a minor victory condition that I can't even really see the point of, or is trying to fake something. In any event, I'm happy to apply pressure, because if there isn't a point to it, I'd like him to stop.
vote: bertrand- The votes are random
- The Immediate unvote is to
- A: Show it's a joke
- B: Not leawve on a pointless vote
- A: Show it's a joke
- Please note that you should not take me seriously at this point of the game.
- I'll let you know when to take me seriously
- The list tag rules!
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
Pie_is_good wrote:FOS: everyone who flipped out over my bandwagon vote.
All I was doing was randomvoting for someone, just like the rest of you. I just "random"voted for someone who already had a few votes.
You random vote people because you say that it's good for getting the game moving. Then I - the horror - use it to get the game moving!
Given that bertrand was among the flippers, vote stays.vote pie_is_good
Not a satisfying response.
I AM NOT A FLIPPER. I never made a vote in this game where I didn't unvote in THE SAME POST.
Random VOTING is good to get the game going. Random BANDWAGONING is not.
Voting for someone with already a few votes is BANDWAGONING.-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
It gets the game going, fine, but it isn't good.Pie_is_good wrote:
au contrairebertrand wrote: Random VOTING is good to get the game going. Random BANDWAGONING is not.
Are you denying that what I did has failed to get the game moving?
I voted later, I wanted to see your reaction before voting. Then your reaction looked even more scummy, so i did.Pie_is_good wrote:
Let's review bert's post:
Ignoring for now the basic scum tell of accusations without votes, I consider this to be among the category of "flipping out." "Oh my god, there's a 3-vote 'useless' bandwagon on me. The guy who bandwagonned is therefore scum, but I refuse to vote him because I don't like lynching scum."bertrand wrote:Why the useless bandwagon on me? Random bandwagons are only good for scum. FoS Pie
He's got enough votes.
You made a bad explanation, used CrapLogic, and misrepresented the situation. Need more?Pie_is_good wrote:
...and if this post isn't flipping out, I don't knowwhatyour other post was.
Bertrand, what did I say between my randombandwagon post and my next post that turned your FoS to a vote? All I did was FoS the people who flilpped out over my post, then you vote me because I included you in the "flippers," as the term now goes.
There was the craplogic and misrepresentaion of the situation.Pie_is_good wrote:
Let's ignore a moment who's right and wrong. Just look at it this way: I made a judgement call. Regardless of alignment, I would have judged that one the same way. So, unless disagreeing with you is a scum tell, really there wasno aditional reason to change your FoS to a vote.
The one on you isn't, anyway.Pie_is_good wrote:
My Thoughts. Besides, it should be over soon-- the bandwagon is no longer random due to strange actions resulting from a small bandwagon.
Ahh, the only part of the post that makes sense.Pie_is_good wrote:
-Pie
~Bert-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
[/quote]Pie_is_good wrote:Really? Could you then tell me what random voting does to get the game going in a "good" way? While you're at it, could you give some reasons?
It's fun. Bandwagoning is risky.
Let's back up a minute. This was your post in question:bertrand wrote: I voted later, I wanted to see your reaction before voting. Then your reaction looked even more scummy, so i did.
You saidbertrand wrote:Why the useless bandwagon on me? Random bandwagons are only good for scum.FoS Pie
He's got enough votes.veryclearly that the FoS was because I "had enough votes." Now you're saying the FoS was because you wanted to see my response. H'm.
So what did you want me to say? "I'm FoSing you because I want to see your reaction"? Of course, if I want to see your reaction, I'm not going to teel you...
Also, you said that my reaction looked even more scummy.How?Just calling me scummy will get you nowhere fast with a remotely competent town. You need reasons. Please don't make me ask this again.
For your viewing pleasure, the post in question is this one:bertrand wrote: You made a bad explanation, used CrapLogic, and misrepresented the situation. Need more?
From what I can decipher (there's a little guesswork here, as bertrand wasn't terribly clear about specifics), the "bad explanation" was that part about randomvoting for someone, just like the rest of you (I say that because it's the only part where I really explained anything). Now, I'm not sure what's "bad" about that, but I can say with a certain degree of confidence that everything in there is true. It seems relatively factual.Pie_is_good wrote:FOS: everyone who flipped out over my bandwagon vote.
All I was doing was randomvoting for someone, just like the rest of you. I just "random"voted for someone who already had a few votes.
You random vote people because you say that it's good for getting the game moving. Then I - the horror - use it to get the game moving!
Given that bertrand was among the flippers, vote stays.
The "bad explanation" was your post 38 where you explained why you voted.
I'll also guess that the CrapLogic was the part about using the randomvote to get the game going. So, let's look at it logically: I made two statements that implied a third.Statement 1:You random vote people because you say that it's good for getting the game moving. That's pretty much the widely accepted view. Tossing votes around early is inducive of game action. That's why people do it. Do you disagree there?No. I agree with that statement.Statement 2:Then I - the horror - use it to get the game moving!That was the intended purpose of the vote, which I have stated many times. To stimulate action, which I, indeed, did.Yes, but in an unneccesary and scummy (because it's a pointless bandwagon) way.Statement 3:Therefore, voting me because I used my randomvote to get the game moving is hypocritical, and therefore, bad.This statement was implied by the first two sentences. It's the obvious logical continuation. Soo... I'm not sure what you're calling craplogic, but it all seems pretty airtight to me.
Now, finally, I'll venture to say that "misrepresenting the situation" was calling Bertrand a flipper. I was defining "flippers" as people who FoSed me, attacked the random bandwagon, or otherwise took the randomvoting as significantly different from other random voting. Anyways, given that there's no concrete definition of a "flipper" out there, it's not really misrepresenting any situations.
By flipper, I though you meant someone who keeps changing his vote, and since, before you, I had never actually voted (without unvoting in the same post), that was misrepresenting the situation. Sorry, I'm still kinda new.
Well, there you go. I analysed my post based on your three accusations. If that's not good enough, then yes, I need more. Please let me know what you were thinking on this one.
No, there really wasn't. You're just trying to write it off as "craplogic" and "misrepresentation" without providing reasons.Bertrand wrote: There was the craplogic and misrepresentaion of the situation.The one on you isn't, anyway.
...and I'll choose to ignore the (funny? ad hominem? sarcastic?) one-liner at the end of the post.
[quote="Pie_is_good]
-Pie
Ahh. the.. never mind.
Just to clarify my statement, what I said was "Random VOTING is good to get the game going. Random BANDWAGONING is not."
What I meant was
Random VOTING is good to get the game going. Random BANDWAGONING is not good.
Anyway, your post is really long and asks a ton of questions, all over basically nothing.. Let's just ignore this, it seems to me you are town who just wanted to get the game going or something, and I guess I just didn't like the way you did it.
Truce?-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
Total Crap. If scum starts a bandwagon, it's NOT ON OTHER SCUM.Pie_is_good wrote:On that note, FoS: Thok, for a logical hole in that last post. Even if TSAGod is scum, that doesn't invalidate his reasons for the bandwagon. Scum are perfectly capable of posting logical attacks on others, you know.
FoS pie, part OMGUS-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
Show me the other stronger wagon.TSAGod wrote:
It can be. Scum casts suspicion on spread-out day, thinking there's an already stronger wagon and will create a separation between the players. Town acts quickly on the scum, for the reasons given by the scum.bertrand wrote:
Total Crap. If scum starts a bandwagon, it's NOT ON OTHER SCUM.Pie_is_good wrote:On that note, FoS: Thok, for a logical hole in that last post. Even if TSAGod is scum, that doesn't invalidate his reasons for the bandwagon. Scum are perfectly capable of posting logical attacks on others, you know.
FoS pie, part OMGUS
There we have it. Scum bandwagons scum.-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
Thok wrote:Feh. Akonas is clearly a safe lynch by now, (he's either scum or not a power role) so there's no real reason to stall. I'm willing to vote him to end the day and see what happens.Unvote TSAGod, vote AkonasFoS Thok and StevieT92: Please let him claim before lenching. It's too late now. I've got my eye on you. If you're right though, good job.-
-
bertrand
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
What the hell, I just made a suggestion.StevieT92 wrote:Vote: Bertrand. I just generally think he's scummy, and too controlling.
If you think it's a bad idea, tell me. But I still think the role blocker should aim wherever he did again, as it could net us a quick scum. I don't see how that's a bad strategy. Someone explain it please.-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
There's nothing I can do. I don't see the point in making a post to convince you of anything. Good job.
Well, you guys have 2 choices:Aelyn wrote:You are Gabe, the violent yet somewhat childlike webcomic drawer from Penny Arcade. Who cares about good or evil? What you've realised, and what no-one else seems to appreciate, is that enjoying life is more important than doing good things. And what you enjoy is sowing dischord. As such, your primary aim is to make things fun, and to an extent make sure the balance in the world will remain so you can carry on making things fun without boring people making it dull or evil people killing you. You also have cardboard-tube-samurai abilities, which will protect you the first time you would die for any reason and also give you the ability to kill someone, once during the game, at night.
Confirm by PM, along with your first night choice and any questions you may have.
Minor victory condition: Have a three-person endgame.
Major victory condition: Be the last man standing.
1. Lynch me twice
2. You don't lynch me twice and I make myself useful.-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
-
-
bertrand
-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
Thanks for pointing that out.. now you might be my target.Fuldu wrote:Besides which, while threatening to kill the cop is certainly a rational (if, in my opinion, pointless) strategy, actually doing so is against your interests. Your best hope of not being lynched again tomorrow is for the cop to find somebody else for us to lynch. I might prefer to lynch some other scum rather than a largely ineffectual SK. Killing the cop just assures that you'll be relynched tomorrow.-
-
bertrand Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 6, 2005
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.
-
-
-
-