Open 850: Democrabilities (Postgame)

[Alianna]

You should back me, it will pay off handsomely.

As I've said I'm very much on the no-elimination train here, I'm just not hammering yet because I want to clarify where everyone stands, I'm just very wary of your suggestion here you've basically caught both scum early on easily because they want to go for two eliminations. If such an approach works it's clearly got the support of townies too.

It's not actually at E-1 anymore since I unvoted, but I'm probably going to put my vote back there very shortly.

[MalcolmTucker]

Currently there's Titus voting you because they think you're scum trying to steer us away from an elimination. RR's vote at the start seemed to be on a more policy basis. It's not just mindless sheep hopping onto you for the sake of it as you seem to be suggesting.

[MalcolmTucker]

That's to Furtive obviously, not you Alianna.

[furtiveglance]

3 players are voting me. I will maintain there's no reason for voting me, Dunnstral was voting Cat and voted me just to condemn someone over no one. Does that not ring alarm bells for you?

And do you even have any scumreads or are you just gonna disagree with mine?

[furtiveglance]

Currently there's Titus voting you because they think you're scum trying to steer us away from an elimination. RR's vote at the start seemed to be on a more policy basis. It's not just mindless sheep hopping onto you for the sake of it as you seem to be suggesting.

Titus should be voting for Flea btw, if you go back and check. They disagreed with Flea then voted me.

[MalcolmTucker]

Sorry I thought two. Hadn't noticed Dunnstral's switch but it's not as if they're doing it without reason. They're just as focused on you as you are on them...that doesn't seem unfair.

Anyway, I've outlined myself I really didn't like Dunnstral's reasoning for eliminating today. Titus' seemed more straightforward, they just want two eliminations, Dunnstral felt a lot more determined to use proper logic/maths to advocate for two eliminations but I fundamentally don't agree it's a good idea from their posts.

[Alianna]

UNVOTE: for now, I’ll check the math tomorrow.

I forgot I don't actually know how to check the math. I think the numbers kind of make sense though?
Still, I don't think the odds are as good as they look. If we shoot twice today, there's a pretty decent chance that we will have to make a game-deciding vote tomorrow with an expanded pool of people and little info from the eliminated people or the NK.

VOTE: No Elimination

Also, we have less than 2 days on the deadline. I don't feel like we've got enough info at this point or enough time left to come to a good consensus.

[MalcolmTucker]

Currently there's Titus voting you because they think you're scum trying to steer us away from an elimination. RR's vote at the start seemed to be on a more policy basis. It's not just mindless sheep hopping onto you for the sake of it as you seem to be suggesting.

Titus should be voting for Flea btw, if you go back and check. They disagreed with Flea then voted me.

That's an odd way to look at it. You can disagree with a player without necessarily reading them as scum. This feels like an inherently dishonest way to frame Titus' vote.

[MalcolmTucker]

Titus also expressed clearly where they disagreed with you before casting their vote too. It's not as if it was a completely random and unprompted vote.

[Flea The Magician]

It is accurate though and I called it out myself.

Nope. We are eliminating. Eliminations are information. That's a load of hogwash from scum looking to deny information.

VOTE: furtiveglance

Try me.
You're also voting the wrong person.

9 -> 1+1:1 -> 6 Misyeet and Lose.
6 -> 1:1 > 4 Scum Partity win -or- Misyeet and lose.
4 -> 1:1 > 2 Scum Parity win.

9 -> 1:1 -> 7
7 -> 1:1 -> 5 Potential YOLO.
5 -> 1:1 -> 3 YOLO.


I much, much prefer the second option.

[MalcolmTucker]

My point though is that Titus can disagree with you without wanting to vote for you. But they can look at the way another players frames their reasoning for approach and view that as scummy. After all there are four players currently going no-elim and I'm leaning that way too; Titus obviously doesn't read all of us as scum.

[Flea The Magician]

I'm the main one pushing her no kill.
Titus needs to give her reasoning for the furtive vote an why not me when I'm clearly being called scum in that post as the main person pushing for no kill.

[Radical Rat]

I don't think pushing for a no kill is scummy personally. I don't think scum actually has a strong preference one way or the other, at least not in the abstract sense.

The logic that they chose it and therefore must want it used simply doesn't hold up. If we get Inform tomorrow, would you say that Mafia desperately wants us to inform someone?

[Radical Rat]

What IS scummy is furtive starting out by saying we SHOULD use the double elimination, in a scummy fashion even, then turning around and pushing hard against it as soon as the possibility it might be him getting eliminated appeared.

[Alianna]

What IS scummy is furtive starting out by saying we SHOULD use the double elimination, in a scummy fashion even, then turning around and pushing hard against it as soon as the possibility it might be him getting eliminated appeared.

Could you please point out where furtive said that? They've been pushing for a no-lim all game.

[furtiveglance]

so we get 2 eliminations today. That's interesting. How about anyone who leads on town gets quickhammered afterwards?

I think it was this post.

Why would anyone in their right mind think that was a serious suggestion?

Radical Rat, did that really not read like a joke to you?

[Radical Rat]

No, it did not. Your actual RVS vote did read as a joke, but I did believe you were serious there. I said as much earlier and you didn't correct me then, so why now?

[furtiveglance]

I didn't see you say it earlier.

[Radical Rat]

VOTE: furtiveglance
How about anyone who suggests quickhammering gets quickhammered afterwards?

Also for the record, this was semi-serious.

I don't actually want a quickhammer here, but I thought the irony in suggesting a quickhammer for suggesting a quickhammer would be fun.

I do, however, seriously think that's a bad way to go about the day, and quite possibly a scum motivated suggestion

[quote="In post 193The most redundant of your arguments against me seems to imply that I was against using the double elimination just because I was the most popular vote. This is false. I always wanted to No Eliminate first, and stated that at the time.

Is that so?

so we get 2 eliminations today. That's interesting. How about anyone who leads on town gets quickhammered afterwards?

[/quote]

[furtiveglance]

Yeah, I was never serious about quickhammering. I didn't think it needed clarification that I was joking either.

[Alianna]

If someone wants to hammer No Elimination, I have no objections.

[Alianna]

But maybe wait a bit and see if others have anything to say.

[Alianna]

We aren't going to get a good wagon in the time we have. I think it's best we just end the phase so we can move on from this argument and discuss reads.

[Radical Rat]

If it was actually a joke, then I apologize. I sometimes have difficulty discerning jokes from serious statements, as evidenced by well... This.

I do still think your reactions to pressure look very not good, but I will need to re-read and re-evaluate things with that in mind before making proper judgement, and I don't really have the energy for that tonight, so look forward to that tomorrow.


I do still 100% stand by using the elimination being the correct decision though, that's not affected by any of this

[Cat.Jpeg]

Greeting the game. Unforgiveable.

VOTE: MalcolmTucker

so we get 2 eliminations today. That's interesting. How about anyone who leads on town gets quickhammered afterwards?

VOTE: furtiveglance
How about anyone who suggests quickhammering gets quickhammered afterwards?

You're happy to lead on town then Radical Rat...you know the deal.

I saw all these posts as completely joking around. I was confused when I saw ppl taking the greeting the game vote and quickhammer thing seriously. Earlier when you asked 'is that so?' when furtive said they always wanted no elimination i typed up a post saying I thought they were joking also that it was only their 2nd post but decided against it because I didn't want to speak for furtive and also wanted to see what they would say.