I think he's getting pissy because im not calling him by his actual username.Shanba wrote:Vote: Sir Tornado
Gah, I realise you're probably mocking BM, but please. Stop. Doing. That.
Ooi, do you think it is acceptable to 'mock' me?
BM
I think he's getting pissy because im not calling him by his actual username.Shanba wrote:Vote: Sir Tornado
Gah, I realise you're probably mocking BM, but please. Stop. Doing. That.
No Lynch is bad, but not really much worse than a lynch based on no reasoning atall.Sobeahero wrote:Bandwagons are fun! (That and I agree with the whole 'no lynch is bad' sentamant.)
Vote: Hoopla
Seraphim wrote:Vote: Hooplafor not liking it when people talk to each other about important game issues.
It's the random stage. What do you expect?? The nature of it, is that all starting votes tend to be 'jokey'...GeorgeCarlin wrote: By voting no lynch, what you did was make a vote that won't be able to really provide much information to the town, due to how obviously jokey it was.
Lol. Didnt you just say that it "wouldnt provide much information to the town due to how obviously jokey it is"?GeorgeCarlin wrote: Although it's not neccesarily vital information for the town, random voting could help later on down the road.
Which i guess makes you guilty of UNDER-mining, right?GeorgeCarlin wrote:Your vote, in fact, consisted of nothing more than half-baked OMGUS based on quote-mining.
So you feel that later in the game, it will be of greater use to analyse random votes, which btw, are...random? You'd rather have that than something controversial that can reveal some weaseley opportunistic scumbag?GeorgeCarlin wrote: Another important part of my post is the use of the phrase "by itself". Although your vote may start discussion due to others commenting on how scummy the vote is, and create reactions, by itself it does not give the town any information to analyze so that they can learn more about your alignment. And that is something that I feel, especially this early in the game, is extremely important.
Lol, i think you're trying too hard. Why are you complaining about somebody backing you up? Most of the information from the random voting stage comes from bandwagons. The last sentence doesnt even make grammatical sense...GeorgeCarlin wrote:Out of curiousity, what do you personally believe will come out of this wagon? Why did you choose to hop onto an avenue already being persued, rather than examine the reactions of other players by casting your vote in their directly?Sobeahero wrote:Bandwagons are fun! (That and I agree with the whole 'no lynch is bad' sentamant.)
Vote: Hoopla
Of course it's acceptable! It's just that upside down quoting thing, well, you have little idea how much that annoyed me.Battle Mage wrote:I think he's getting pissy because im not calling him by his actual username. :DShanba wrote:Vote: Sir Tornado
Gah, I realise you're probably mocking BM, but please. Stop. Doing. That.
Ooi, do you think it is acceptable to 'mock' me?
BM
The flaw in his reasoning could have been an honest mistake, but there's also a good possibility it wasn't (its very easy for scum to jump on a standard anti town tell such as voting no lynch), and its light years better than a random vote. The random voting stage does exactly zero for forward momentum.Shanba wrote:Yeah, but is that actually scummy?OhGodMyLife wrote:Oddly enough, I agree with BM. GC undermined his own argument in the process of writing it.
:'(Shanba wrote:Of course it's acceptable!Battle Mage wrote:I think he's getting pissy because im not calling him by his actual username.Shanba wrote:Vote: Sir Tornado
Gah, I realise you're probably mocking BM, but please. Stop. Doing. That.
Ooi, do you think it is acceptable to 'mock' me?
BM
...I'm getting FoSed already?Battle Mage wrote:Seraphim wrote:Vote: Hooplafor not liking it when people talk to each other about important game issues.FoS: Seraphim
I think you just missed the point entirely. Opportunism much?
BM
You could have called it a 'random vote'. But you didnt. You tried to validate it as a reasoned 1. I'm pointing out that your reasoning makes no sense.Seraphim wrote:...I'm getting FoSed already?Battle Mage wrote:Seraphim wrote:Vote: Hooplafor not liking it when people talk to each other about important game issues.FoS: Seraphim
I think you just missed the point entirely. Opportunism much?
BM
I finid it odd that you're calling me out for being "oppurtunistic" for jumping/starting a bandwagon for a possible in-game reason, when stuff like that happens all the time in the random phrase for absolutely no reason at all.
Take your vote off my buddy Hoopla now, and i'll retract my FoS and apologise for being too quick to judge you.Seraphim wrote: Sure, my logic may be faulty, but why call me out for it now, during the part of the game that tends to just be silliness?
Lol, im not entirely sure if it was a trap or not. The fact you retracted your vote doesnt make you look any less scummy to me, but:Seraphim wrote:...is this a trap?
Unvotebecause I actually don't think Hoopla was scummy?
>_>
<_<
This feels like a trap.
Nobody agrees with BM. That certainly can only be motivated by a desire to buddy up with him.OhGodMyLife wrote:The flaw in his reasoning could have been an honest mistake, but there's also a good possibility it wasn't (its very easy for scum to jump on a standard anti town tell such as voting no lynch), and its light years better than a random vote. The random voting stage does exactly zero for forward momentum.Shanba wrote:Yeah, but is that actually scummy?OhGodMyLife wrote:Oddly enough, I agree with BM. GC undermined his own argument in the process of writing it.
First off, he disproved nothing. The point was that vote couln't be used later for any reason, and that it seemed hoopla didn't want to start a discussion, as it would draw attention to him.Battle Mage wrote:GeorgeCarlin wrote:Don't like this. Although the random voting stage isn't particularly vital, it can often help jumpstart conversation, get reactions going, etc. This vote provides no information to the town that can be discussed later, such as voting patterns, etc. In addition, it provides very little discussion or reacting by itself, while votes on a player can help create reactions, and start conversation.Hoopla wrote:vote: no lynch
obvscum
In fact, I find that depriving the town of information, even information this small, to be somewhat scummy. Although it's more definately not a solid case, it's a start, and I feel that this has more potential to get the conversation going than simply ignoring it and random voting. Therefore,
Vote: HooplaUnvote, Vote: GeorgeCarlin
Well done buddy. You just disproved your own argument. If voting No-Lynch didnt provoke discussion, YOU WOULDNT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IT. If voting no-lynch didnt illicit reactions, YOU WOULDNT HAVE VOTED FOR HOOPLA.
He left a trap, and you fell right into it.
BM