What would you suggest, then?Netopalis wrote:Stranger: Honestly, I think that the whole "vote for pressure" thing, along with the "vote for reaction" thing is rather weak. It only works on new players who don't know what's going on...Anyone who's been through at least a few games, though, should see right through it.
About the theme? You mean the theme of the game? On day 1, to get things started?Netopalis wrote:Generally, I find that posing questions and discussions like this about theme and method are more effective...
First of all, I didn't know the count that well. I know I can't prove it, but the point is moot anyways, for the following reason: what else would you expect me to do? Not vote someone early in the game because I have more votes than them?elvis_knits wrote:The only problem I have with sensfan voting boxman is that it makes the rival bandwagon as big as his own, which switched momentum to someone else.
I would expect you to vote boxman if you were town thinking boxman is scum or if you were scum wanting a rival bandwagon to get bigger. I know it could go either way... and I'm not sure which.SensFan wrote:First of all, I didn't know the count that well. I know I can't prove it, but the point is moot anyways, for the following reason: what else would you expect me to do? Not vote someone early in the game because I have more votes than them?elvis_knits wrote:The only problem I have with sensfan voting boxman is that it makes the rival bandwagon as big as his own, which switched momentum to someone else.
The reason I reacted badly to you mentioning theme is because it relates directly to the setup: discussing setup on day 1 is aNetopalis wrote:Sorry, I meant to say setup, not theme.
There are things I don't like, such as your going against the practice of random wagonning and your tendency to answer for others - but those are playstyle objections, which don't really reflect on your alignment.Netopalis wrote:He doesn't like the fact that I'm going against the common practice of pressure and reaction votes, nor the fact that I suggested setup discussion as a potentially better method of early scumhunting.
Of course it's reasoned. That should be evident from my giving a reason.Netopalis wrote:Fair enough, I retract the statement. I only intended it as a general replacement anyway.
So, just to be clear, you are calling the Boxman vote reasoned? I'll have to reevaluate it, then. I think that the reasoning may be a bit shaky.
Well, I know why he doesn't like you, that's obvious. I actually meant to ask seol why he is connecting you to me. I can see him connecting you to boxman since you poo-pooed his boxman wagon. But why you and me are together, or why boxman and me are together, not sure why.Netopalis wrote:He doesn't like the fact that I'm going against the common practice of pressure and reaction votes, nor the fact that I suggested setup discussion as a potentially better method of early scumhunting.
I knew there weren't 6 votes on Boxman, since I hadn't seen that many, so I voted without even checking the count.elvis_knits wrote:However, don't try to tell me you didn't know what you were doing. There was a vote count at the top of the page. I assume you can count to three seeing as all the boxman votes were on the same page.
Your attack on Sensfan didn't ring true at all, and this in particular:elvis_knits wrote:Well, I know why he doesn't like you, that's obvious. I actually meant to ask seol why he is connecting you to me. I can see him connecting you to boxman since you poo-pooed his boxman wagon. But why you and me are together, or why boxman and me are together, not sure why.Netopalis wrote:He doesn't like the fact that I'm going against the common practice of pressure and reaction votes, nor the fact that I suggested setup discussion as a potentially better method of early scumhunting.
felt unreasonably aggressive. Basically, it came across to me as an engineered argument; finding a reason to attack as opposed to genuine suspicion.However, don't try to tell me you didn't know what you were doing. There was a vote count at the top of the page. I assume you can count to three seeing as all the boxman votes were on the same page.
also has that quality of feeling unreasonably aggressive; attacking for the sake of attacking, and notably different in tone to how you're talking to anyone else.So are you going to explain your vote or are you just going to hide behind seol?
Why do you think it wasn't genuine?Seol wrote:Your attack on Sensfan didn't ring true at all, and this in particular:elvis_knits wrote:Well, I know why he doesn't like you, that's obvious. I actually meant to ask seol why he is connecting you to me. I can see him connecting you to boxman since you poo-pooed his boxman wagon. But why you and me are together, or why boxman and me are together, not sure why.Netopalis wrote:He doesn't like the fact that I'm going against the common practice of pressure and reaction votes, nor the fact that I suggested setup discussion as a potentially better method of early scumhunting.felt unreasonably aggressive. Basically, it came across to me as an engineered argument; finding a reason to attack as opposed to genuine suspicion.However, don't try to tell me you didn't know what you were doing. There was a vote count at the top of the page. I assume you can count to three seeing as all the boxman votes were on the same page.
My suggestions were serious. Yours weren't?seol wrote: I also wanted to see how you reacted to mimicking your scum-team suggestion postings. The unexpected response: you took it seriously.
How do you measure "reasonable aggression?" Of course I'm going to be more aggressive to someone that I am voting and think might be scum.seol wrote: PPE: This:also has that quality of feeling unreasonably aggressive; attacking for the sake of attacking, and notably different in tone to how you're talking to anyone else.So are you going to explain your vote or are you just going to hide behind seol?
You seemed to just go with the flow. You still had a neutral read afterward, but again, I'm not all for the bandwagon stage.SensFan wrote:SC, why are you assuming my vote isn't serious?
I love how you call a scumtell weak and then make two points against him supporting the tell.elvis_knits wrote:The boxman wagon does not look random to me. It looks to be based on a weak scumtell. I don't know how others see boxman's post 31, but to me it's boxman posting without content, posting without trying to advance the game or scum hunt, and possibly the worst sin of all -- making my sensfan bandwagon look silly!
Because I don't think most people pay that much attention to the vote count at this stage in the game: you're coming across as if it was irresponsible of Sensfan not to know the precise votecount, and furthermore as if he had heightened responsibility for it because he was an alternative wagon. Particularly the use of the phrase "you had to know what you were doing" is highly accusative on something which isn't a reasonable expectation of a typical player at this point.elvis_knits wrote:Why do you think it wasn't genuine?Seol wrote:Your attack on Sensfan didn't ring true at all, and this in particular:elvis_knits wrote:Well, I know why he doesn't like you, that's obvious. I actually meant to ask seol why he is connecting you to me. I can see him connecting you to boxman since you poo-pooed his boxman wagon. But why you and me are together, or why boxman and me are together, not sure why.Netopalis wrote:He doesn't like the fact that I'm going against the common practice of pressure and reaction votes, nor the fact that I suggested setup discussion as a potentially better method of early scumhunting.felt unreasonably aggressive. Basically, it came across to me as an engineered argument; finding a reason to attack as opposed to genuine suspicion.However, don't try to tell me you didn't know what you were doing. There was a vote count at the top of the page. I assume you can count to three seeing as all the boxman votes were on the same page.
Well, that depends what you mean by serious. It was reasoned, but not intended to carry much weight.elvis_knits wrote:My suggestions were serious. Yours weren't?seol wrote:I also wanted to see how you reacted to mimicking your scum-team suggestion postings. The unexpected response: you took it seriously.
I don'telvis_knits wrote:How do you measure "reasonable aggression?" Of course I'm going to be more aggressive to someone that I am voting and think might be scum.seol wrote:PPE: This:also has that quality of feeling unreasonably aggressive; attacking for the sake of attacking, and notably different in tone to how you're talking to anyone else.So are you going to explain your vote or are you just going to hide behind seol?