Mini 898: The Game (you just lost it)-OVER

[llamaeatataco]

I guess it's just a misunderstanding. To me, the RVS is just a way to jump-start discussion. As soon as you start saying things seriously (quoting people is a dead give-away) the RVS is over. That's the way I see it. And yes, I was slightly exaggerating the way that I saw your post, but the general idea was the same.

In response to you having reasons... What I should have said is that you didn't have any

solid

reason for your vote. Your excuse is that there is some scuminess to him, and you're entitled. I'll stop beating around the bush and say it here: I exaggerated. I view your reason as flimsy, but it's there, and it certainly justifies a vote on someone who is not currently in danger. Fine.

As for misrepresenting you at the end, I don't believe I was. Nobody has cast a truly random vote for quite a while, and there would be no reason to do so. The RVS was over as soon as the wagon was pointed out and diamond unvoted. When I said 'your vote doesn't matter' I was saying that fypov, there was no danger of diamond getting lynched for quite some time. 'I don't see the reason to unvote' Was I misinterpreting that? On a second glance, you could be saying that you are happy with your vote, meaning you think diamond is scum. I suppose that's legit. I was just in the mindset of "Unvoting means you think they are in danger of a speedlynch."

tldr version: Whoops. My bad.

Eh. To give this post a point:

mod: I will be v/la until Sunday

First post of the page has a point! VOTE COUNT!
Almaster-3-SolemnJ, Suffer, MrSuave
Diamondilium-2-AK47x2, Torqez
llamaeatataco-1-qax42
Suffer-1-AlmasterGM

[qax42]

@

Town

:

Unvote

llamaateataco makes a good point about the potential nutritional benefits of a taco.

@

Suffer

:

You say (emphasis mine):

Anyway, that's remarkably stupid.

I'm pretty sure everyone's vote at the beginning of the game has no justification.

It's just that some people choose to dress it up with a fanciful reason.

Then, when responding to Diamondilium:

For reactions, and I hate the RVS. A bandwagon accomplishes both, so I contributed to it.

That sounds like a thought-out justification to me—and someone being caught tripping over their own posts.

You also say "I hate the RVS" and that "A bandwagon accomplishes both". Both what? And if you hate the RVS, why vote?

[Diamondilium]

Peabody I didn't see you're answer to my question:

Suffer made a similar comment about the exact same quote from Almaster but you only called my point suspicious. Why not his?

This was in post 54 if you need to read the context.

This is the link to the page of the game where the doctor was quicklynched because people weren't paying attention to the votes on him as you requested, Peabody.

That's a good catch qax about Suffer's contradiction. He's lying somewhere.

Vote: Suffer

[AlmasterGM]

More Suffer votes please.

[Suffer]

That sounds like a thought-out justification to me

That depends what you take justification to mean. If you take it to mean having a reason, then yes, my vote was justified. But by that definition, everyone's vote is justified, because everyone has a reason when they vote, whether it's how their name looked or what came up when they rolled the dice.

When I said justified, I meant well-grounded. I wasn't voting AlmasterGM because I thought him to be scum, but rather to continue a bandwagon.

You also say "I hate the RVS" and that "A bandwagon accomplishes both". Both what? And if you hate the RVS, why vote?

To your first point, both is in regards to reactions and leaving the RVS. Having an early bandwagon helps to quickly leave the RVS, as it starts discussion and you can start getting information from people.

As for your second point, because my vote is a tool. There's no reason for me not to use all tools available to me just because I happen not to like this certain stage of the game.

[Torqez]

@llamaeatataco

lol, np.

@Suffer issue

I don't see it as Suffer contradicting himself. Infact, I too have just for the sake of it bandwagoned people to guage reactions and progress the game.

However, Suffer, you have a great post above mine about using tools! I'm going to use mine too!

Unvote. Vote: Suffer

Mod: Another point for you? Christmas Eve for me, I'll be V/LA over the next 4 days, till 29th Dec. Still will be aroundish though.

[AlmasterGM]

@llamaeatataco

lol, np.

@Suffer issue

I don't see it as Suffer contradicting himself. Infact, I too have just for the sake of it bandwagoned people to guage reactions and progress the game.

However, Suffer, you have a great post above mine about using tools! I'm going to use mine too!

Unvote. Vote: Suffer

Mod: Another point for you? Christmas Eve for me, I'll be V/LA over the next 4 days, till 29th Dec. Still will be aroundish though.

This post is a giant non-sequitur.

Also, this game needs way more MrSuave, Tom, and SolemnJ. Post now, plz.

[Diamondilium]

That sounds like a thought-out justification to me

That depends what you take justification to mean. If you take it to mean having a reason, then yes, my vote was justified. But by that definition, everyone's vote is justified, because everyone has a reason when they vote, whether it's how their name looked or what came up when they rolled the dice.

When I said justified, I meant well-grounded. I wasn't voting AlmasterGM because I thought him to be scum, but rather to continue a bandwagon.

Fair enough.

Also, Suffer, you still haven't responded to this from llamaeatataco:

Also, your accusation, and the assumption that putting someone at l-2 is a bad thing, is strange. Also, the contradiction between 'even though almastergm wasn't in any real danger' and 'absolve yourself of fault for putting him at l-2' is weird...-er.

Looking back at it, it's more than just "strange" - it fits the scum mindset well. He displayed suspicion on multiple people, which normally wouldn't bother me, but the fact that his reasons for those suspicions contradict indicates that his suspicion weren't genuine in the first place. Instead, it seems like he was grabbing whatever reasons he could (regardless of whether they were contradicting or logical) and using them to keep his foot in all doors.

[Suffer]

Ah, I did miss that.

Suffer, why do you think he put it on him. Maybe to pressure him?

I would assume so, but the fact that he said it was random is what bothered me. He had to know there was a bandwagon on him. It just seems like he's playing the ignorance card. Which leads me to this:

Also, your accusation, and the assumption that putting someone at l-2 is a bad thing, is strange. Also, the contradiction between 'even though almastergm wasn't in any real danger' and 'absolve yourself of fault for putting him at l-2' is weird...-er.

Those two points came from two separate mindsets. I said he wasn't in any real danger because, well, he wasn't. Two scum could have quickhammered him, but that would be remarkably bad play on their part. The "absolve yourself of fault" was said by me as a suggestion for MrSuave's actions. I was thinking that MrSuave said that his L-2 vote was random because in his mind, putting someone there could be seen as suspicious, and he was trying to give himself an excuse.

I don't see it as Suffer contradicting himself. Infact, I too have just for the sake of it bandwagoned people to guage reactions and progress the game.

However, Suffer, you have a great post above mine about using tools! I'm going to use mine too!

Great! So that means you know that saying you're voting for someone just for the sake of putting more votes on them does nothing to progress the game because you're not putting any real pressure on them, right? Er, guess not.

If you have a reason, that's great. If you don't, that's alright, too, but don't just go out and say your vote is only there because you want me to have more votes. It makes you look pretty dumb.

[Torqez]

Oh, name calling. How great!

[AlmasterGM]

Suffer needs to die.

Now.

[Peabody]

Peabody I didn't see you're answer to my question:

Suffer made a similar comment about the exact same quote from Almaster but you only called my point suspicious. Why not his?

This was in post 54 if you need to read the context.

Oh, woops. I forgot to answer that question.

Actually, while I was writing post 52, I considered making a comment about Suffer's post 46 and his post 49. While I was writing a question or two about it, I realized that I really didn't have anything to say about his posts. I did reference Suffer's posts along with a few other people's posts when I wrote "This is getting out of hand". I felt as if Suffer's reasoning behind the Almaster vote was flawed while he was placing a lot of pressure on Almaster. However, in his posts, he didn't really accuse Almaster of anything. All Suffer accused Almaster of was making stupid comments.

Diamond, your post, however, was very different in nature. You actually accused Almaster of throwing accusations wildly out there. Do you see why I pointed out your post rather than Suffer's? Suffer's post didn't point anything suspicious in Almaster's activity. Yours attempted to.

---
@Almaster, can you give me a collective case on Suffer? You seem pretty adament about lynching him, yet I haven't really seen much reasoning for your vote.

Unless your post 50 sums it up... But this post doesn't really point out why Suffer is scum. All it points out is your belief that he has bad logic. Is this why your vote is placed on him?

--
I do think Suffer needs a closer look.

[Peabody]

Also, this game needs way more MrSuave, Tom, and SolemnJ. Post now, plz.

I agree. MrSuave, Tom and SolemnJ:
What do you think of Suffer?

[Peabody]

Also, rewq455, can you answer the above question?

[MrSuave]

well, for one thing, it was a purely random vote. I didn't even count the votes before I voted. I thought I had said that before.

anyway, what I think about suffer?

---> "That depends what you take justification to mean. If you take it to mean having a reason, then yes, my vote was justified. But by that definition, everyone's vote is justified, because everyone has a reason when they vote, whether it's how their name looked or what came up when they rolled the dice.

When I said justified, I meant well-grounded. I wasn't voting AlmasterGM because I thought him to be scum, but rather to continue a bandwagon." <---

that rubs me wrong, I'm not going to lie. so I'm going to go ahead an

unvote vote: suffer

[AlmasterGM]

well, for one thing, it was a purely random vote. I didn't even count the votes before I voted. I thought I had said that before.

anyway, what I think about suffer?

---> "That depends what you take justification to mean. If you take it to mean having a reason, then yes, my vote was justified. But by that definition, everyone's vote is justified, because everyone has a reason when they vote, whether it's how their name looked or what came up when they rolled the dice.

When I said justified, I meant well-grounded. I wasn't voting AlmasterGM because I thought him to be scum, but rather to continue a bandwagon." <---

that rubs me wrong, I'm not going to lie. so I'm going to go ahead an

unvote vote: suffer

Great way to jump into the game. Start with some defense, then spout off some vague, abstract reason for getting on the bandwagon without any elaboration whatsoever. If Suffer flips town, you are obvscum. If Suffer flips scum, you are probably scum trying to bus.

[AlmasterGM]

Unless your post 50 sums it up... But this post doesn't really point out why Suffer is scum. All it points out is your belief that he has bad logic. Is this why your vote is placed on him?

I'm actually not sure whether Suffer is scum or bad town right now. I'm actually inclined to say really, really bad town, but the backpedal and the logic was just so awful that I can't unvote right now.

If someone wanted to start a MrSuave wagon, I'd totally be on board for that, though.

[rewq455]

Those two points came from two separate mindsets. I said he wasn't in any real danger because, well, he wasn't. Two scum could have quickhammered him, but that would be remarkably bad play on their part. The "absolve yourself of fault" was said by me as a suggestion for MrSuave's actions. I was thinking that MrSuave said that his L-2 vote was random because in his mind, putting someone there could be seen as suspicious, and he was trying to give himself an excuse.

If the scum had quick hammered, we would then know exactly who this would be pro town. However, we could have 2 stupid townies vote and we have 3 dead townies...... I think this could have potentially hurt town more than helped

[MrSuave]

so what you're saying is:
if he is town, I am scum
if he is scum, I am scum

that's not a very good way of thinking.

[AlmasterGM]

so what you're saying is:
if he is town, I am scum
if he is scum, I am scum

that's not a very good way of thinking.

Actually, it is, because your behavior is scummy regardless of how Suffer flips. You just look even worse if he flips town.

[Peabody]

MrSuave, I know this game is only starting, but what is the scummiest thing you did so far in this game?

[Peabody]

Those two points came from two separate mindsets. I said he wasn't in any real danger because, well, he wasn't. Two scum could have quickhammered him, but that would be remarkably bad play on their part. The "absolve yourself of fault" was said by me as a suggestion for MrSuave's actions. I was thinking that MrSuave said that his L-2 vote was random because in his mind, putting someone there could be seen as suspicious, and he was trying to give himself an excuse.

If the scum had quick hammered, we would then know exactly who this would be pro town. However, we could have 2 stupid townies vote and we have 3 dead townies...... I think this could have potentially hurt town more than helped

rewq, You didn't answer my question. What do you think of Suffer?

[qax42]

@

Suffer

:

I accept your logic, even though I still don't like those original posts. I'm OK with your responses for now.

@

Torqez

:

Your #80 is thus far the weirdest post in this game. You defend Suffer and then vote him with no real justification. Explain your actions (this was already asked of you in #81 indirectly).

Weirdest means scummy.

[MrSuave]

hm.... probably the switch to suffer I suppose. everything else is pretty mild compared to that I guess

[Peabody]

hm.... probably the switch to suffer I suppose. everything else is pretty mild compared to that I guess

Thanks. I know it was a strange question, but I believe that your answer will be helpful later.

Merry Christmas/Hannakuh/Kwanzaa/whateverotherholidaypeepscelebrate/


--

vote Torqez

Post 80 needs to be explained. Thanks for pointing that out qax. Also, I'm a bit wary of your earlier vote on Diamond. You kept your vote on

Because I don't see anything particularly scummy as of yet from anyone. I don't particularly believe Diamondilium is scum, but it's the only one thing I have at the moment.

It looks like your vote on Suffer was the same story. You put a vote on Suffer after clearing him in your mind?
Contradiction central.