Mini 277 - Webcomic Mafia - Game Over!

[bertrand]

Most people call him pie.

unvote

[bertrand]

Most people call him pie.

unvote

Random Vote Bertrand

vote StevieT92, unvote

Cause regular voting is out.

[bertrand]

Don't worry about my unvotes, I never actually voted anyone.

I remember reading EGS (the entire archive) a couple years back and I don't remember what it's about.

vote no lynch, unvote

[bertrand]

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
• 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]

Why the useless bandwagon on me? Random bandwagons are only good for scum.

FoS Pie

He's got enough votes.

[bertrand]

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]

Random VOTING is good to get the game going. Random BANDWAGONING is not.

au contraire

Are you denying that what I did has failed to get the game moving?

It gets the game going, fine, but it isn't good.

Let's review bert's post:

Why the useless bandwagon on me? Random bandwagons are only good for scum. FoS Pie

He's got enough votes.

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."

I voted later, I wanted to see your reaction before voting. Then your reaction looked even more scummy, so i did.

...and if this post isn't flipping out, I don't know

what

your 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.

You made a bad explanation, used CrapLogic, and misrepresented the situation. Need more?

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 was

no aditional reason to change your FoS to a vote

.

There was the craplogic and misrepresentaion of the situation.

My Thoughts. Besides, it should be over soon-- the bandwagon is no longer random due to strange actions resulting from a small bandwagon.

The one on you isn't, anyway.

-Pie

Ahh, the only part of the post that makes sense.

~Bert

[bertrand]

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.

I voted later, I wanted to see your reaction before voting. Then your reaction looked even more scummy, so i did.

Let's back up a minute. This was your post in question:

Why the useless bandwagon on me? Random bandwagons are only good for scum.

FoS Pie

He's got enough votes.

You said

very

clearly 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.

You made a bad explanation, used CrapLogic, and misrepresented the situation. Need more?

For your viewing pleasure, the post in question is this one:

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.

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.

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.

There was the craplogic and misrepresentaion of the situation.The one on you isn't, anyway.

No, there really wasn't. You're just trying to write it off as "craplogic" and "misrepresentation" without providing reasons.



...and I'll choose to ignore the (funny? ad hominem? sarcastic?) one-liner at the end of the post.

[quote="Pie_is_good]
-Pie

[/quote]

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]

I like this one better.

Unvote Pie

FOS Adele

Trying to kill the badwagon after it doesn't pick up?

This may turn into a vote, I wanna think about it (and why is saying that a scum tell)?

[bertrand]

Just the third? I thought he had 4 at some point. Never mind. Not voting. (for now)

[bertrand]

Ahh.

FoS Arkonas

[bertrand]

At the risk of appearing scummy, I will

vote Arkonas

. He is jumping on weak wagons.

[bertrand]

Hmm..

unvote Arkonas

Will reconsider.

[bertrand]

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.

Total Crap. If scum starts a bandwagon, it's NOT ON OTHER SCUM.

FoS pie, part OMGUS

[bertrand]

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.

Total Crap. If scum starts a bandwagon, it's NOT ON OTHER SCUM.

FoS pie, part OMGUS

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.

There we have it. Scum bandwagons scum.

Show me the other stronger wagon.

[bertrand]

Following your logic, all noobs are scum? Thanks, I'm leanring a lot from you. You must be innocent because you have much more experience than me.

[bertrand]

Yeah, I am quite confused..

Are you misunderstanding him on purpose or what? Anyway, Akonas, you really need to claim properly...

Your sarcasm detector is broken.

[bertrand]

Pie, I'm still waiting for that other stronger wagon.

[bertrand]

Yeah, I got that. But when scum bandwagons scum they generally don't start a powerful wagon to get their partner lynched, they start a weaker one when the stronger one is going.

So you say you don't know what the stronger wagon is?

[bertrand]

It may not be someone's intention to get their scum buddy lynched but if the wagon is stronger than they thought it would be, they are not going to suddenly declare they are wrong are they?

Why not?

[bertrand]

Sorry if I'm wrong, but don't I have 1 and Arkonas 5?

[bertrand]

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 Akonas

FoS 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]

Twilight?

[bertrand]

Isn't it rather more likely there are protection-related roles / roleblockers etc?

Yeah. The Roleblocker should probably aim at the same person again and see what happens.

[bertrand]

The only reason I would want a roleblocker to come out at this stage is if they blocked the same person both nights. Then there's a good chance they've found scum. Otherwise, the odds aren't to the town's benefit at this point.

That's why I said to aim at the same person again.

[bertrand]

Vote: Bertrand

. I just generally think he's scummy, and too controlling.

What the hell, I just made a suggestion.

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]

There's nothing I can do. I don't see the point in making a post to convince you of anything. Good job.

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.

Well, you guys have 2 choices:

1. Lynch me twice
2. You don't lynch me twice and I make myself useful.

[bertrand]

Wait, aren't you effectively claiming an SK style role (albeit with a weaker ability to kill people than a normal SK)? I'm also surprised that Gabe doesn't have some affiliation wtih Tycho.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. I have no idea what else I could do.

[bertrand]

I didn't want to resort to this, but tonight I will kill one of the people voting for me.

[bertrand]

Actually, I'm going to kill your cop if you lynch me.

[bertrand]

So you want to unvote? You're gonna come off pretty scummy not saving your cop.

This is kinda fun though, I got a hostage.

[bertrand]

OK, suit yourself.

[bertrand]

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.

Thanks for pointing that out.. now you might be my target.

[bertrand]

Oh well, here's to hoping there's a 3 person endgame!