It's too convenient to be able to say something less-than-perfectly-thought-out and blame it on sarcasm later.
Emoticons are your friend.
[/quote]Pie_is_good wrote: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.
Let's back up a minute. This was your post in question:bertrand wrote: I voted later, I wanted to see your reaction before voting. Then your reaction looked even more scummy, so i did.
You saidbertrand wrote:Why the useless bandwagon on me? Random bandwagons are only good for scum.FoS Pie
He's got enough votes.veryclearly 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.
For your viewing pleasure, the post in question is this one:bertrand wrote: You made a bad explanation, used CrapLogic, and misrepresented the situation. Need more?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.Pie_is_good wrote: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.
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.
No, there really wasn't. You're just trying to write it off as "craplogic" and "misrepresentation" without providing reasons.Bertrand wrote: There was the craplogic and misrepresentaion of the situation.The one on you isn't, anyway.
...and I'll choose to ignore the (funny? ad hominem? sarcastic?) one-liner at the end of the post.
[quote="Pie_is_good]
-Pie
It is seven to lynch.The Author, in a caption, wrote:Vote Count:
Pie is Good - 2 (Tyfo, Bertrand)
Thok - 1 (Vitamin R)
Bertrand - 3 (StevieT92, Fuldu, Pie is Good)
Fuldu - 1 (Diedraphoenix)
Tyfo - 1 (TSAGod)
TSAGod - 4 (Nemesis, Thok, Adele, Akonas)
Not voting:None.
Akonas wrote:Vote: TSAGod- you confuse me.
I think that random bandwagoning can be a great tool, as long as it doesn't go too far. People aren't likely to respond to one random vote.
I thought the sarcasm was fairly apparent, as well, but this is an argument that cuts both ways. TSAGod has said that he's in favor of early random voting, but not random bandwagoning. So at what point does a random vote turn into a random bandwagon? At what point does the fact that players' "random votes" are all on entirely different people indicate that they're only random to the extent that they've chosen one of the players without votes to put a vote on. Real random voting would end up with bandwagons of three votes fairly quickly. In practice, that almost never happens.TSAGod wrote:This is rediculous. I was commenting on how stupid it was for "randomly" bandwagoning on Pie because he put a third vote on somebody. That's not random. Pie did something to cause that action.
I could have sworn the sarcasm was forming a puddle under my post.
Anyway - what is too far for a bandwagon. You decided that three was too far for Bertrand? If you like random bandwagoning, like it all the way. Don't pile on the anti-bandwagon bandwagon because you think it is cool.
No. I said I was okay with my vote. I didn't congratulate others for their votes, and I didn't encourage anyone to vote for TSA.Pie_is_good wrote:just feels like Adele is grasping for a way to keep this bandwagon rolling.
No, trying to explain my actions and acquiesce to the town's wishes.bertrand wrote:Trying to kill the badwagon after it doesn't pick up?
Because posting that you're going to think about voting, but not doing it, allows for a later justification of putting a late-bandwagon or lynching vote on. Also, it pushes a bandwagon without actually having to be on it, so if Adele turns out to be pro-town (either by getting lynched or by having this bandwagon die out, but then getting night-killed) and people want to look at the voting record, a scum who said the above wouldn't obviously have been a part of that bandwagon.bertrand wrote:This may turn into a vote, I wanna think about it (and why is saying that a scum tell)?
I was asking why a vote for Pie is Good instead of Bertrand. That's what I was trying to ask.Akonas wrote:I never said that bertrand had too many votes; he just doesn't seem scummy at all to me at the moment.
Okay, TSAGod, if you want to get all self-righteous about how obvious your sarcasm should have been, you're going to have to work on the clarity of your writing. I've read this five times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. If I were to translate it into brief, coherent sentences you would be saying:TSAGod wrote:And as for bandwagons, I'm for them as long as they don't have an obvious cause as done by the bandwagon. Officially scumminess is okay, though, but a mildly scummy thing that very likely isn't a real tell angers me.
I think he's saying: "bandwagons are okay if they are caused by solid scum tells, not weak ones. Don't bandwagon for the sake of bandwagoning"Fuldu wrote:Okay, TSAGod, if you want to get all self-righteous about how obvious your sarcasm should have been, you're going to have to work on the clarity of your writing. I've read this five times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. If I were to translate it into brief, coherent sentences you would be saying:TSAGod wrote:And as for bandwagons, I'm for them as long as they don't have an obvious cause as done by the bandwagon. Officially scumminess is okay, though, but a mildly scummy thing that very likely isn't a real tell angers me.
I'm in favor of bandwagons, as long as there isn't a reason for them. Scummy behavior is okay, but mildly scummy behavior isn't.
Sure, but I'm sick of trying to guess at what I think he's saying. He should learn to write sentences that don't contain grammatically dubious constructs like "an obvious cause as done by the bandwagon" or "officially scumminess."Adele wrote:I think he's saying: "bandwagons are okay if they are caused by solid scum tells, not weak ones. Don't bandwagon for the sake of bandwagoning"
QFTFuldu wrote:I'm sick of trying to guess at what I think he's saying. He should learn to write sentences that don't contain grammatically dubious constructs like "an obvious cause as done by the bandwagon" or "officially scumminess."
And, secondarily, I would disagree with his views on solid vs. weak scum tells. In my experience, there aren't many, if any, solid scum tells, but there are lots and lots of weak ones. So my approach is to look for players who've committed several of them and place my vote there.