Mini #367: Endgame'd

[Arafax]

FOS Thestatusquo

Sorry, but putting someone 1 away is scummy no matter what your reason was...Also, you need to pay more attention before you cast your vote.

Mod - VC please?

[Elias_the_thief]

wow, i was gone for a day and i go all the way up to lynch -1. kind of scared you guys were just gonna keep rollin till i was dead after that quo vote. anyways,

fos the_status_quo

for putting someone at lynch -1. you should really be more careful before placing your vote. you could have at least asked for a vote count. ugh. im pretty tired, so ill post more tomorrow.

[Wuffles_II]

Keeping in mind you've been lurking, and your first post on the page is just a bandwagon hop restating others reasons, and using crap logic, I think it warrants a FOS.

Yeah man, post 8. Read the thread, lawl. It's only been 2 pages

rawr!

[Thestatusquo]

Uh...I don't see how the fact that he posted one random vote changes anything. He hasn't participated in any discussion, or added anything.

[ChannelDelibird]

Uh...I don't see how the fact that he posted one random vote changes anything. He hasn't participated in any discussion, or added anything.

Hardly anyone had. It's early day 1. And the fact still remains that debatable minor lurking is much less scummy than what you did.

[Thestatusquo]

I will admit that what I did looked scummy, but that's because I wasn't aware of the vote count, and what I like to do day one is form wagons to gain information. I unvoted when I realized that he was one from lynch, which was not 'backpeddling' or 'over apologetic' as some seem to think, but was the right play.

I'll claim if you want, but like... It was really just a stupid mistake on my part.

[Wuffles_II]

I don't support a claim for anyone at this stage.

I think we can take TSQ's suspicious action as more of a stupid mistake than a calculated scum play. However let's be sure to remember this in future if he makes any more "mistakes" like this one.

And TSQ - I too feel that the random vote wasn't a "Relevant" post - but it still contradicted your claim about #44 being ziliu's first post. Your reply was irrelevant in that respect.

Read the thread more carefully in future or it may end up getting you killed. ^_^

[Thestatusquo]

wuffles: My claim was that he was lurking. I.E. Not adding anything to the discussion, the fact that he random voted once before the post in question does not do anything to weaken that claim.

[Primate]

Mod - VC please?

O 4 SHUR!!

Vote Count

Lunalovegood
Lowell - (Elias_the_thief)
ChannelDelibird
Ghetto Anthony
Wuffles_II
ziliu
bluemonick - (Arafax)
Thestatusquo - (ChannelDelibird, Norinel, Ziliu)
Elias_the_thief - (bluemonick, wuffles, Lowell)
Arafax
Norinel

Not doin' their duty - (Ghetto Anthony, Lunalovegood)

6 to make the man swing.

[Arafax]

Uh...I don't see how the fact that he posted one random vote changes anything. He hasn't participated in any discussion, or added anything

wuffles: My claim was that he was lurking. I.E. Not adding anything to the discussion, the fact that he random voted once before the post in question does not do anything to weaken that claim.

So are you saying that you thought that it was a good idea to vote Elias and put him one away from a lynch because he wasn't posting?...IMO, some of you posts claim that you made a dumb mistake...These two make me think that you knew what you were doing.

I'd just like clarification....Thanks!

[Thestatusquo]

Uh....


Two different people. Two different justifications...Isn't that funny?

I voted Elias to put the bandwagon to the point where thered be a significant ammount of pressure. I put on too much pressure, because I did not realize it would put him one from lynch.

Those two posts are directed at Ziliu and are backing up what I said originally in post 45.

I guess I'm not the only one who needs to learn to read the thread.

[Elias_the_thief]

unvote

my random vote.

the_status_quo wrote

I voted Elias to put the bandwagon to the point where thered be a significant ammount of pressure. I put on too much pressure, because I did not realize it would put him one from lynch.

signifigant pressure for what? you must have noticed at least that i had 3 votes on me already, and that's certainly enough to require a response from me. what was the point of another vote at all?

[Elias_the_thief]

perhaps you felt that i was lurking after a total absense of less than a day? what exactly was the reasoning behind joining that wagon in the first place.
(sorry i didnt put that in the first post)

[Thestatusquo]

perhaps you felt that i was lurking after a total absense of less than a day? what exactly was the reasoning behind joining that wagon in the first place.

MAFIA 101 FOR ELIAS BECAUSE HE'S AN IDIOT: Day one is random. In order to stimulate discussion, people form bandwagons, because they force reactions. That was the justification for joining the wagon. The same justification EVERY OTHER PERSON ON IT HAD. Sorry everyone, this may seem a bit defensive, but it really isn't. I'm just frustrated that this is the third time I've had to explain this.

signifigant pressure for what? you must have noticed at least that i had 3 votes on me already, and that's certainly enough to require a response from me. what was the point of another vote at all?

The tail end of this has been covered above. But additionally, ZOMGURSTUPID Have you not read the entire last page of the thread, which has been devoted to discussing the relative truth or untruth of my statement that I did not know I was putting you one from lynch?

Additionally, since I have already offered to claim if need be, your further attacking me is meaningless unless you're trying to get a concensus to overrule wuffles.

Those last two votes struck me as wrong, as they seem quite a bit more defensive from Elias then would be normal seeing as he is no longer under significant pressure, and the points he is raising have already been discussed. Am I right here, or am I way off?

[Thestatusquo]

Erm. Excuse me. Last two posts, not votes.

[ziliu]

think that much pressure on somebody is not deserved if you don't have a reason. And that quick and very apologetic unvote seems fishy too. What I'm saying is, maybe not so much the quick unvote, (I would probably have quickly unvoted if it really was true that I didn't realise he was one from a lynch) but more the apologetic excuse seems like a slight over-reaction. Anyway, it deserves a vote.

This makes no sense. You say that had you not realized he was 1 from lynch, you would have done the same thing I did, but you wouldn't have stated your reasons, which is all my 'overly apologetic unvote' was? Stated reasons. In fact, nowhere in my unvote did I do anything remotely apologetic. I just unvoted, and explained why. You then go ahead and place a vote on me for something 'you would have done yourself.'

Keeping in mind you've been lurking, and your first post on the page is just a bandwagon hop restating others reasons, and using crap logic, I think it warrants a

FOS: Ziliu[/b

First of all, yes, maybe I've been lurking, depends how you choose to define lurking. But if I've been lurking, many many more people in this game have been lurking.

But I do acknowledge that you have a point in your defense. I probably was a bit unclear, but what I was trying to convey was that it was not so much the unvote in itself which my scumdar pinged on, but more the tone of the post in which the unvote was contained. Call it a hunch.

Then you say that I just bandwagon restating others' opinions. Well, I have to say that I consider that better than very blatantly bandwagonning someone to lynch minus one

without stating any reaons whatsoever

.

I won't like a claim from you though. Not yet. Though I'm curious to hear what others think about thestatusquo.

[Wuffles_II]

wuffles: My claim was that he was lurking. I.E. Not adding anything to the discussion, the fact that he random voted once before the post in question does not do anything to weaken that claim.

not at the time, it wasn't, and I feel that I have already been perfectly clear on the part of your post that was incorrect.

This thread has been open 8 days, and this is the first time he has posted.

I WAS CALLING YOU UP ON THIS SENTENCE, NOTHING MORE. STOP MISREADING MY CRITICISM. I AM MERELY SAYING THAT YOU MISWROTE THAT SENTENCE, AS HE HAD POSTED TWICE, NOT ONCE.

I have already mentioned that several times.

God.

[ChannelDelibird]

A bit overdramatic are we, Wuffles?

[Elias_the_thief]

i wasnt being defensive. i just think that you must have noticed i had plenty of votes on me already, definately enough to warrant a reaction. even if you didnt know exactly how many i had, there was no reason to put an additional vote on me at all.
my last two posts were not defensive, they were posing questions to you. how could you not see that? by yelling at me and calling me an idiot you seem to have gone around the main point which was i was already signifigantly pressured --even without knowing the exact number of votes-- before you voted.

[Arafax]

I think that a few of us are being over defensive....Let's not start calling each other up for boxing matches now.

@ thestatusquo: I was simply asking for clarification...I do read the thread...Thanks though.

[Thestatusquo]

Uh...Elias, I think I responded to your main point pretty well.

@ Wuffles. Conceded, sorry for misunderstanding.

@

First of all, yes, maybe I've been lurking, depends how you choose to define lurking. But if I've been lurking, many many more people in this game have been lurking.

But I do acknowledge that you have a point in your defense. I probably was a bit unclear, but what I was trying to convey was that it was not so much the unvote in itself which my scumdar pinged on, but more the tone of the post in which the unvote was contained. Call it a hunch.

Then you say that I just bandwagon restating others' opinions. Well, I have to say that I consider that better than very blatantly bandwagonning someone to lynch minus one without stating any reaons whatsoever.

I won't like a claim from you though. Not yet. Though I'm curious to hear what others think about thestatusquo.

While it's true that many others haven't been posting (

mod note: Can we get prods, please?

I find the kind of lurking where you post without saying much to be far more likely to be a sign of a good scum player.

And no, it's not better, because while mine was a mistake, yours was a very calculated move, which makes it more suspicious in my eyes.

[ziliu]

And no, it's not better, because while mine was a mistake, yours was a very calculated move, which makes it more suspicious in my eyes.

Well, from what I can discern, the only mistake you claim to have made is failing to realise that your vote would put him on lynch - 1. The vote itself was however a very deliberate action, you said you did it to put some pressure on Elias. So, in #39, you're deliberately putting a vote on Elias_the_thief without stating your reasons behind it. You accuse me of jumping on a bandwagon merely restating others' opinions, but my point is that I consider that better to join a bandwagon without stating any reasons. (And I think it's debatable whether I was just restating previously said stuff in #44 anyway.)

[Norinel]

I will admit that what I did looked scummy, but that's because I wasn't aware of the vote count, and what I like to do day one is form wagons to gain information.

I didn't see your post as forming wagons to gain information. Why not say so when you're casting a late vote?

MAFIA 101 FOR ELIAS BECAUSE HE'S AN IDIOT: Day one is random.

I'd say the first post of Day 1 is random. Maybe not even that, since it's informed by the role of the poster. After that, you've got something to work with.

I think that a few of us are being over defensive....Let's not start calling each other up for boxing matches now.

Yes, please. I like the discussion so early, but the heat can get a little crazy.

[Thestatusquo]

Some girl just went by my dorm naked being pushed in a shopping cart. O.O

[Wuffles_II]

See, now THAT is relevant information O_O