Mini 424 - Game Over

[kilmenator]

er, i didnt realize that shadow was at three. the vote count hadnt been updated. so i didnt see any difference between a vote for shadow or OMG.

I did not ignore what you had said, I just found it hard to beleive that you missed another vote added to shadow to make it three when it was right after the vote count. Also, you changed your reason of why you voted OMG instead of shadow, first you said it was because you did not realize he was the wagon and then you said it was because he was away. Which reason was it?

[omg_im_innocent_wtf]

unvote, vote kilmenator

obv

[Elias_the_thief]

actually, if you had read instead of scimmed, kilmenator, you would see that i stated both reasons originally in subsequent posts, and that i meant to say it in the same post, which is what EBWOP means (edit by way of post). since i thought they were both at two, i thought that it didnt matter countwise who i voted for, therefore i voted for OMG based on the second reason, that shadow said he would be back sometime today.

[LyingBrian]

• Vote Count:
  • 3) omg_im_innocent_wtf
    • Ancalagon
    • Elias_the_thief
    • shadowdeath
  • 3) The Shadow
    • Javert
    • kilmenator
    • Nocmen
  • 1) Elias_the_thief
    • ac1983fan
  • 1) kilmenator
    • omg_im_innocent_wtf
  • 1) shadowdeath
    • MeMe
  • 2)
    not voting
    • Barromán
    • The Shadow
• Lynch:
  6 votes

[kilmenator]

unvote, vote kilmenator

obv

because I find Elias's vote shady? Interesting...

actually, if you had read instead of scimmed, kilmenator, you would see that i stated both reasons originally in subsequent posts, and that i meant to say it in the same post, which is what EBWOP means (edit by way of post). since i thought they were both at two, i thought that it didnt matter countwise who i voted for, therefore i voted for OMG based on the second reason, that shadow said he would be back sometime today.

actually, no, I did not miss that part, to me it seems like an afterthought, like, "oh wait... that was a stupid reason for a vote, crap, what can I say now.... ummm.... he is gone, yeah, he IS gone, so that will work... Not anything to be overly anxious about, I havent even moved my vote to you yet, I just found it interesting the way things played out. And your vote generated discussion which is very good for the town, the only people who are scared of discussion are generally non-pro-town players.

[Ancalagon]

Elias, why did you switch your vote?

[Elias_the_thief]

why did i switch from my original random vote? because it was random so there was no reason to keep it, and because putting a vote on someone else would start conversation.

[Ancalagon]

Unvote: omg

Vote: Elias

Die, scum.

[The Shadow]

Checking in. Been out of town for the weekend. Since we've been in business a couple of days, I won't bother random voting. I'll post something tomorrow night, I reckon, when I'm less tired.

[Barromán]

I'm back!!!

Well, I have read all... and I think that the usefull reason of the randomvotes is that... they are random!!!!

So... if we do a Random vote but we don't vote those who have more votes... it's a bad thing!

So... because I have no more reasons to vote anyone... And that reason seems to me the best reason to "test" a player...

Vote: Elias

[Elias_the_thief]

Unvote: omg

Vote: Elias

Die, scum.

um... why am I scum?

[Ancalagon]

why did i switch from my original random vote? because it was random so there was no reason to keep it, and because putting a vote on someone else would start conversation.

Because that's about the most scummy thing I've seen in my entire life.

[Elias_the_thief]

you believe attempting to start conversation in a game where there is none is scummy?

[kilmenator]

Elias you did defeintely start conversation, but just because you did that does not mean your actions were not scummy.

[Elias_the_thief]

ok. youre entitled to your opinion. but joining a bandwagon to start conversation is fairly common practice in order. it really starts the game up.
but moving on, i find it odd that you (ancalogon) would vote me. you totally ignored OMG's vote, for reasons unknown to me, and his vote has no warrant at all while mine at least had a purpose. to me this means one of three things:
1) you scimmed and didnt see it
2) youre scum and you wanted to blend in by jumping on the person who's being questioned already, or
3) you're scum with OMG and didnt want to draw attention to him.

any of the three are possible. I just want to know why you dont even comment on OMG's vote hopping, yet jump on mine as "the scummiest thing you've seen in your entire life"

[Ancalagon]

I didn't say that omg wasn't suspicious, and I'd like to hear his reasoning for his switch.

However, most people who claim "trying to start a conversation" end up mafia.
You said it was so random it there was no reason to keep it, so you bandwagoned someone else? I don't understand that. The purpose of a random vote is to make it random.

[Elias_the_thief]

exactly. but if everyone just stuck on there random votes, would anything happen?

now, my first vote was my random vote. but when i saw that nothing was happening in this game, I switched it in order to get the game going again. If no one switches there vote, then no scum get lynched. if my vote is random, and I dont find who im voting for suspicious, whats wrong with attempting to start conversation by joining a bandwagon, as long as I dont have serious intent to lynch?
I'll admit that sometimes scum could do this too (though its definately not true that most of the time scum do it), but it certainly is not a scummy play.

and for someone who claims this is the scummiest thing they've ever seen, you really havent been showing much reason for it being scummy at all.

and finally, its true that you never said OMG wasnt suspicious, but you thats only because you never mentioned him at all. you completely skipped his vote jump which had no explanation, and targetted me instead, even though I explained myself. you never addressed my question as to why you would jump on me but ignore OMG. so far you've enforced my opinion that it was either option 2 or 3 that led you to attack me.

to me this means one of three things:
1) you scimmed and didnt see it
2) youre scum and you wanted to blend in by jumping on the person who's being questioned already, or
3) you're scum with OMG and didnt want to draw attention to him.

therefore,

fos: Ancalagon

, though this may turn to a vote later on. for now i'll keep my vote on OMG.

[Ancalagon]

Because that's about the most scummy thing I've seen in my entire life.

Remember that I've only played Mafia for two months, but I may have been overreacting.

now, my first vote was my random vote. but when i saw that nothing was happening in this game, I switched it in order to get the game going again.

How much time passed? Your post was at 5:00 on a Friday Night. Then there was another post, then your post again at 10:00 on a Saturday Morning. Hardly enough to call a slow game. That's weak reasoning there.

If no one switches there vote, then no scum get lynched.

That is a fact. Random votes are there to see how people respond to pressure. Again, only about 17 hours passed in between your votes, and only one post. I don't see why you switched.

if my vote is random, and I dont find who im voting for suspicious, whats wrong with attempting to start conversation by joining a bandwagon, as long as I dont have serious intent to lynch?

Bandwagons usually do have intent to lynch. Not always, but usually.

[quote="Elias]its true that you never said OMG wasnt suspicious, but you thats only because you never mentioned him at all. [/quote]
I don't understand what you're saying here.

even though I explained myself.

Am explaining, not explained. Keep the present and past tenses different from each other.

you never addressed my question as to why you would jump on me but ignore OMG.

You are scummy because you jump on a bandwagon and claim that you're only doing it to start conversation and claim the game is going slowly. I'd also like to add that omg didn't jump on a bandwagon, like you did.

I still got my eye on him.

[MeMe]

However, most people who claim "trying to start a conversation" end up mafia.

I've never heard this before -- where'd you get it?

[Elias_the_thief]

If no one switches there vote, then no scum get lynched.

That is a fact. Random votes are there to see how people respond to pressure.

i'm not sure how anyone would see one random vote as pressure. 1) its obviously random, therefore not pressure, and 2) its only one vote. theres no serious threat. if you think that random votes are good, then why not random bandwagons? neither have intent to lynch, however bandwagons apply enough pressure to actually start the person talking.

if my vote is random, and I dont find who im voting for suspicious, whats wrong with attempting to start conversation by joining a bandwagon, as long as I dont have serious intent to lynch?

Bandwagons usually do have intent to lynch. Not always, but usually.

as you said, you're new to the game. I doubt you have a very good perception of what bandwagons are usually for. day 1 bandwagons are actually usually formed with the intent of starting conversation.

its true that you never said OMG wasnt suspicious, but you thats only because you never mentioned him at all.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

(i fixed the tags for you)
I'm sorry the message got messed up. what i'm saying is that it may be true that you never said that OMG wasnt suspicious. however, you never said he was suspicious. you just entirely ignored his posts, even though his made less sense then mine.
again, putting the third vote on a bandwagon isnt particularly suspicious. totally ignoring one persons random vote hop, then suddenly jumping on someone else for vote hopping is scummy, unless you just missed the first persons hop, which you said you didnt. if you had asked for both our reasons in the same post, or asked for his soon after, I wouldnt find it so scummy. but since no one else is going to do it, i will
OMG, what was the reason for voting kilmenator?

[LyingBrian]

• Vote Count:
  • 3) Elias_the_thief
    • ac1983fan
    • Ancalagon
    • Barromán
  • 3) The Shadow
    • Javert
    • kilmenator
    • Nocmen
  • 2) omg_im_innocent_wtf
    • Elias_the_thief
    • shadowdeath
  • 1) kilmenator
    • omg_im_innocent_wtf
  • 1) shadowdeath
    • MeMe
  • 1)
    not voting
    • The Shadow
• Lynch:
  6 votes

[Barromán]

Elias, you are just saying that Random votes are useless??
Well... but, why have you done a random vote if they're useless??

And why you don't answer this?

now, my first vote was my random vote. but when i saw that nothing was happening in this game, I switched it in order to get the game going again.

How much time passed? Your post was at 5:00 on a Friday Night. Then there was another post, then your post again at 10:00 on a Saturday Morning. Hardly enough to call a slow game. That's weak reasoning there.

[Ancalagon]

I've never heard this before -- where'd you get it?

I started playing at a site other than MafiaScum, and in my experience there, that's what usually happens. It may not be as true here, where the quality of play is 10X better. (Usually massclaim starts Day 2 there)

[ac1983fan]

unvote

[Javert]

Unvote: The Shadow, Vote: Barroman

.

I am not pleased with Barroman's questions posed towards Elias_the_thief (lettered for efficacy):

a.)

Elias, you are just saying that Random votes are useless??

b.)

Well... but, why have you done a random vote if they're useless??

c.)

And why you don't answer this?

now, my first vote was my random vote. but when i saw that nothing was happening in this game, I switched it in order to get the game going again.

How much time passed? Your post was at 5:00 on a Friday Night. Then there was another post, then your post again at 10:00 on a Saturday Morning. Hardly enough to call a slow game. That's weak reasoning there.

a.)

Any layman reading Elias' posts can tell that he did not say that random votes are 'useless' - just that they will not be taken completely seriously.

b.)

See above.

c.)

This is an absurdly silly "question". Ancagalon makes the answer entirely explicit by laying out the timeframe - a direct response is completely unneccessary.

I get the feeling Barroman is trying to imply that Elias is purposefully ignoring questions (with question c) when that is a twist on reality, and also asking useless questions which have a natural negative connotation (with questions a and b) in order to make Elias look more suspicious than he otherwise would be. In other words, his questions do not strike me as an attempt to be inquisitive, but rather an attempt to be discrediting.

@ ac1983fan: Why did you unvote without comment? What do you think of the latest developments?

Personally, although I find it hard to believe Elias_the_thief did not realize he was creating a counterwagon, I am becoming wary at the sheer number of people who seem to be antagonizing him as of late. I shall be monitoring the situation, but I find it worthwhile to investigate others simultaneously.