Quickly jumps on The Fonz for voting No Lynch during the random voting stage. While I agree the No Lynching on day one is almost always scummy, was there ever any real threat that a No Lynch would ever actually happen?VitaminR wrote:No Lynch benefits scum.
Why exactly is this suspicion-raising? The Fonz's question seems perfectly legitimate to me.VitaminR wrote:And... another reason to vote you.The Fonz wrote:vote: TinVision-TinVision- wrote: I have performance anxiety what with so many people.
Unvote
Why would you get performance anxiety during the random vote phase? And why bother unvoting there?
Actually, I don't have much problem with this, but computer problems made it difficult to format correctly, and I can't bring myself to delete it. Originally, I thought he was coming to TCS' defense rather fast, however, he's merely expressing his disbelief at TCS' claim, which is perfectly fine.VitaminR wrote:Put me on that list too.Arafax wrote:
While these are very opposed to it : Yosarian2, MoS, Tin-Vision, Pooky....I just wanted to get that out there.
I don't see how anyone can take TCS' shtick seriously.
This has already been adressed, but vampires in place of a mafia should be fairly common sense. Flay did require you to watch the movie before signing up, didn't he? Seems like pretty thin grounds to launch an attack.VitaminR wrote:Does it strike anyone else that only two people have used the term "vampires?"
Sudo_Nym did it too a page ago, I think.
A connection between scum is usually more subtle. Voting together or defending another player together out in the open is a bit too risky for the meagre benefits of it. Try to look for players insincerely defending each other. Another good tell applies when two players never seem to analyse each other posts (never vote or FOS each other or question each other's votes). That could be because they know each other's alignment already.Sir.Laggalot wrote:Ok well i would disregard any Voting block i may seem to see because i am obviously very bad at getting data right, let alone putting it together as a readable text.
I believe that you are scum because i, at least, see a connection between you, Yosarian2 and MoS.
Day 1 usually doesn't end this quickly. If you are wagonned heavily in the early stages of it, there is still a very good chance you'll make it to Day 2. Usually, this kind of thinking (where you assume the end of the day is imminent and vote to save yourself) is not really appropriate unless someone has threatened to hammer you or a deadline is approaching.Sir.Laggalot wrote:And just to get to Day 2 where things might happen i willVote To Lynch Afaraxsorry man but, there is nothing solid about your case and, i am second in line for lynch. I don't want my first game to end on day one.
No, but there is just no reason for a town player to vote it. It brings us nothing. It doesn't create discussion. It's a bad vote.Sudo_Nym wrote:Quickly jumps on The Fonz for voting No Lynch during the random voting stage. While I agree the No Lynching on day one is almost always scummy, was there ever any real threat that a No Lynch would ever actually happen?
-TinVision-'s post was a bit jokey. The Fonz took it a bit too seriously, I thought. Voting someone for admitting to being nervous seemed a bit too easy.Sudo_Nym wrote: Why exactly is this suspicion-raising? The Fonz's question seems perfectly legitimate to me.
Vampires in place of a mafia does make sense, but, in general, on the first day of a themed game few people refer to the mafia by its theme-specific name. It could be a sign that the player involved has had more chance to think in the game's terms. In other words, a player who has received a vampire role and perhaps talked to their vampire buddies will be more likely to use that term.Sudo_Nym wrote:This has already been addressed, but vampires in place of a mafia should be fairly common sense. Flay did require you to watch the movie before signing up, didn't he? Seems like pretty thin grounds to launch an attack.
I thought i had when i stated to disregard that, but i will go further into it. I misread a lot and i was very sleepy when i made that... I started on i think page 3 and ended on 4 or 5 so i missed a lot of people as well and just for fullness this is exactly what i wrote down in my note pad....Still, I'd still like to hear him explain what the heck happened in post 134 where he seems to have somehow gotten wrong the positions of quite a few players in the game; wierd how everyone else has commented on it and yet he's just not commented at all on what happened there.
Disagree. The point is to catch some opportunistic scummy type leaping in yelling, na na, no-lynch is scummy! Vote Fonz! When, of course, it doesn't matter, since it's a random vote, and is no more likely to lead to an actual no-lynch than a player is to be lynched off random votes.VitaminR wrote:I'm going back toVote: The Fonz
No, but there is just no reason for a town player to vote it. It brings us nothing. It doesn't create discussion. It's a bad vote.Sudo_Nym wrote:Quickly jumps on The Fonz for voting No Lynch during the random voting stage. While I agree the No Lynching on day one is almost always scummy, was there ever any real threat that a No Lynch would ever actually happen?
Tin's vote wasn't necessarily scummy, but it was strange, and I felt by pressing him on it, it would create discussion, and get us into an issues-based stage of the game more quickly.-TinVision-'s post was a bit jokey. The Fonz took it a bit too seriously, I thought. Voting someone for admitting to being nervous seemed a bit too easy.Sudo_Nym wrote: Why exactly is this suspicion-raising? The Fonz's question seems perfectly legitimate to me.
The last part of this is true to an extent and I wouldn't have voted you just on your No Lynch vote. My main issue with you was the way you handled the TCS vote. If that was your intention, though, why didn't you vote me?The Fonz wrote:Disagree. The point is to catch some opportunistic scummy type leaping in yelling, na na, no-lynch is scummy! Vote Fonz! When, of course, it doesn't matter, since it's a random vote, and is no more likely to lead to an actual no-lynch than a player is to be lynched off random votes.
The problem I have with a No Lynch random vote is that it doesn't do this. If no-one falls for it, it is useless.The Fonz wrote:Tin's vote wasn't necessarily scummy, but it was strange, and I felt by pressing him on it, it would create discussion, and get us into an issues-based stage of the game more quickly.
I didn't vote you early on, because I wanted to see who else picked up on it, who supported you, who didn't, etc. Often, who follows whom is of more interest than the merits of the initial argument (since most arguments at this stage don't have that much merit anyway). I didn't vote you later on, because, well, for one you didn't stand out particularly amongst the group attacking me, and two I felt the Arafax wagon was quite a useful one.VitaminR wrote:The last part of this is true to an extent and I wouldn't have voted you just on your No Lynch vote. My main issue with you was the way you handled the TCS vote. If that was your intention, though, why didn't you vote me?The Fonz wrote:Disagree. The point is to catch some opportunistic scummy type leaping in yelling, na na, no-lynch is scummy! Vote Fonz! When, of course, it doesn't matter, since it's a random vote, and is no more likely to lead to an actual no-lynch than a player is to be lynched off random votes.
The problem I have with a No Lynch random vote is that it doesn't do this. If no-one falls for it, it is useless. [/quote]The Fonz wrote:Tin's vote wasn't necessarily scummy, but it was strange, and I felt by pressing him on it, it would create discussion, and get us into an issues-based stage of the game more quickly.
Mmmm hmmm. The other part was even weaker. Why is it all at all scummy to have believed TCS? It wasn't entirely unreasonable that heI think the No Lynch comment has been blown way out of proportion. It was only a secondary part of why I voted The Fonz.
I can assure you I have read every single post in this thread and reviewed it with what I believe and know to be true. I just tend to like to read and review until I feel like I have something that holds water to contribute. I'm not happy with what I'm about to do, because I don't like post sum-ups, but its basically all things new I have on you at this point.Arafax wrote:In response to those voting for me :
Anix – Has posted 3 times the entire game….I would doubt that he’s even read the entire game…I take his vote with no seriousness as he is not participating.
I must agree with Ectomancer, i am a major newbie, the only mafia like game i have actually played is the Werewolf card game.I still believe SirLagg is just a major newbie, despite (or because of) not even being able to get his facts straight.
Huh? You can't be that transparent. It seems like you're trying to move the wagon from Arafax to Sir Laggalot and the only case you make is for Arafax.Indy wrote:Alright, I am throwing out my vote, Arafax has backpedaled and been suspicious, at the same time though, he has been assautled from every angle, we can assume one or two of those were mafia trying to force ¿him? into a position of backpedaling. While I am still suspicious, I am throwing my vote elsewhere.
Vote: Sir Laggalot
More, yes.The Fonz wrote:As opposed to a random vote, which is guaranteed to generate lots of interesting discussion?
That in itself is not scummy, but, as I indicated, it can be a way of setting up a future vote by acting surprised that TCS wasn't serious. I feel you were trying to make too much out of TCS' daycop joke so you could create pressure on him.The Fonz wrote:Mmmm hmmm. The other part was even weaker. Why is it all at all scummy to have believed TCS? It wasn't entirely unreasonable that hecouldhave been a daycop. Why is asking someone who has apparently claimed if that claim is real or joke fishing? I'm sorry, but gullibility or inability to detect written sarcasm is not a scumtell.