In post 103, iraonavp wrote:I think that voting the largest wagon is a good way to conduct RVS.
I voted Keyser because I found him suspicious? I don't see what's comical about that.
what about voting the largest wagon do you find helpful? I don't necessarily disagree entirely, but it seems like something vastly more variable than that.
In post 106, Dunnstral wrote:^^ I'd be more inclined to believe that mafia would sit back early and only start pushing later on in general but of course it depends on the person
I don't personally think there's any strong correlation in either direction between alignment and willingness to commit to an opinion early. (although now I'm contemplating whether it would be a valuable use of dozens of hours to look at a very large number of games to test this theory...)
In post 119, toolenduso wrote:This game is basically contradicting my expectations of how town usually gets out of RVS. I feel like it usually goes like this:
RVS votes -> player A says something mildly scummy -> people wagon player A, and in the process player B says something weird -> people wagon player B
By this time in the game I feel like there's usually been a legit wagon. Since there hasn't been one yet in this game, I feel like scum is either disjointed or timid.
I definitely agree that this day is moving in an abnormal fashion; I'm curious how you believe this would likely affect most town players, since you offered an opinion on how that might change scum behavior.
In post 120, toolenduso wrote: In post 89, xyzzy wrote:Zachstralkita has managed to talk a lot while saying very little, and I really don't like that.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Zachstralkita
It strikes me that this is kind of an easy vote to make.
What do you think of the possibility that zach is just a jokey player, so his posts are naturally going to have less solid content in them?
That being said...
...the jokey playstyle does make it harder for me to know whether statements like this one are serious. Can you explain the dunn vote, zach?
calling it an easy vote is probably fair. a big part of my voting for him was an effort to get him to actually talk--I agree, for instance, that his vote requires explanation that isn't there yet.
In post 122, Zachstralkita wrote: In post 120, toolenduso wrote:
...the jokey playstyle does make it harder for me to know whether statements like this one are serious. Can you explain the dunn vote, zach?
None of you see it. I FUCKING SEE IT. This isn't Dunn being town, it's him trying to look like he's being town.
I'd bet one of my body parts on Dunn flipping scum if I.... had enough of those to lose
this still isn't an explanation, and it's still not helpful to anyone; saying that we don't see it is pointless unless you're willing to explain precisely what it is you see, and repeating that you're confident isn't an explanation.
like, what does this even mean? what are you talking about with Dunnstral's "aura"? this post isn't helpful to anyone.