Designer Mafia 2007 - Game Over, Final Scene Posted!

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

I agree with Nocmen. Shanba needs to unvote. And so do I.

Unvote

[mneme]

unvote
vote: Nocmen

(for witch hunting and role fishing, not to mention perpetuating the myth of the random stage).

No, not giving explanations is not

per se

scummy.

Explain where I was witch hunting and role fishing.

As above, strenuously requesting explanations for votes that were not initially accompanied by explainations.

Votes without explainations can be:
[li]
[*] Lazy random votes.

[*] non-random votes where the voter doesn't feel a need to explain.

[*] Bandwagon votes.

[*] Scum votes (really, those are just bandwagon votes, mostly, or role-motivated votes)

[*] Role-motivated votes
[/li]

While you want to look at people's pattern of behavior, pushing too hard for explanations of votes clarifies the first four explainations vs the 5th one, and therefore verges on fishing.

Moreover, this is a game of feint, bluff, and direct attack, not one of "debate team 101". Throwing up bandwagons on people just because they refuse to explain votes regardless of whether it's reasonable that the votes -would- be explainable is witch hunting. More particularly, I don't think several of your attacks were reasonable and the pattern is troubling.

[Twomz]

unvote, vote mneme

[Shanba]

Unvote

Twomz - why?

[Twomz]

Unvote

Twomz - why?

Why not?

[Shanba]

Urm, no. Try again.

[Battle Mage]

I think Nocmen has to say specific numbers of "meep"s per page...

ok except page one was 9, page two was 0, page three was 13, page four was 3 and so far on page five its been 13. So, hows that then.

Ok... I seem to be wrong then.

lol defence of Nocmen noted. vote stands until i read the last 2 pages.

[mneme]

Why not?

Was it something I said? :)

[Twomz]

I am just showing why you need to provide an explanation . If you let one person just vote for whoever without giving an explanation... then what reasons does that give others do give explanations? Basically, it is bad for the game to just vote for someone seriously, but not say why.

unvote

, and I need to look over and make sure who I think said what is indeed who said what. Lots of different conversations going on at once >.<

[Sir Tornado]

I think Nocmen has to say specific numbers of "meep"s per page...

ok except page one was 9, page two was 0, page three was 13, page four was 3 and so far on page five its been 13. So, hows that then.

Ok... I seem to be wrong then.

lol defence of Nocmen noted. vote stands until i read the last 2 pages.

Ok, explain how does any of that qualify for a "defence".

[FaerieLord]

@SirT. You were trying to excuse the meeps. While I still it is stupid reasoning, I think that is what BM is trying to get to

[Sir Tornado]

@SirT. You were trying to excuse the meeps. While I still it is stupid reasoning, I think that is what BM is trying to get to

I was not trying to "excuse" meeps. I was trying to speculate on why he is meeping.

[Nocmen]

unvote
vote: Nocmen

(for witch hunting and role fishing, not to mention perpetuating the myth of the random stage).

No, not giving explanations is not

per se

scummy.

Explain where I was witch hunting and role fishing.

As above, strenuously requesting explanations for votes that were not initially accompanied by explainations.

Votes without explainations can be:
[li]
[*] Lazy random votes.

[*] non-random votes where the voter doesn't feel a need to explain.

[*] Bandwagon votes.

[*] Scum votes (really, those are just bandwagon votes, mostly, or role-motivated votes)

[*] Role-motivated votes
[/li]

While you want to look at people's pattern of behavior, pushing too hard for explanations of votes clarifies the first four explainations vs the 5th one, and therefore verges on fishing.

Moreover, this is a game of feint, bluff, and direct attack, not one of "debate team 101". Throwing up bandwagons on people just because they refuse to explain votes regardless of whether it's reasonable that the votes -would- be explainable is witch hunting. More particularly, I don't think several of your attacks were reasonable and the pattern is troubling.

I don't think the vote was random, so that doesn't deal with the first case. In day 1, I don't see really how it would be role motivated, unless it was a lyncher or something, which I'm not sure MoS would have in a game like this, but that might just be because I personally feel that it is an imbalanced role to use. That pretty much leads to bandwagon votes, or scum votes, as I also don't agree with people not feeling like explaining, unless it is stupidly obvious (it wasn't though this time). Twomz even just showed how he raised suspicion towards himself when he voted without reasoning.

@SirT. You were trying to excuse the meeps. While I still it is stupid reasoning, I think that is what BM is trying to get to

I was not trying to "excuse" meeps. I was trying to speculate on why he is meeping.

Meeping isn't good for your health you know.

[jediknight]

wow...i'm gone for three days...what have I gotten myself into. Five pages... Just figured I'd check in and let everyone know I'm still here. And I'm catching up.

[mneme]

Basically, it is bad for the game to just vote for someone seriously, but not say why.

No, actually, it's not.

Explanations are required for potentially scummy behavior, and, of course, a lot of this game involves making cases on one another. And if you want -others- to follow your vote, you might want to give an explanation.

But a vote (particularly, an early vote) isn't per se scummy, and therefore doesn't require an explanation. It's sometimes a good idea, and sometimes not.

Not throwing votes into this because this isn't a particularly scummy philosophical conversation, yet, on AFAICT, any side.

[mneme]

I don't see really how it would be role motivated, unless it was a lyncher or something,

This is Designer Mafia. All the roles are new--don't assume anything.

For example, I could see:

An Anti-mason (you know [insert group, probably 1 person] is scum).

A mason (you know, that oh-so-unsual mason role? The one that you can use to know people are innocent on day 1 and therefore have a better-than-normal idea of who's scum?)

Day-cop.

Vote-forcer (day vote-forcer, presumably).

And I'm sure people can think of variations and possibilities.

I'm pretty happy with my vote on Nocmen (oh, right, that's where it is. I knew that).

[Battle Mage]

@SirT. You were trying to excuse the meeps. While I still it is stupid reasoning, I think that is what BM is trying to get to

I was not trying to "excuse" meeps. I was trying to speculate on why he is meeping.

FaerieLord is right. Whether intentional or not, you're comment did come across as an attempt to give Nocmen a get-out-of-jail-free card. Of course, this only really matters if Nocmen were to be scum, but i felt it should be noted in case of that eventuality.

BM

[Nocmen]

meep meep meep meep meep meep meep, meep meep meep.

meep.

meep meep meep meep .
meep meep meep meep meep ?meep meep meep , meep meep meep .

[schismatized]

meep meep meep meep meep meep meep, meep meep meep.

meep.

meep meep meep meep .
meep meep meep meep meep ?meep meep meep , meep meep meep .

Maybe he has to say meep a certain number of times. I cant remember who suggested this...

[Bamboomancer]

Yeah, well.... okay, so I guess I'm being ignored.

oh well.

UNVOTE

Putting the CORRECT vote on

Vote: Belgarion

He's the lynch for the day, srsly.

[Thyroidectomy]

Just clearing this up, so your vote has is still on me without any clarification as to why?

Wouldn't it have been easy to just explain yourself rather than start this whole debate on how unscummy your vote is?

vote: thyroidectemu

Just gimme some reason other than BS and I will unvote you.

"I'm not voting you, pay attention" is a good reason.


----------------------------

Trust me, I would claim it if I needed to. But I'll say it here:
If I do claim what the tickets do, it will significantly diminish the intended effect.

[stark]

Trust me, I would claim it if I needed to. But I'll say it here:
If I do claim what the tickets do, it will significantly diminish the intended effect.

Lol, massive failure.

So explain to us why we should buy your ticket, asside from the fact that you say it's good.

[Thyroidectomy]

Lol, massive failure.

See, calling someone hostile then acting like this doesn't really work.

Yes, I'm asking you to trust me. Imagine, in a mafia game, someone with a role asks the town to trust them, as their effect is both confirmable and benefitial. Man, that's a crazy play, I don't remember that one before.

[Thyroidectomy]

I just realized how incredibly happy I am that my vote is on stark.

[stark]

Lol, massive failure.

See, calling someone hostile then acting like this doesn't really work.

Yes, I'm asking you to trust me. Imagine, in a mafia game, someone with a role asks the town to trust them, as

their effect is both confirmable and benefitial.

Man, that's a crazy play, I don't remember that one before.

According to you.

All we're asking for is some information, comrade.

How many people do you need?

What happens? Will it effect our roles? How long will it take to come into action?

Truth is the foundation of Trust, comrade. Any player asking the town to follow them in the dark is automatically scummy.

In all honesty, if another player had a role that said "I'm going to ask the entire town to do something I tell them. I am going to give them no information, asside from the fact that I claim that doing what I say is beneficial, accuse non-supporters of being scum, and claim that my crypticizm is because it will reduce the power of my role."

How would you react, comrade?