Uhh yes, it was semi-guided. Did you not read the post that had the vote in it? I'm saying both my vote and Fancy's had elements of randomness and guided-ness to it.
Frog, I feel like you can see an extra post none of the rest of us can see. Do you usually play like this? I understand you don't want to back down from this scum-read now, because you're in too deep, but if you're town you need to stop tunnelling.
Mod, can you please prod ShadedMelee?
I'm going to go check frog's other games to see if they're always like this.
In post 71, numberQ wrote:Yeah, my vote on Fancy was a complete joke. But if it makes everyone happy:
UNVOTE:
Also I'm not an alt of N or periodNQ or anyone.
--
Anyway, frog is pretty scummy. Like Fancy said, he draws pretty arbitrary lines regarding what is serious and what isn't. Also, how is misreading, especially in this context, scummy at all? And another also, what exactly is so "unhealthy" about mixing seriousness and randomness? People don't always vote 100% randomly in RVS, sometimes they (myself included) like to have some guidance to their pseudo-random vote.
VOTE: frog
Vote NumberQ
for blaming people that early.
Note: Sorry for late start guys. Meat world takes precedence this week. I will contribute more in a few days.
I myself don't see anything in fancy's vote. I didn't especially like how frog didn't vote on his/her suspicion right away but then it's early and I suppose everyone is more cautious not to get it wrong right from the start.
I didn't like how A_I unvoted there. I can't help the feeling he didn't like being questioned on it so he just backed off. I also don't see much point of another alt joke there unless he was mocking the people who voted for that reason to start with? But then I feel he would have explained this in post #69 if this was the case. In other words I feel he didn't feel like answering a question, so he backtracked.
Unvote
Vote Angent_Ireland
I am also not sure I like Shaded's vote right up there, it feels almost like he was in a rush so he just commented and voted on the first thing that sprung to mind. And I mean how late is it acceptable to start 'blaming people'? This said I kinda disagree with the statement that anyone so far has been 'pretty scummy'.
In post 76, N wrote:Frog, I feel like you can see an extra post none of the rest of us can see. Do you usually play like this? I understand you don't want to back down from this scum-read now, because you're in too deep, but if you're town you need to stop tunnelling.
It should make a fair amount of sense if you read my ISO. If not, meh. There are bigger fish to fry. Namely:
Yeah, my vote on Fancy was a complete joke.
And then:
Uhh yes, it was semi-guided. Did you not read the post that had the vote in it?
In post 72, frog wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most things in mafia pretty arbitrary? As I remarked earlier, Fancy's vote 'brushed me up the wrong way'; it should have been apparent that it was my
opinion
from the start. I had a go at explaining why in #58, but I don't seem to have done a good job.
Yes, there are some things that are arbitrary. Your reasoning for finding my vote suspect is fine, but the fact that you tried to objectively compare it to other votes to make it look scummy is odd.
@Tochica: I think you're trying to read too much into the votes. We're not completely out of RVS yet. There has been a lot of non-RVS discussion going on, which is a step in the right direction, but most of the votes are still all over the place for random reasons.
In post 72, frog wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most things in mafia pretty arbitrary? As I remarked earlier, Fancy's vote 'brushed me up the wrong way'; it should have been apparent that it was my
opinion
from the start. I had a go at explaining why in #58, but I don't seem to have done a good job.
Yes, there are some things that are arbitrary. Your reasoning for finding my vote suspect is fine, but the fact that you tried to objectively compare it to other votes to make it look scummy is odd.
@Tochica: I think you're trying to read too much into the votes. We're not completely out of RVS yet. There has been a lot of non-RVS discussion going on, which is a step in the right direction, but most of the votes are still all over the place for random reasons.
I don't see why, considering you asked me to in post 41.
@N, I have only the limited understanding that I garnered from Newbie games. If there's an elephant in the room that I'm missing, please state it.
In post 76, N wrote:Frog, I feel like you can see an extra post none of the rest of us can see. Do you usually play like this? I understand you don't want to back down from this scum-read now, because you're in too deep, but if you're town you need to stop tunnelling.
It should make a fair amount of sense if you read my ISO. If not, meh. There are bigger fish to fry. Namely:
Yeah, my vote on Fancy was a complete joke.
And then:
Uhh yes, it was semi-guided. Did you not read the post that had the vote in it?
Just four posts later.
Unvote, Vote: NumberQ
Let me explain this one more time: My vote was semi-guided. The semi-guided part WAS the joke. Yes, it was a complete joke. That's what makes it semi-guided. When I say semi-guided, I don't mean the vote had any real weight behind. It just wasn't 100% random. And that's exactly what Fancy's RVS vote looked like to me, which is why I found you scummy for thinking that was suspicious but not the other RVS votes.
That said, although I did find your suspicions scummy, I'm willing to believe this was a misunderstanding. Can you think of any reason you didn't like Fancy's vote, or is it all gut?
--
In post 71, numberQ wrote:Yeah, my vote on Fancy was a complete joke. But if it makes everyone happy:
UNVOTE:
Also I'm not an alt of N or periodNQ or anyone.
--
Anyway, frog is pretty scummy. Like Fancy said, he draws pretty arbitrary lines regarding what is serious and what isn't. Also, how is misreading, especially in this context, scummy at all? And another also, what exactly is so "unhealthy" about mixing seriousness and randomness? People don't always vote 100% randomly in RVS, sometimes they (myself included) like to have some guidance to their pseudo-random vote.
VOTE: frog
Vote NumberQ
for blaming people that early.
wut? No, seriously, what? What else brings out discussion than looking for things that are scummy, which there aren't a lot of this early in the game?
In post 79, Tochica wrote:I myself don't see anything in fancy's vote. I didn't especially like how frog didn't vote on his/her suspicion right away but then it's early and I suppose everyone is more cautious not to get it wrong right from the start.
I didn't like how A_I unvoted there. I can't help the feeling he didn't like being questioned on it so he just backed off. I also don't see much point of another alt joke there unless he was mocking the people who voted for that reason to start with? But then I feel he would have explained this in post #69 if this was the case. In other words I feel he didn't feel like answering a question, so he backtracked.
Unvote
Vote Angent_Ireland
I am also not sure I like Shaded's vote right up there, it feels almost like he was in a rush so he just commented and voted on the first thing that sprung to mind. And I mean how late is it acceptable to start 'blaming people'? This said I kinda disagree with the statement that anyone so far has been 'pretty scummy'.
I unvoted because it was a complete and total joke during RVS. I was making fun of all the voting for alts. I didn't unvote because I was being questioned. I unvoted because we were out of RVS.
NEXT TIME ON DRAGONBALL Z!
"I'm gonna be king of the pirates!" - Naruto Uzumaki (Bleach)
In post 83, frog wrote:@N, I have only the limited understanding that I garnered from Newbie games. If there's an elephant in the room that I'm missing, please state it.
The "elephant" is that people made jokes.
Judging from your three games, you've only started in one game - Newbie 1255 - and replaced into the other two. In Newbie 1255 you were accused of bandwagonning with your RVS post, so that makes sense as to why you've called other people out on in this game. But it that game, you were town, so you obviously know that it's not a very good scum-tell. So why are you using a scum-hunting method that in your experience has proven to be unreliable?
In post 79, Tochica wrote:I am also not sure I like Shaded's vote right up there, it feels almost like he was in a rush so he just commented and voted on the first thing that sprung to mind. And I mean how late is it acceptable to start 'blaming people'? This said I kinda disagree with the statement that anyone so far has been 'pretty scummy'.
On a second thought, a scum wouldn't push himself upfront that early. So mine was not a valid argument i think. You are right.
@NumberQ Your #71 confused me, your #75 confused me and now with your #84... What on earth is going on? I'm not trying to open a jar of semantics on what's a joke and what isn't, but how many times do you want to contradict yourself?
NumberQ wrote:My vote was semi-guided. The semi-guided part WAS the joke. Yes, it was a complete joke. That's what makes it semi-guided. When I say semi-guided, I don't mean the vote had any real weight behind. It just wasn't 100% random.
In post 85, Agent_Ireland wrote:I unvoted because it was a complete and total joke during RVS. I was making fun of all the voting for alts. I didn't unvote because I was being questioned. I unvoted because we were out of RVS.
Well making fun of all the voting for alts there does make sense, I actually regret putting it into your mouth now, but that's that. I am just not sure that's the feeling I got out of your vote, esp after clarifying whose alt he/she was. Anyhow I usually consider myself out of RVS when I have some lead not like it's some official stage or something. Anyhow is there anything that pinged your curiosity so far then, what do you think of the conversation so far?
@Tochica I want to ask something about your above post (#90), but since it was originally addressed to Fancy I'll wait till he's had an opportunity to respond to it first.
In post 88, pieceofpecanpie wrote:@NumberQ Your #71 confused me, your #75 confused me and now with your #84... What on earth is going on? I'm not trying to open a jar of semantics on what's a joke and what isn't, but how many times do you want to contradict yourself?
NumberQ wrote:My vote was semi-guided. The semi-guided part WAS the joke. Yes, it was a complete joke. That's what makes it semi-guided. When I say semi-guided, I don't mean the vote had any real weight behind. It just wasn't 100% random.
What. The. Hell?
I don't understand your confusion here. I don't mean to be answering for Q here, but I think this is a stupid line of questioning and want to shut it down. Q's vote was "semi-guided" because it was a joke. In order for a joke to make sense, there needs to be context surrounding it. If someone said "to get to the other side" with no context, I can understand there being confusion. But if before that, they had asked "why did the chicken cross the road?" it would be a perfectly legitimate joke. Yes, it wouldn't be a funny joke, but neither was numberQ's vote.
@N: Just because it didn't work in #1255 doesn't mean it doesn't work as a scumtell. You may have noticed that 1255 was an especially bad game for everyone involved. You can ask Maestro about this too. Just because a scumtell fails sometimes doesn't mean it is unreliable, otherwise scumtells wouldn't exist, plain and simple.
Also you can hardly say that NumberQ's posts are making sense at all, especially his recent ones. They're just plain awful.
@NumberQ, see #58; I tried to explain why there, but there is some gut in the business, as I mentioned earlier. Twice, in fact. This has all been said before.
Now that's all cleared, what does everyone think about giving a list of reads?
In post 93, frog wrote:@N: Just because it didn't work in #1255 doesn't mean it doesn't work as a scumtell. You may have noticed that 1255 was an especially bad game for everyone involved. You can ask Maestro about this too. Just because a scumtell fails sometimes doesn't mean it is unreliable, otherwise scumtells wouldn't exist, plain and simple.
Can you provide me an example or two of where it has worked?
In post 93, frog wrote:@N: Just because it didn't work in #1255 doesn't mean it doesn't work as a scumtell. You may have noticed that 1255 was an especially bad game for everyone involved. You can ask Maestro about this too. Just because a scumtell fails sometimes doesn't mean it is unreliable, otherwise scumtells wouldn't exist, plain and simple.
Can you provide me an example or two of where it has worked?
For wagoning, see 1228 where I was scum and was the first to wagon, Micro 1 where bv310 was scum. Any more you want? Those are two I've played in/read recently where it has happened.
As for RVS gut, in newbie 1255 I voted alex aragao/uctriton for what I saw as a scummy RVS vote and he turned out to be scum.
@Maestro, I didn't mean it personally. I just mean for all 7 town players it was an awful game. UberNinja's play was the worst. Yours was fine.
The only reason anyone is calling my posts bad is because they lack basic reading comprehension skills. I'm not arguing this anymore because theres nothing to argue except semantics. I'll make a post with real content later when I'm not posting from my phone.
In post 92, N wrote:I don't mean to be answering for Q here, but I think this is a stupid line of questioning and want to shut it down.
That's fine, I'm glad you picked up the ball.
In post 92, N wrote:Yes, it wouldn't be a funny joke, but neither was numberQ's vote.
I should've stuck to questioning the vote itself rather than what was around it.
numberQ wrote:The only reason anyone is calling my posts bad is because they lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Who's calling them bad? Is it me?
I'm very worried that you can't clarify a simple question, and it's pretty rich that you're the one throwing up your arms in frustration about it. Did you learn "semantics" from my post? Tone is pretty hard to bring across in posts, you know, so if you're trying to be facetious don't come away from it questioning someone else's comprehension skills. The onus is on you to provide clarity in your answer.
