Mini 672 - Tranquility (Game Over)

[Kmd4390]

I honestly wasn't. I meant that, with only three votes, there's actually a more-than-reasonable chance that all of those votes come from majority players. I was trying to point out the flaw in your logic that an early three-person bandwagon is likely to have scum.

Numbers wise, you're right. I was seeing the fast bandwagon though and it didn't look right to me.

[camn]

..., asking questions is sort of how the game is played. .

Thanks for that bit of info!! You must really know stuff

Though that really is not an answer to my question.
Which was directed at Charter.
Which he never answered.

And Drake, IN my defense... I believe you misinterpreted the meaning of my 4-minutes reference. You should re-read it for meaning if that is the reason for your vote.

Also.. I don't see anything inconsistent about voting someone for piling on a couple votes.... while taking care NOT to do it myself.

But I don't really think charter is TOWNIE SCUM right now.. so

### Unvote

<---- I appreciate the overkill.

[Lord Gurgi]

Seeing if this will get more response, since charter is the only one who responded, would the players prefer individual votecounts or the edited votecounts?

The Fourth Votecount - a.k.a. The Bipartisan Votecount
Rishi (2) - charter, SpyreX
camn (2) - Kmd4390, DraketheFake
stormer (1) - Malyss

Not Voting (7) - JDodge, melikefood, Rishi, Stef, stormer, camn, Nameless

[Nameless]

If you have specific questions for me, feel free to ask and I will gladly answer.

The onus is not on others to prompt you to contribute.

I agree his behavior is scummy but voting a serious vote based on so little seems even scummier to me.

FoS: Nameless

It was serious in comparison to my initial joke/random vote. I'm not sure I see how placing a vote to gather evidence (on somebody you admit behaved scummy from what little there was to go on) counts as suspicious.

It was the first wagon I could get to three votes.

FOS: Charter

Mindlessly joining any bandwagon that comes along doesn't help without addressing specific issues, and the threat of lynching is meaningless if you don't really suspect them.

@ Lord Gurgi:

I'd prefer edited votecounts at the top of each page. Also, I'm pretty sure my unvote (#62) was in the correct format. Woops. Opinion registered.

[DraketheFake]

And Drake, IN my defense... I believe you misinterpreted the meaning of my 4-minutes reference. You should re-read it for meaning if that is the reason for your vote.

Boooooooo... so I did.

For edification, everybody else, camn said she "only" waited four minutes after charter questioned her about the timing of her vote. Which is true.

Also.. I don't see anything inconsistent about voting someone for piling on a couple votes.... while taking care NOT to do it myself.

Right, but the point is you - hypothetically - have a legitimate reason, and it's not like you're putting him in the danger zone at 3 or even 4 votes. Putting a third vote on somebody for reasons you suspect is one thing, but if you have a case there's really no need to practice such extreme care - doing so makes you look overly cautious hyper-aware of seeming scummy due to bandwagoning, qualities I am suspicious of. Do you actually think it's generally scummy to put a third vote on somebody? You never attacked charter's (via Nameless) reasons, so I have to assume that you would have voted for the first person who placed a third vote.

[DraketheFake]

@LG: I like the top of the page votecounts too, but the occasional separate votecount (especially if there are a lot of vote/unvotes on one page) would probably be good too (and slightly less confusing, to see the post all in one color).

P.S. Sorry about the tag on the bottom of the last page, I even hit preview but then I hit post before I noticed .

[camn]

Actually I just wanted to vote for Charter.
He killed me last game

But I'm over it now.
Time to GET SERIOUS!

## Vote Jdodge

Seriously, you can't at least check in?

[Nameless]

## Vote Jdodge

Seriously, you can't at least check in?

Neither has melikefood, but you only accuse one lurker?

[charter]

Ohhh, why pick Jdodge over melikefood?

[stormer]

probably because he has the "dodge" in his name.

BTW, do we have a cop?

[DraketheFake]

BTW, do we have a cop?

........I mean, you're obviously baiting somebody here, right? Right? You're not this obvious for real?

Fuck it, I'll bite.

##Unvote: camn, ##Vote: stormer

[SpyreX]

##Unvote: Rishi
##Vote: Stomer

probably because he has the "dodge" in his name.
BTW, do we have a cop?

I dont think any player is so new as to know that this kind of rolefishing doesn't help the town in any way - newbie scum mistake.

@LG - I prefer top of every page for votecounts.

[Nameless]

Ohhh, why pick Jdodge over melikefood?

Is there an echo in here?

[charter]

My question is different than yours...

[stormer]

yay, I have 3 people voting me, I was just seeing who's the cop, and don't mafia games start with a night?

I prefer the vote count at the top of the page too.

[stormer]

##Unvote: Rishi
##Vote: Stomer

probably because he has the "dodge" in his name.
BTW, do we have a cop?

I dont think any player is so new as to know that this kind of rolefishing doesn't help the town in any way - newbie scum mistake.

@LG - I prefer top of every page for votecounts.

My name is spelt with an r

[JDodge]

1. Vote counts in their own post, please, so that I can look through vote counts later without having to search through the thread to see which post is edited.

That's really obnoxious.

2. I'm not doing the stupid pound sign thing, it's really retarded.

Ohhh, why pick Jdodge over melikefood?

Pre-existing bias. It's a reasonable thing.

The Stormer wagon could be perceived as

kinda

iffy - it kind of materialized out of nowhere and could've easily been a newbie mistake.

##Vote: Nameless

for now.

[Rishi]

Alright, we need to stop this white noise about terms really quick.

We all know that switching the flavor of the "good guys" and "bad guys" is a twist, and it makes for more interesting flavor from the mod, but it should not affect the game at all. We are all bright enough to know that "There might be mafia on that wagon" is implying there might be scum.

Honestly, the fact so much of this start has focused on that (after the joking was done) is suspect.

I did, of course, make a mistake with my vote so I'll fix it now.

##Unvote: DraketheFake, ##Vote: Rishi

I still feel like Rishi was saying a lot of nothing and it really bothers me the "Don't do this" (does thing he says not to do). It creates a distraction, much like the talk about town/scum has been.

What I told people not to do was pretty obviously not related to the game AT ALL. Even if you don't feel it's relevant to discussion terminology, there's at least a few of us that feel that it is. In fact, I think you may have been the only one who has said that they find it distracting. Anyway, I think we're done discussing it, for the most part.

stormer - This game starts with day, so even if we had a cop, they wouldn't have a result yet. Also, this is a closed setup - we don't know what the mix of roles is.

Actually, stormer asked whether or not there was a cop, not "Who is the cop?" I think it could have been genuine newbie confusion. Though the flippant response doesn't really help him. Also, this isn't a newbie game, so we shouldn't necessarily forgive someone for a newbie response.

@Gurgi - I prefer the vote counts in their own posts, for a couple reasons. 1) The post that they get edited into often gets glossed over, especially if it's short. 2) When they are in their own post, it makes it easy to find all the vote counts, so you can see how wagons develop.

[Nameless]

Vote: Nameless

for now.

Aaaaand

next comes the part where you explain why.

2. I'm not doing the stupid pound sign thing, it's really retarded.

This should be fun to watch. *Popcorn*

[Stef]

I'm not doing the stupid pound sign thing, it's really retarded.

Vote: Nameless

for now.

Ok.

1. The retarded thingy is totally out of order. You knew the rules of the game when you joined.

2. Your vote, according to the game rules, is invalid.

3. Your vote, besides being invalid, had no arguments. I don't like that. Why did you vote for nameless?

[Stef]

Actually, stormer asked whether or not there was a cop, not "Who is the cop?" I think it could have been genuine newbie confusion. Though the flippant response doesn't really help him. Also, this isn't a newbie game, so we shouldn't necessarily forgive someone for a newbie response.

Well only the cop would have known if there actually is a cop in the game so it could have been fishing anyway. I don't buy the "newbie" argument and i didn't like his question.

[Kmd4390]

yay, I have 3 people voting me, I was just seeing who's the cop,

Wow, I saw the first question "do we have a cop" and thought maybe you meant set-up wise, confusing this with an open set up game or something because it makes no sense to ask otherwise.
Then I read this and...
yeah, not good.

##unvote, ##vote stormer.

Why would you ask who the cop is?

The Stormer wagon could be perceived as

kinda

iffy - it kind of materialized out of nowhere and could've easily been a newbie mistake.

I'd like to see the question answered though.


"Now Kmd, you didn't like the Rishi wagon, but you are on this one now. Explain yourself."

Simple answer: I didn't agree with the case on Rishi. Stormer needs to answer why it would benefit ANYONE to ask who the cop is, especially on day 1.

[Malyss]

At first, I was going to jump off the Stormer wagon as my vote on him was made during the joke/random vote stage, but I think that I am going to stay for now.

probably because he has the "dodge" in his name.

BTW, do we have a cop?

At first glance, Stormer's question almost seemed like an innocent query to me, but then I realized that we were not told of any possible setups for the game (as in newbie games), which would at least let us know if there was the possibility of there being a cop. If there is one, only the cop would know.

[camn]

Pre-existing bias. It's a reasonable thing..

Oh so correct.

##UNVOTE

Watching for Stormer's response . . . .

[Malyss]

##LG - I prefer individual vote counts, rather than ones edited into the top post on a page.