I group quotations by the people who made them for easy reading.
Kort wrote:Note that I haven't checked all of your games by far, but going back 9 games, you only voted for the player at the bottom of the list once. Your claim of "at end of list" being a common reason for random votes doesn't seem to be particularly credible so far.
Meh. Four out of the past eight games - including this one (you only went back seven games and not nine as you stated) - I have used my first posts/vote towards something constructive. That's half where I shunned randomness altogether. Of the remaining four random votes, twice I voted last on the list and once I voted last to confirm. Additionally, I'm sure if you look at QTs and N1 kills (prior to a D1) when I'm at scum, I at least mention killing the first or last on the list for "randomness" in a few of them to scum partners. So, when I falter and use "randomness," I find that I stick to a pattern: the last of X.
Anyways, it's just something I fall back on if I feel it necessary to be "random;" but, apparently, not across the board all the time. And this really seems like an inane point of conversation - while I appreciate your thoroughness, I'm curious as to what end?
Kort wrote:Yet you have a stated tendency to always use the same reason for a first vote. Don't you think those two things are contradictory?
No. You yourself have pointed out that I use "random" as an excuse to vote only sparingly (see above). I misspoke earlier when I said that last on the list was my usual place for my first vote. I should have said it's my usual place for my first vote when it's random. I don't enjoy using random votes (as seen in my voting history) and when I do I usually quickly attempt to latch to something else (anecdotal evidence: here; feel free to check other games as well, though) if I can.
camn wrote:And defensiveness is not a scumtell!
In and of itself, of course not. I would be the first one to agree with you. But, I didn't list it in a vacuum. Coupled with my other points, I think it's a valid point of criticism.
skit wrote:Green Crayons in Post 35: although I definitely agree with your analysis of camn's vote reasons, I think you are beginning to blow things out of proportion.
I find this kind of rhetoric pointless. I'm "blowing things out of proportion" by making conversation and placing a better-than-random-but-far-from-perfect vote on a player because I'm following analysis that you agree with? ...Right. At no point have I even suggested that we should all start pushing for a camn lynch at this point - and in staying well short of that, I don't see how I'm "blowing things out of proportion." I'm just (aggressively, perhaps, but whatever, this is how I play and I don't find it to be that way) following a strand of conversation that I want to explore.
I normally find statements like this to be suspicious when they're made alone. It hints that I should bide my time until it's agreed upon that the silly stage is over and we can take off the gloves to get down to business. But the fact that skit prefaces it with "I agree with your analysis, but..." makes it look like he's trying to be on everyone's side so nobody becomes suspicious of him. Active fence sitting is scummy.
FOS
.
Incog wrote:The issue I have with this is unless you're a psychic...
Tee hee.
Incog wrote:...you couldn't have possibly known that Yosarian2 wasn't gonna post after you placed your vote on him.
Yes. And? I don't see your point. One usually votes another player who isn't posting with the intent for them to go "Oh, look. I'm in this game. And someone's voting me! I'm going to post."
Incog wrote:The fact that you've now twice reaffirmed this fact (that Yosarian2 had yet to make a post) makes me feel like you're using after-the-fact justification to show why your vote is more logically sound and therefore better than camn's.
There's a difference between shaky logic and bad logic. Shaky logic is weak (see: Ether's 9) and probably won't hold up past a few pages unless it somehow struck gold. I'll admit I have been using shaky logic up until this point - it's par for the course at the beginning of Day One. But then there's bad logic. Logic which is rotten at its core. Which has absolutely no chance in hell in making any sort of rational sense. At any point in time. And the worst kind of bad logic
sounds
decent, but when you actually look at it it's a steaming pile. I'm not trying to show how my logic is sturdy. It isn't. But it makes sense and if Yos never showed up I'm sure it would have become more and more pertinent. But he did show up, so I dropped it. What I am doing is showing how camn's logic is incredibly bad. Which it is, and which is completely independent of my initial logic for voting Yos.
Incog wrote:In response to the second half of your response, can you point to the camn-posts that made you feel like she was becoming "defensive"? I got the feeling that she was annoyed by you, maybe that she even disliked you, but not that she became defensive. I'm curious as to why your read of her actions differs from mine.
I can point you to an
after the fact post where she all but admits that she was being defensive. But I was specifically referring to her 26/28 (repeatedly asking questions to questions in lieu of an answer is being evasive - thus, defensive) and 30 (accusing someone who wants to back up her statements - using something akin to Ad Hominem, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a blatant example - once again, a defensive tactic).
I think it's interesting you think she was annoyed with me because I was asking her to explain herself. Do you think that was an appropriate reaction in a mafia game - to dislike people who ask you questions?
Dizzy wrote:Due to bad personal experience, I'm wary of leaving votes on people for reasons beyond "I think X is scum" once discussion gets serious
What personal experience is that?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
.