Open 160 Bird 7P (GAME!) - before 823

[VP Baltar]

Do you get annoyed if you have to answer an "obvious" question?

Depends. In the above case, no.

What are the consequences of people trying to tear down a wagon?

From my understanding, wagons are a good way to find scum. But then again, I could be wrong.

[hohum]

From my understanding, wagons are a good way to find scum. But then again, I could be wrong.

You're not wrong.

yabba and bloodcovenant are currently at the top of my list of suspects.

[BloodCovenent]

Not the first time my browser screwed me over

Forgot to preview...

@BC: are you suggesting we no-lynch today, or are you just scared to make a random vote?

No.

vote VP Baltar

could you explain why?

would you like it spoon fed to you?

Vote bloodcovenant

we're not going to no-lynch

I would have at least appreciated some reason for the vote

Something like, "Hey, you are suspicious because..." anything other than that is just depressing.

Charnel: it's in exceedingly poor taste to try and tear down a wagon. I like baltar's vote and I understand the reasoning.

I know you're trying to be helpful but it would actually be better if you simply hopped on the wagon or waited until he has a chance to respond. The reasons for the votes will become clear to you after he wakes up.

Right-o. Jump on my wagon. Eventually, any evidence given will be helpful, obviously. Just don't lynch me too fast, wait until we have at least a few pages of data, that way town can hunt scum more effectively in the future.

@muzzz-10: Late confirmation is null, it was midnight for me when the role PMs came out.

I agree.

I know exactly what I'm saying and doing.

I'm aware that he's at L-2. I'm also aware that another vote would put him at L-1. I would be absolutely fine with that, because he's in no danger of being quick-lynched any time soon.

I would be comfortable with that as well.

Now for the love of god, will you please let him respond?!

Me? What am I specifically responding too?

yabba and bloodcovenant are currently at the top of my list of suspects.

why? Because I voted No lynch to start up discussion? I can understand the Yabba argument, he seems to be putting cases on people (muzz) with nothing at all really.

What are the consequences of people trying to tear down a wagon?

From my understanding, wagons are a good way to find scum. But then again, I could be wrong.

Generally speaking, you are correct. Thats how we get out of the RVS, right?

[BloodCovenent]

Gotta add to my watched topics =/

[hohum]

I would have at least appreciated some reason for the vote

Pay attention. The reason is there. no-lynch is a horrible, scummy idea.

Me? What am I specifically responding too?

You shouldn't be ignoring the fact that a wagon has formed, on you.

You clearly don't understand what's going on here, so let me try again. You need to explain why you believe a no-lynch on D1 with this setup is a good idea.

[hohum]

why? Because I voted No lynch to start up discussion? I can understand the Yabba argument, he seems to be putting cases on people (muzz) with nothing at all really

That's exactly why you're one of my top suspects right now. It's a scummy thing to do, whether your intentions were good or not is pretty irrelevant. If you don't want negative attention don't do negative things.

[VP Baltar]

You're not wrong.

yabba and bloodcovenant are currently at the top of my list of suspects

Sorry, should have included the sarcasm tag with that.

[hohum]

I got the sarcasm but I didn't think others would. That's why I felt it necessary to make the comment.

[muzzz]

@Yabba: scummy as hell.

---

would you like it spoon fed to you?

This is your response to Charnel questioning VP's vote on you. Yet you have trouble with Hohum's more explained vote?

Also, I don't think Yabba is making a case against me.

[hohum]

I had to reread the topic to figure out what the hell you're talking about. I don't see that he's even trying to make a case against you.

Why are you so defensive?

[muzzz]

Huh?

That was still in response to BC.

[hohum]

I see.

Sorry.

[BloodCovenent]

I would have at least appreciated some reason for the vote

Pay attention. The reason is there. no-lynch is a horrible, scummy idea.

Me? What am I specifically responding too?

You shouldn't be ignoring the fact that a wagon has formed, on you.

You clearly don't understand what's going on here, so let me try again. You need to explain why you believe a no-lynch on D1 with this setup is a good idea.

Wait... you seriously believe that I am pushing for a no lynch?

[hohum]

I would have at least appreciated some reason for the vote

Pay attention. The reason is there. no-lynch is a horrible, scummy idea.

Me? What am I specifically responding too?

You shouldn't be ignoring the fact that a wagon has formed, on you.

You clearly don't understand what's going on here, so let me try again. You need to explain why you believe a no-lynch on D1 with this setup is a good idea.

Wait... you seriously believe that I am pushing for a no lynch?

If you're not, then you need to say that you aren't so we can go about scum hunting. Expecting that we're all just going to assume that it was a joke vote only makes you look scummier.

You said you wanted to provide discussion fodder and that's what you're doing. Don't bitch about being in the spotlight. I shouldn't have to explain why deviating from the normal practice of random voting in any way is a scum tell, even if it's only a minor one.

You're still at the top of my list.

Unvote, Vote Yabba

[yabbaguy]

@hohum-24:
A) Our definitions of *respond* seem to be clashing. Baltar had an outright exchange with Charnel. I'm not sure what you mean.
B) Calm your emotions. A level-headed town is an efficient town.

@hohum-26: So soon? Let's analyze both.

Bloodcovenant >>> this could be for a few reasons.
a) he's scum who's trying to detract the town
b) he's misguided town
c) he's stirring up discussion. Mastin selfvotes during RVS consistently for this precise reason.

(I see post 37 now... just as I thought.)

Assuming a) automatically is jumping to conclusions.

Me >>> I'm puzzled. You got ticked at me because I asked what I believed to be legitimate questions. I've seen several games where people also get annoyed for wagoning at a rapid pace, and that's where my confusion came in.

Let's point out another crucial fact. You've called both of us out for ONE thing that you deemed scummy. That's impulsivity. I'm not going to say scumtell automatically, but jumping outright and saying that you've found top suspects after a single RL day is irking me simply from a strategic vantage, town or scum.

@BC-27: Claiming hohum had no reason is incorrect. He had it RIGHT there beneath his vote. If it were a snake, it'd have bit ya.

@muzzz-33: Scummy as hell? Please elaborate. You've been asking me why all game, but I haven't heard any points from you on why an RVS is the pro-town way to go.

Muzzz, you do have me a bit on edge at present, but again, we're VERY early in the game. I'm still trying to feel my way through. The fact your vote could kind of be construed as a kinda-maybe-sorta-random-but-may-be-serious vote is kind of loaded, as one could then pounce and say that I overreacted to a joke vote and call me defensive, or say that I'm ignoring a point if I construe it as a joke vote.

Speaking of, is your vote a joke vote? At this moment in time, are you going to stand by it?

Gotta rush to dinner, will elaborate later as needed. Did I miss anything?

[muzzz]

It's completely natural to have top suspects at any stage of the game.

No vote is ever completely random.

I wouldn't be keeping my vote on you if I were joking.

[hohum]

Clearly our posts cross paths, so I'm only going to address what I feel I haven't in my last post.

I'm puzzled. You got ticked at me because I asked what I believed to be legitimate questions. I've seen several games where people also get annoyed for wagoning at a rapid pace, and that's where my confusion came in.

I feel a game theory debate coming on here, which I'm happy to sit here and have with you. But you need to realize my main issue with what you're doing is that my vote was directed at him, not you. You should feel free to voice your opinion; however, when something is not specifically directed at you then you need to have enough courtesy to let the target respond first. Otherwise it's going to appear as if you're defending rather blatantly.

I throw my vote around because it's the only tool that I have. Wagons are the only tool that the town has to effectively coordinate an attack and pressure people. People who like to pick apart quick wagons are simply wrong for doing so and they're doing the town a grave disservice.

[hohum]

You've called both of us out for ONE thing that you deemed scummy. That's impulsivity

How would you suggest we go about scum hunting then?

[yabbaguy]

No vote is ever completely random.

I don't buy that. Random votes can completely be pointless, at least at first. By all means they can morph into serious votes. What I'm stating about muzzz's on me is that it actually could be construed as either joking or serious, IMO, which made me feel a little uneasy about replying to it.

If the vote's a joke vote, there's still a possibility you could have it stay up to this point.

@hohum-41: He DID reply. In 17 and 19. He was having a full-blown exchange. Does that not count as a response?

I tend to get very curious about other people's questions. I don't view it as opportunism at all. And again, VP had replied to Charnal's questions, so I'm thoroughly confused as to what you mean.

Now sometimes, wagons can have another effect. Sometimes you can see that some of the latecomers on the wagon come up with a lousy excuse, and then you vote them for being opportunistic. In that case, the wagon serves a different pro-town purpose. While I think claiming there was nonexistant reasoning was incorrect, sometimes that happens.

Throwing a vote around? Could be pegged as inconsistency, obviously depends.

@42: It's perfectly fine to say you're suspicious of people, but to say that you immediately have come up with top suspects after only assigning one scumpoint to a person is a little jumpy. It's all my vantage, but you sound like you have it all figured out so quickly.

[muzzz]

Give me one good reason why anyone would ever make a pointless vote.

@BC: The question in 33 wasn't rhetorical.

[hohum]

You think I'm talking about Baltar. I'm not. I'm talking about bloodcovenent.

Now sometimes, wagons can have another effect. Sometimes you can see that some of the latecomers on the wagon come up with a lousy excuse, and then you vote them for being opportunistic. In that case, the wagon serves a different pro-town purpose. While I think claiming there was nonexistant reasoning was incorrect, sometimes that happens.

That's fine and dandy but the only way to properly judge a wagon is in hindsight: with acctual evidence to go on. Otherwise you're just going to tie yourself up into WIOFMY knots. You're also going to make the mistake of confusing someone's pressure vote for a bad case and you're going to end up lynching the wrong person eventually.

Throwing a vote around? Could be pegged as inconsistency, obviously depends.

How would you suggest we go about scum hunting then?

[hohum]

I want to try this another way.

@Yabba: who do find suspicious and why?

[yabbaguy]

@muzzz-44: RVS, obviously. Voting for someone in the 7-spot is a, well yes, it is a pointless vote, I'd call it a joke vote.

@hohum-46: I need more input. Some people have yet to react to everything that's unfolded, and comparatively haven't posted as much as we have (and we've been online A LOT compared to some of the others). You are asking me to make a suspect list, really. I'm going to continue to call suspicions as I see them until people have weighed in enough for me to come to a conclusion. This is far too soon for a conclusion.

You know what's great? We've already sparked a great debate. We now have something for everyone else to talk about. And in turn, future discussions come out of that. Everything is going swimmingly. I can't wait to see what comes next. That's how you play the game. Set off some fireworks, and the chain reactions ensue from there.

Let's not rush ourselves. Keep your minds level, your emotions calm, continue to question everything like you have been, and the suspects will emerge. Then even more suspicions fly, then the fun begins. Process!

Questions?

[hohum]

I'm not rushing anything. There's only one person we haven't heard from so far.

I'm also not asking you to make a suspect list. You said a few posts ago that it's okay to be suspicious of people. By that I'm assuming you meant it's okay to give your opinion of people because it would otherwise be super hypocritical of you to tell me that me that I shouldn't be making lists of suspects but then turn around a few posts later and tell me it's okay to be suspicious of people.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but you're not making it very easy with glaring contradictions in your thought processes.

I want to know where your opinion of the people who have posted so far is, seeing as we've already heard from almost everyone in the game. It isn't an unreasonable thing of me to ask.

[BloodCovenent]

I'm also not asking you to make a suspect list. You said a few posts ago that it's okay to be suspicious of people. By that I'm assuming you meant it's okay to give your opinion of people because it would otherwise be super hypocritical of you to tell me that me that I shouldn't be making lists of suspects but then turn around a few posts later and tell me it's okay to be suspicious of people.

So, nothing like this here? Right?

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but you're not making it very easy with glaring

contradictions

in your thought processes.

yea...