Mini 903 - Owarai TV (Game over... who won?)

[Devestation]

Personally I don't find putting multiple votes on someone to be a valid tactic- they either freak out and blunder (something that can happen to anyone, regardless of their role) and hence get (band and/or scum)wagoned, or it just turns into an inquisition and nobody really remembers the fact that there was nothing particularly scummy about the person in the first place.

[xRECKONERx]

UNVOTE; VOTE: ANON

HOW BOUT THEM APPLES

[Devestation]

Haven't we, like, left the RV stage?

[Kise]

Vote Count:

Starbuck: 2

(VP Balter, Anon)

Anon: 2

(Amished, xRECKONERx)

The Inquisition: 1

(Starbuck)

HellnFire666: 1

(chauchaudotcom)

Not Voting:

Devestation, HellnFire666, The Inquisition, malpascp, Raivann, dramonic

Threshold:

7 to lynch.

Deadline:

Still Friday the 22nd

[chauchaudotcom]

Dev - Why would someone freak out over three

random

votes on them? Also, do you really feel that people would seriously bandwagon and hammer based off random votes? As per the inquisition part do you mean an inquisition of the person being bandwagoned or the person bandwagoning?

[Amished]

Actually I tend to agree with Dev here.

Target: Why the (&%# am I being wagoned? I didn't even do anything! (which is true)
Attacker X: Clearly (s)he's flailing, "vote"
Attacker Y: Yeah, why would a townie be mad at 3 votes? "Vote"

Story ended with a townie lynched.

It's basically like a random wagon that doesn't really provide as much information about the rest of the town as actually scumhunting.

[chauchaudotcom]

Fair enough.

How do you propose we spark more conversation then, Amish, so that we can do more scumhunting?

[VP Baltar]

No, it isn't likely, at least not a quick pile in the way I said it in my post, because that would give them away. But it is my experience that scum will look for an oppurtunity if one is given, and I don't think we need to start a bandwagon with no evidence. So yes, I overstated, and a quick pile wouldn't happen, but I just don't want to see a bandwagon started this early in the game with little reasoning.

Why though? what does a bandwagon hurt? do you feel there is no information to be gained from a bandwagon?

What do you feel are the chances of a dangerous bandwagon actually forming (going further then 3 votes) on Starbucks during a random stage?

Thanks for repeating what I already asked.

Actually I tend to agree with Dev here.

Target: Why the (&%# am I being wagoned? I didn't even do anything! (which is true)
Attacker X: Clearly (s)he's flailing, "vote"
Attacker Y: Yeah, why would a townie be mad at 3 votes? "Vote"

Story ended with a townie lynched.

It's basically like a random wagon that doesn't really provide as much information about the rest of the town as actually scumhunting.

I disagree with both of you. You have to learn to read reactions. I've started wagons on people I think could be town just to nab scum jumping on later. I'm not saying it's easy to do or should be practiced if you're not confident in your ability to read people sluffing onto a wagon, but I do think it's a valid tactic for finding scum.

[Raivann]

Vote:Starbuck

Can you smell what The Rock is cooking!

[Starbuck]

Cool, I've never been quicklynched before. This shall be fun!

[Amished]

@Chau: Ask a question about why somebody did anything. That seems to work for me for the most part.

@VP: That .. style, I guess, just seems counterintuitive. My vote is for people I think are scummy, not for wagoning somebody I think could be town just so that I can unvote later and have a choice of scum that bandwagoned for a lynch or lazy town that doesn't bother to scumhunt himself. Definitely not something I have practiced, nor something that I'd really choose to work on to add to my repertoire.

Either way, that brings up something that I was trying to discern from Anon. I recognize it as an advanced tactic; but to conciously wagon when you have 3? games under your belt seems risky at best. I wanted to know how comfortable he was with it. Reading a game over and being in it and dealing with the reactions are completely different. Just like when you replace into a game and read the people that have died and flipped townie; you tend to wonder why they got lynched in the first place cause you know that they're town already.

@Raiv: Serious vote or Random?

@Malp and The Inquisition: care to join in sometime?

[Amished]

@Starbuck: Do you deserve to be quicklynched?

[Starbuck]

@Starbuck: Do you deserve to be quicklynched?

I don't believe so.

Do you think I have done anything to deserve a bandwagon or to possibly be quicklynched?

[chauchaudotcom]

Thanks for repeating what I already asked.

Anytime.

Starbuck, why didn't you question Rai about his vote on you?

[Amished]

@Star: You haven't done much of anything other than question votes on you/create "sympathy" (Anon's vote/quicklynch comment)

[Starbuck]

"Creating sympathy" was not my intention at all. I noticed Anon's join date and I was curious about his motives. As well as trying to start some discussion to move us out of RVS, which I think I have done.

Bandwagons get info for the town, if my bandwagon (and possible lynch) can help our town nail scum. I'm all for it.

So, why is it a bad thing (that's what I feel you are alluding), in your eyes, that I'm asking questions and trying to stimulate discussion?

[VP Baltar]

Either way, that brings up something that I was trying to discern from Anon. I recognize it as an advanced tactic; but to conciously wagon when you have 3? games under your belt seems risky at best. I wanted to know how comfortable he was with it. Reading a game over and being in it and dealing with the reactions are completely different. Just like when you replace into a game and read the people that have died and flipped townie; you tend to wonder why they got lynched in the first place cause you know that they're town already.

Yeah, I should have been more clear. I think i was just arguing theory a bit there. I definitely don't think that was what Anon was doing or anything he would be experienced enough to pull off effectively.

Starbuck, what do you think your chances of being lynched today stand at?

[xRECKONERx]

Let's not lynch Starbuck, k?

[VP Baltar]

Happy Birthday Reckoner!

Now stop interrupting me.

[xRECKONERx]

*shrugs*

Fine.

*goes back to playing new PS3*

[Starbuck]

Starbuck, what do you think your chances of being lynched today stand at?

I'm not sure yet.

My lynch is always a definite possibility. I can't ever seem to survive.

[Raivann]

@Raiv: Serious vote or Random?

It was my serious random vote.

@Hell: Also, if you're worried about a bandwagon forming/growing quickly; why hop on and start to form a bandwagon?

I also see that you gave yourself an easy out off the wagon (no means a final vote). I thought that Anon explained his vote relatively ok; what more of a case are you looking for?

Well, I thought I gave my vote enough reason for it not to just be a bandwagon. However, looking back on it, I misunderstood Anon's argument. I now understand it. Therefore

Unvote

.

What was confusing to you about Anon's argument ?

[Amished]

*sigh*

I hate that argument. "Bandwagons get info for the town" means absolutely nothing, especially since the bandwagon wasn't even halfway to a lynch. Are we gonna look at the 3 man wagon later in the game and see that there's 0-3 scum there and discern something from that? What information do you really expect to get from just bandwagoning or being bandwagoned?

I just wanna /headdesk when I see that. If you want information, ask questions.

The thing that I didn't like about your quicklynch comment was that it felt like you were abusing the .. meta?.. against quicklynches (they're bad for the town no matter what, blah blah blah) for yourself to prevent you from being wagoned further. That post (59) gave me terrible vibes as it neither progressed the game by actually defending yourself nor questioned the people attacking you. I still don't think you actually asked Raiv what his motives were (you posted before I did after his vote). You did question Anon's vote on you though; and that came with less information in the game and therefore is less likely to have any sort of solid backing to it. I just noticed this discrepancy, why are/were you more concerned about Anon's vote than Raivann's?

@Raiv: What was serious about your vote? What was random about it?

[Devestation]

I mean an inquisition of the person being bandwagoned- mafiascum games are topics in a forum, hence people mostly follow what the last page of posts has been on about. Unless the person under the microscope is smart enough to turn the thing around himself (or has an intervention from someone who is capable of doing so), the focus does not leave them until someone takes issue with something that someone else said.

[chauchaudotcom]

Starbuck, why didn't you question Rai about his vote on you?

Starbuck, please answer.