Mini 277 - Webcomic Mafia - Game Over!

[Adele]

Unvote, Vote TSAGod

; retcon much?

It's too convenient to be able to say something less-than-perfectly-thought-out and blame it on sarcasm later.

Emoticons are your friend.

[TSAGod]

In all my posts here, there's probably an emoticon in about ten of them, and most of them are used to mock those who use them.

In the context of my post, did you really think I was serious when you were reading it? I'm all for a bandwagon, but this is pretty rediculous. I'd rather be random bandwagoned.

[Adele]

It didn't make any sense to me at all; I didn't see what you were getting at.

Most of what's written here is "verbal-style", so unless you are a very talented writer (and maybe even then) emoticons are helpful in portraying the spirit in which something is intended; they stand in for facial expressions, timing, and body language. They are a standard aspect of forum interactions, and if you don't like them, it's on you to pick up the slack by writing more clearly.

Sorry, but if you were ambiguous, that was

your

bad.

[bertrand]

Really? Could you then tell me what random voting does to get the game going in a "good" way? While you're at it, could you give some reasons?

It's fun. Bandwagoning is risky.

I voted later, I wanted to see your reaction before voting. Then your reaction looked even more scummy, so i did.

Let's back up a minute. This was your post in question:

Why the useless bandwagon on me? Random bandwagons are only good for scum.

FoS Pie

He's got enough votes.

You said

very

clearly that the FoS was because I "had enough votes." Now you're saying the FoS was because you wanted to see my response. H'm.

So what did you want me to say? "I'm FoSing you because I want to see your reaction"? Of course, if I want to see your reaction, I'm not going to teel you...

Also, you said that my reaction looked even more scummy.

How?

Just calling me scummy will get you nowhere fast with a remotely competent town. You need reasons. Please don't make me ask this again.

You made a bad explanation, used CrapLogic, and misrepresented the situation. Need more?

For your viewing pleasure, the post in question is this one:

FOS: everyone who flipped out over my bandwagon vote.

All I was doing was randomvoting for someone, just like the rest of you. I just "random"voted for someone who already had a few votes.

You random vote people because you say that it's good for getting the game moving. Then I - the horror - use it to get the game moving!

Given that bertrand was among the flippers, vote stays.

From what I can decipher (there's a little guesswork here, as bertrand wasn't terribly clear about specifics), the "bad explanation" was that part about randomvoting for someone, just like the rest of you (I say that because it's the only part where I really explained anything). Now, I'm not sure what's "bad" about that, but I can say with a certain degree of confidence that everything in there is true. It seems relatively factual.

The "bad explanation" was your post 38 where you explained why you voted.

I'll also guess that the CrapLogic was the part about using the randomvote to get the game going. So, let's look at it logically: I made two statements that implied a third.

Statement 1

:

You random vote people because you say that it's good for getting the game moving

. That's pretty much the widely accepted view. Tossing votes around early is inducive of game action. That's why people do it. Do you disagree there?

No. I agree with that statement.

Statement 2

:

Then I - the horror - use it to get the game moving!

That was the intended purpose of the vote, which I have stated many times. To stimulate action, which I, indeed, did.

Yes, but in an unneccesary and scummy (because it's a pointless bandwagon) way.

Statement 3

:

Therefore, voting me because I used my randomvote to get the game moving is hypocritical, and therefore, bad.

This statement was implied by the first two sentences. It's the obvious logical continuation. Soo... I'm not sure what you're calling craplogic, but it all seems pretty airtight to me.

Now, finally, I'll venture to say that "misrepresenting the situation" was calling Bertrand a flipper. I was defining "flippers" as people who FoSed me, attacked the random bandwagon, or otherwise took the randomvoting as significantly different from other random voting. Anyways, given that there's no concrete definition of a "flipper" out there, it's not really misrepresenting any situations.

By flipper, I though you meant someone who keeps changing his vote, and since, before you, I had never actually voted (without unvoting in the same post), that was misrepresenting the situation. Sorry, I'm still kinda new.

Well, there you go. I analysed my post based on your three accusations. If that's not good enough, then yes, I need more. Please let me know what you were thinking on this one.

There was the craplogic and misrepresentaion of the situation.The one on you isn't, anyway.

No, there really wasn't. You're just trying to write it off as "craplogic" and "misrepresentation" without providing reasons.



...and I'll choose to ignore the (funny? ad hominem? sarcastic?) one-liner at the end of the post.

[quote="Pie_is_good]
-Pie

[/quote]

Ahh. the.. never mind.


Just to clarify my statement, what I said was "Random VOTING is good to get the game going. Random BANDWAGONING is not."

What I meant was
Random VOTING is good to get the game going. Random BANDWAGONING is not good.


Anyway, your post is really long and asks a ton of questions, all over basically nothing.. Let's just ignore this, it seems to me you are town who just wanted to get the game going or something, and I guess I just didn't like the way you did it.

Truce?

[Akonas]

Vote: TSAGod

- you confuse me.

I think that random bandwagoning can be a great tool, as long as it doesn't go too far. People aren't likely to respond to one random vote.

[Aelyn]

The caption's letters shift, seemingly quite slowly - you never see any one letter change, but each time you glance away then look back, it's different.

What, you've never wondered how captions actually change before?

Vote Count:

Pie is Good - 2 (Tyfo, Bertrand)
Thok - 1 (Vitamin R)
Bertrand - 3 (StevieT92, Fuldu, Pie is Good)
Fuldu - 1 (Diedraphoenix)
Tyfo - 1 (TSAGod)
TSAGod - 4 (Nemesis, Thok, Adele, Akonas)

Not voting:

None.

It is seven to lynch.

[VitaminR]

unvote: Thok

vote: Adele

FOS: Akonas

I thought it was fairly obvious TSA's statement was sarcastic. And especially after his clarification I don't think there is sufficient reason to put on a third and fourth vote this quickly.

[Adele]

TSA's opinion seems to be along the lines of "third votes are not a big deal" so I felt - and feel - okay about putting a third vote on him. And I

do

believe the duty of clarity is on the writer, and that TSA confused a few people, myself included.

So I feel okay about my vote on him... but I'm not panicking over one vote on me, either.

[TSAGod]

Vote: TSAGod

- you confuse me.

I think that random bandwagoning can be a great tool, as long as it doesn't go too far. People aren't likely to respond to one random vote.

unvote, vote Akonas

This is rediculous. I was commenting on how stupid it was for "randomly" bandwagoning on Pie because he put a third vote on somebody. That's not random. Pie did something to cause that action.

I could have sworn the sarcasm was forming a puddle under my post.

Anyway - what is too far for a bandwagon. You decided that three was too far for Bertrand? If you like random bandwagoning, like it all the way. Don't pile on the anti-bandwagon bandwagon because you think it is cool.

[Fuldu]

This is rediculous. I was commenting on how stupid it was for "randomly" bandwagoning on Pie because he put a third vote on somebody. That's not random. Pie did something to cause that action.

I could have sworn the sarcasm was forming a puddle under my post.

Anyway - what is too far for a bandwagon. You decided that three was too far for Bertrand? If you like random bandwagoning, like it all the way. Don't pile on the anti-bandwagon bandwagon because you think it is cool.

I thought the sarcasm was fairly apparent, as well, but this is an argument that cuts both ways. TSAGod has said that he's in favor of early random voting, but not random bandwagoning. So at what point does a random vote turn into a random bandwagon? At what point does the fact that players' "random votes" are all on entirely different people indicate that they're only random to the extent that they've chosen one of the players without votes to put a vote on. Real random voting would end up with bandwagons of three votes fairly quickly. In practice, that almost never happens.

This isn't to raise suspicion on TSAGod, but only to point out the inconsistency of supporting random votes, but not random bandwagons, as well as to point out the silliness of random votes. Random votes

ought

to result in random bandwagons; real random bandwagons, not like the one pie started. The fact that random votes almost never result in random bandwagons, and in fact that a player who puts a second random vote on someone is likely to get attacked, means that random votes aren't really all that random. If that's all that's going to come of it, we might as well just start the game with each person having their vote pre-assigned to the player after them in the player list.

[Akonas]

That was a well-said second paragraph, Fuldu.

TSAGod, by "not going too far" I mean "not going to a quicklynch within 1-2 votes of a lynch without hearing the bandwagonee out. The point of such is to instigate conversation, which is exactly what it seems to be doing. I never said that bertrand had too many votes; he just doesn't seem scummy at all to me at the moment. TSAGod, however, did seem somewhat scummy, or at least worth following up on.

The sarcasm was forming a puddle

under

your post, not on it:P. </sarcasm> is your friend. Feel free to use it.

[Pie_is_good]

[In response to Bertrand...]
Much as I love going to war, I'm gonna accept your truce. I think I kinda got a little worked up over a disagreement - It doesn't mean the points brought up should be ignored, but it also doesn't mean that the disagreement implicates the other person as scum.

...and hell, it shouldn't impact the game too much longer. Things have happened and there's no more use for random bandwagons. I generally hate random mafia playing with a vengance, but in the absence of logic it's the only thing to turn to.

[in response to the TSAGod bandwagon...]

UNVOTE, VOTE: ADELE

I saw TSA's comment on The Pie Bandwagon as blatantly sarcastic, but I can still see how it could cause misunderstandings. However, I think TSA has explained himself adaquetly, and now it just feels like Adele is grasping for a way to keep this bandwagon rolling.

The lesson has been learned that sarcasm doesn't always translate well in a post. But that doesn't mean that we need to assign blame to TSA. It's not his bad or your bad or my bad; there's no official laws saying how to distribute blame.

-Pie

[Adele]

unvote

just feels like Adele is grasping for a way to keep this bandwagon rolling.

No. I said I was okay with my vote. I didn't congratulate others for their votes, and I didn't encourage anyone to vote for TSA.

I'm more than happy to vote for people because I don't like their style - although this has happened more with people behaving in an outright unpleasant manner (I support Lynch All Jerks day 1 metagame policy for repeat "offenders"). I think that it's really tough not to be near-random in day 1's lynch. If no-one's doing anything outright scummy, or being a jerk, might as well go for someone who's style is confusing; at least it'll make the game easier from then on.

TSA hadn't (and hasn't) done enough to earn a lynch - it now looks as though the ambiguity was a one-off - a third vote, though? Yes.

[bertrand]

I like this one better.

Unvote Pie

FOS Adele

Trying to kill the badwagon after it doesn't pick up?

This may turn into a vote, I wanna think about it (and why is saying that a scum tell)?

[Adele]

Trying to kill the badwagon after it doesn't pick up?

No, trying to explain my actions and acquiesce to the town's wishes.

In case you didn't get it: I didn't understand what TSA was getting at. I saw other people appear confused. I saw him trying to explain it. I thought it might be a retcon. I placed a vote on him - his third, which, from what had been said, seemed like a small deal to people in this game. The end.

[bertrand]

Just the third? I thought he had 4 at some point. Never mind. Not voting. (for now)

[Adele]

Akonas added one after me.

[Fuldu]

This may turn into a vote, I wanna think about it (and why is saying that a scum tell)?

Because posting that you're going to think about voting, but not doing it, allows for a later justification of putting a late-bandwagon or lynching vote on. Also, it pushes a bandwagon without actually having to be on it, so if Adele turns out to be pro-town (either by getting lynched or by having this bandwagon die out, but then getting night-killed) and people want to look at the voting record, a scum who said the above wouldn't obviously have been a part of that bandwagon.

In a separate, but related, vein, saying you want to think about it is a classic example of appearing to contribute without really contributing at all, which is an exceptionally useful thing for scum to do. If you intend to think about it, think about it without posting that you're going to do so. Then, once you've thought about it, post.

Also a scum tell: saying "I know X is a scum tell" and then doing X anyway. But, oh, look, my vote is already on you.

[bertrand]

Ahh.

FoS Arkonas

[TSAGod]

I never said that bertrand had too many votes; he just doesn't seem scummy at all to me at the moment.

I was asking why a vote for Pie is Good instead of Bertrand. That's what I was trying to ask.

And as for bandwagons, I'm for them as long as they don't have an obvious cause as done by the bandwagon. Officially scumminess is okay, though, but a mildly scummy thing that very likely isn't a real tell angers me.

[Fuldu]

And as for bandwagons, I'm for them as long as they don't have an obvious cause as done by the bandwagon. Officially scumminess is okay, though, but a mildly scummy thing that very likely isn't a real tell angers me.

Okay, TSAGod, if you want to get all self-righteous about how obvious your sarcasm should have been, you're going to have to work on the clarity of your writing. I've read this five times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. If I were to translate it into brief, coherent sentences you would be saying:

I'm in favor of bandwagons, as long as there isn't a reason for them. Scummy behavior is okay, but mildly scummy behavior isn't.

Unless you've gone totally off the deep end, that's not what you're trying to say. And it doesn't come across as sarcasm this time. It really seems like you're trying to say something valid and reasonable, it just isn't coming out right. Proofreading is your friend.

[Adele]

And as for bandwagons, I'm for them as long as they don't have an obvious cause as done by the bandwagon. Officially scumminess is okay, though, but a mildly scummy thing that very likely isn't a real tell angers me.

Okay, TSAGod, if you want to get all self-righteous about how obvious your sarcasm should have been, you're going to have to work on the clarity of your writing. I've read this five times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. If I were to translate it into brief, coherent sentences you would be saying:

I'm in favor of bandwagons, as long as there isn't a reason for them. Scummy behavior is okay, but mildly scummy behavior isn't.

I think he's saying: "bandwagons are okay if they are caused by solid scum tells, not weak ones. Don't bandwagon for the sake of bandwagoning"

[Fuldu]

I think he's saying: "bandwagons are okay if they are caused by solid scum tells, not weak ones. Don't bandwagon for the sake of bandwagoning"

Sure, but I'm sick of trying to guess at what I think he's saying. He should learn to write sentences that don't contain grammatically dubious constructs like "an obvious cause as done by the bandwagon" or "officially scumminess."

And, secondarily, I would disagree with his views on solid vs. weak scum tells. In my experience, there aren't many, if any, solid scum tells, but there are lots and lots of weak ones. So my approach is to look for players who've committed several of them and place my vote there.

[Adele]

I'm sick of trying to guess at what I think he's saying. He should learn to write sentences that don't contain grammatically dubious constructs like "an obvious cause as done by the bandwagon" or "officially scumminess."

And, secondarily, I would disagree with his views on solid vs. weak scum tells. In my experience, there aren't many, if any, solid scum tells, but there are lots and lots of weak ones. So my approach is to look for players who've committed several of them and place my vote there.

QFT

[dierdraphoenix]

sorry, I don't have the time to post at the moment, just long enough to do this:

UNVOTE FULDU

I'll make a better post when I'm not bogged down with the homework. =/