Mini #406, Animaniacs! Water Tower Explosion! [Over]

[Foolster41]

I was defending you? Sorry, but I honestly didn't even notice your posts since they arn't very serious. You havn't said anything really that is worth defending. The only stat I gave was 1:4 mafia/town ratio, which is the most widely accepted ratio for mafia games.

Maybe I am a kill joy, and perhaps I do take mafia a bit seriously, but I'm out to win, and I don't think the strategies put forth by fritzler/mole so far are helpful to a town win.

[Fritzler]

((Comedic topic dropped. It was no-win for me, anyway.))

Well, with everyone working the "vote the no-voters" angle, let me jump in to

Unvote Vote: Fuldu.

I mean, at least Foolster apologized for not voting...

i don't know if you know how mafiascum works

fuldu has street cred

that means he's never lynched d1

that's just the way it works

we wagon noobs d1

Unvote: Fuldu

If I've learned one thing in life, it's that you don't go after those with "street cred" right away. Reading Fritzler's post counts as "life experience" right?

Anyway, on to the Wagoning noobs part. I think this is an excelent opportunity to teach this kid a lesson. He been trying to devert attention away from himself all game; and with nothing to show for it.

Vote: BHNY!!!

PWNED!!!

...wait, shoot, undo, undo,

unvote!

see fuldu, we got to whip these boys into line

[mole]

I was making a joke poking fun at the most extreme end of your position. So far in the game we've had votes for random players, votes for your hardline metagame decisions, votes for newbies, and votes for players who haven't posted once in the thread.

None

of those people are statistically more likely to be mafia than any other player--if we didn't vote for any of those entirely arbitrary reasons, nobody would have voted by now, and we

would

be heading for a no lynch. Obviously you aren't in favour of a no lynch (as you brought up), so where do you draw the line?

[Fuldu]

I was defending you? Sorry, but I honestly didn't even notice your posts since they arn't very serious. You havn't said anything really that is worth defending. The only stat I gave was 1:4 mafia/town ratio, which is the most widely accepted ratio for mafia games.

Maybe I am a kill joy, and perhaps I do take mafia a bit seriously, but I'm out to win, and I don't think the strategies put forth by fritzler/mole so far are helpful to a town win.

To clarify, for newer players who might not be familiar, the widely accepted ratio Foolster is talking about here is 1:4 scum/player, which means (barring neutral win conditions and other uncommon additions) a 1:3 scum/town ratio. I know Foolster meant the right thing, he just got his statistics terminology a bit screwed up.

[chamber]

@everyone voting me: dont expect much more participation then this from me, I'll try to get a post everyother page.. if I can think of something to say.

vote: fritz

for making me try to think of good questions.

[Fritzler]

@everyone voting me: dont expect much more participation then this from me, I'll try to get a post everyother page.. if I can think of something to say.

vote: fritz

for making me try to think of good questions.

when did i do that?

[chamber]

@everyone voting me: dont expect much more participation then this from me, I'll try to get a post everyother page.. if I can think of something to say.

vote: fritz

for making me try to think of good questions.

when did i do that?

last night.

[Sailor Jerry]

@everyone voting me: dont expect much more participation then this from me, I'll try to get a post everyother page.. if I can think of something to say.

Why?

[Foolster41]

Fuldu: Did I? If so, sorry. I could have sworn it was 1:4.

SJ: that is a very good question.

I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't vote newbies, or anyone. voting by itself isn't all that dangeruos, but the term LYNCH was used, and that was what made me nervous. I think there has been a misunderstanding because of this.

[Fuldu]

Foolster: It just depends on how you're defining the ratio. You defined it as scum:town, at which point for every five players, one would be scum and four would be town, which is 20%. The generic assumption is 25% scum. If you had defined the ratio as scum:players, then it would be right--for every four players, one is scum.

This is verging on threadjack, so we should probably let it go, but I didn't want to give the relatively new players in the game the wrong idea. And, just to clarify, 25% is a general guideline, not by any means a hard and fast rule.

In-game, if chamber isn't expecting to participate more than once every couple of pages, I'm comfortable leaving my vote on him. If it succeeds in getting him to talk more, fine. If not, then he probably isn't going to be much use to us anyway. For at this point in Day One, with no other obvious leads, that's good enough for me.

[Foolster41]

Fuldu: I think scum:town is what I was thinking. I wasn't arguing the point, I was just surprised I got it wrong.

I admit I too am surprised by chamber's anouncement. If he has a reason to be absent, that is one thing, but this seems to be just asking to not participate for no reason. I'm very tempted to vote him, but I'm going to give him a shadow of a doubt and wait for him to respond.

[VitaminR]

How is chamber saying that he is not going to participate much that scummy?

It's useless and it doesn't make much sense, but I don't see why it is particularly suspicious.

I'm sticking to my Foolster vote for now.

[Sailor Jerry]

How is chamber saying that he is not going to participate much that scummy?

It's useless and it doesn't make much sense, but I don't see why it is particularly suspicious.

I'm sticking to my Foolster vote for now.

It's just really weird... Hanging back and only posting the bare minimum amount is lurking... and it's scummy. I'm not sure if it's any less scummy if you announce it first :/

[VitaminR]

From what I've seen of chamber, he has an unusual playing style. Also, I doubt scum would just announce their intention to lurk if it was a significant decision.

[JDodge]

Also, I doubt scum would just announce their intention to lurk if it was a significant decision.

So if someone admits to doing something, they're automatically cleared of being a suspect?

[VitaminR]

Yes.

[Sailor Jerry]

So if someone admits to doing something, they're automatically cleared of being a suspect?

Yes.

Just to let you know, I will be discussing with some buddies of mine tonight, and we're going to kill one of you before morning.

[Foolster41]

VitimanR: That's pure WIFOM by the way. Not perticipating (without a good reason) is scummy.

And you're voting me because I'm opposed to random voting? I understand an FOS maybe (as other have done), but 1.) I think that's rather extreme 2.)It is obvious I'm, doing my best to participate in exchange for not random voting. 3.)I believe said it was more a personal taste (and never said that people should right not ohmygosh stop random voting

vote: chamber

[chamber]

If directly participating in a discussion then I will post more then once every couple pages, such as now when I'm being wagoned. But generally I dont have more to add to the conversation then that many posts would cover.

[Foolster41]

Basicly, "I won't talk when I don't have anything to say?". That sounds reasonible enough to me, but if that's all, then there was no reason for this whole post in the first place that made me vote you. On the one hand, the point of my vote was acomplished. On the other hand, you make it sound like if I unvote you (reduce bandwagon threat) you will stop talking. for now I'm keeping my vote, just because I want the quiet people to keep talking.

[petroleumjelly]

They're Ani-mani,
Totally insane-y,
Eisenhower Mamie:

ANIMANIACS!

These are the Facts:

chamber – 4 – HurriKaty, mole, Fuldu, Foolster41
Foolster41 – 3 – Blake Judge, Sailor Jerry, VitaminR

BeHappyNewYear – 2 – JDodge, Fritzler

Fritzler – 1 – chamber
Sailor Jerry – 1 – Thesp

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch!

Not Voting – 1 – BeHappyNewYear

[Foolster41]

I would like ot hear more from Blake Judge,since random voting me at the beginikng he hasn't said anything else. Coron has atleast posted since, so I'll

unvote vote: Blake Judge

[BeHappyNewyear]

Oh no! A finished game avalanche!

Anyway, I find this scenario...amusing. We have chamber going off and attempting to justify his own inaction (can I say lurking?) And on the other side, there's Foolster being neurotic. To say the least, this is turning into a two-man D1.

Now, I can sort of understand both sides of the issue. If chamber were to come out and say that he would be inactive for some given reason (like, say, he has several night classes or something.) I think it would be reasonably understandable. However, the way it's worded above, it just screams "I'm lurking on purpose." I'm not sure this is the way you intended it, chamber, but I'll give you benefit of the doubt.

As for Foolster, it seems that you've been going uphill ever since you tried defending the newbies. The fact that you attacked mole and fritz after what appeared to be some blatant sarcasm seemed rather over the edge, and makes me wonder your reason for defending us so hastily (by us, I'm going to assume myself, Blake Judge, and JDodge, the only three with sub-100 post at the start of the game.) I realize you might have our best interests in mind, so I'll just keep an

FoS: Foolster

on you now.

One more note: what happened to Blake Judge? One post in game seems a little too...little. I'm going to

Vote: Blake Judge

to prod him a little, just so he can wake up and post a little bit more.

[chamber]

"I'm lurking on purpose."

I geuss that depends on how you parse "lurking on purpose". I will do so knowingly, but I find I often don't need as many words to get my point across as others, and that to post twice a page would normally require a lot of "I still think the same as the last post" posts.

[Foolster41]

NewYear: Would you please stop saying I'm defending you? It smells of Scumlinking.

Also, It seems I misunderstood a sarcastic remark about voting newbies which I took as a serious remark about lynching newbies. It was a misunderstanding which I apologized for in post #58. let's move on.