Mini 414-Anime Mafia | GAME OVAH!

[IH]

-----------------Votecount-------------------------
Skruffs -1- (Yamahako)
Cubsfan4ever -1- (AndrewS)
Ubertimmy -1-(Cuban Smoker)
AndrewS -2- (Mert, Jack)
Thrawn1020 -1- (Simenon)
Cubsfan4ever -1- (Ubertimmy)
Simenon -1- (Thrawn1020)




Not voting -3- (Hemisphere Dancer, Cubsfan4ever, Skruffs )

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch!

[Skruffs]

thrawn - interesting theory.

Unvote, Vote spectrumvoid

I don't see why cubsfan is suspicious for 'fishing ' - knowing what is up with Jack can keep allow us to stop being suspicious of him, if he is town, and spend our energies on other pursuits.

Thrawn mentioned that jack had as many vote as the rest of us. I thought "Hmm, I wonder if Jack is just voting whenever someone else does," so I random voted someone who had no votes on them. That person was SV, who had said something just before thrawn. I checked the previous vote count and saw that she had no votes against her, besides, she said she's not scum. She's not scum, as far as I am concerned. The vote was a random vote to see what Jack would do. It was an unfortunate coincidence about what SV said shortly before I posted.

[thrawn1020]

Skruffs, I was guessing, I hadn't actually counted the votes. It seemed pretty close though. By any chance, did you count the votes up before you decided to test the theory?

[Mert]

please explain what would be a better environment. Unquestioned bandwagons?

No, of course not. I'm not saying we shouldn't question blatant bandwagonning etc, but we don't need to question every single action any player takes, as it stymies conversation and exploration.

For example, if I vote for somebody while giving few reasons it should be clear that I am, in part, looking to test that person's reactions to my vote, which I can then pick apart and we can all start to look into further.

If, however, someone else comes along beforehand and says "but Mert, why did you vote for him?" I would be forced to either admit it was to test his reactions (which stops it from being accurate as he'd try harder to temper such a reaction) or say I don't want to say yet, which would either make me look as though I didn't have any reason at all or give away my original intention of reaction searching.

I'm not saying we should let things slide, I'm saying it's not a race to see who can point out the lack of reasoning the quickest - there's no reason not to let the person give the reaction and then question the voter afterward - especially when we're so early in the game.

[Skruffs]

I did not count jack's vs everyone else's votes. I just did it, it was faster.

Mert , it might be clear to you that you are testing them, but to everyone else, it might look like scum distancing themselves, a cop with a guilty result, someone trying to distract town from something else, etc... That's why saying why you are doing something is more pro town - it directs town's attention to who you are asking the questions of, rather than onto both of you. Right?

[Simenon]

Whether or not you like the fishing, I didn't receive anything for it, and I backed off once it was clear he didn't have one. Now that everyone is here and there is no scent of a post restriction, and I've apologized, I'm not sure why you decided to vote me over the schizophrenic postings that have been going around.

It's not the post restriction, it's the "I don't know what kind of flavor". Nor do I like your omgus. You're voting me because you want to understand what I thought. There's not much depth in this thought process.

I'll reread again. I'm not paying much attention to this game.

[thrawn1020]

It's not the post restriction, it's the "I don't know what kind of flavor". Nor do I like your omgus. You're voting me because you want to understand what I thought. There's not much depth in this thought process.

Clearly not.

I was asking why, out of what you read, what I did standed out as scummiest. And you responded with, "Well, it should be obvious". As should have been my sarcasm.

Humor me. You don't get to OMGUS me and then complain later when I OMGUS you back.

Now

my vote's OMGUS.

[thrawn1020]

*Bump*

Nobody has posted in a day. Where is everyone?

[cuban smoker]

I suggest we all join me by voting for ubertimmy in celebration of how useful his posts have been in advancing the town goals.

[IH]

If posting doesn't pick up in a day or so, a tentative deadline will be set.

[Skruffs]

Mert, I'm sorry for criticizing your scumming techniques. You can bandwagon anyone you want.

Jack, I think your vote hopping was kind of nice, in a way, and it did spur attention.

Cubs, Cuban smoker, you guys abboy the heck out of me, but in a brotherly way.

spectrumvoid, hemisphere dancer you two look lovely today.

Thrawn, I commend your willingness to motivate the game.

simenon, andrewS, you have the letter N in your name, and I bet it means "Not Scum"
I'm *sure* it means 'Nice", if nothing else.

Unvote

Vote : Everyone

I want to share the love with all of you.
Happy Sappy Nice Day!

[spectrumvoid]

Happy Sappy day! vote: no ly... just kidding. For today, my posts will be less accusatory.

Skruffs: I'm not sure whether I buy your explanation. First off, why didn't you state that your post was a random vote? Second, why did you only explain yourself after someone called you up on it?

[Skruffs]

I didn't really see - at that time - that there would be any point in saying "This is to see if Jack changes his vote, now that I have voted someone."
If I had random voted anyoen else, it probably would not have been a big deal - as it is, I random voted you, someone who is basically not acting scummy or lurking or anythign else. If I had said it was a random vote, probably the reaction to it would not have been so extreme. I'll admit this. At the same time, I *usually* explain why I am voting someone, at least to a degree. I do not just wagon blindly or start somethign without reason. I was taken aback by the amount of vehemence that was expressed towards me for the one little vote, but my intentions were not to incur that vehemence.

[Yamahako]

Unvote Skruffs

Vote Cubsfan4ever

[spectrumvoid]

Hm... I buy that explanation.

Yo Yamahako: why the vote on cubsfan?

[Yamahako]

Check his post history :-/
I don't think sKruffs is the play today, and he's next on my list.

[Skruffs]

*eyeballs on Simenon and Thrawn*
What are you guys up to, anyways?

[Jack]

I still don't like AndrewS.

[Cubsfan4ever]

What'd Andrew do?

[Mert]

Mert , it might be clear to you that you are testing them, but to everyone else, it might look like scum distancing themselves, a cop with a guilty result, someone trying to distract town from something else, etc... That's why saying why you are doing something is more pro town - it directs town's attention to who you are asking the questions of, rather than onto both of you. Right?

I wasn't specifically talking about me here, it was more a general observation. Obviously on Day One it is impossible to have a cop with a guilty result as this game was a day start, so that's out. As for your other assertions, they're fine - the thing is, I'm not saying don't question them

ever

, I'm just saying you don't have to question them

immediately

. Sometimes you can find out more from watching what happens after someone does something strange than from demanding an answer from the strange person straight away.

So while it is generally true that "saying why you are doing something is more pro town", I find it to be generally less pro-town if someone is over questioning the entire town at every step of the way - it makes it look like scum looking for any reason they can for people to start attacking somebody.

Anyway, I wasn't aiming this at you specifically, just a general feeling that the town seems to be in a bit of a race to see who can question strange behaviour first.

Meh, could just be differences in playstyle I guess...

[cuban smoker]

Let's get this party started:

unvote: Ubertimmy
vote: Cubsfan4ever

Cubsfan has contributed nothing to this game but more questions.

[Skruffs]

I would question the validity of cuban smoker's logic in hsi vote switch, but, apparently, that's not pro-town anymore.

sooo...

Unvote

Vote : Cubsfan4ever

NOW you are at F0UR V0TE5! C0NTR1BUTE C0LD HARD FACT5 0R PER15H!!!

[Cubsfan4ever]

Well, I feel rather singled out as I'm hardly the only one not posting. No excuse though, that is correct.

Skruff's behavior does not seem unusual to me, perhaps if anything a bit overeager. I'm not really sure why Jack has been getting a pass for his incredibly... odd behavior. WIFOM or something? Err... right no questions. Right, so looking back I don't really get Jack much and find him to be a bit suspicious. He's basically been just randomly voting like crazy then making non-contribution points such as "I agree" and the such. So he gets my fos at the moment.

[thrawn1020]

*eyeballs on Simenon and Thrawn*
What are you guys up to, anyways?

He OMGUS'ed me about something nobody really cared that much about, and I voted him back for it. I still don't understand why out of everything that he had read up to the point he posted, my vote for Jack early was the most interesting.

I'm not understanding the reasoning behind CubsFan at the moment. Is this a "He's not posting" vote, or is this a "We need to get serious about somebody, right away!" vote?

[Skruffs]

C0LD H4RD F4CT5 4CKN0L3DG3D

Unvote : Cubsfan

I'm always over eager day one. I enjoy the brawls that ensue. People can use strategery day two and day three and whatnot. Day one is a day when scum is misunderestimated.

thrawn - who knows. Only the shadow knows. Well, the shadow, ubertimmy, yamahoko, and cubansmoker.
I find it really interesting that cubansmoker votes for alurker... than after one post decides to move onto the person the lurker is voting for. It's not hard to imagine that ubertimmy isn't going to move his vote before the lynch; so it's that much easier of a bandwagon. That doesn't make anyone scummy, or not scummy. HEll I probably look scummy for 'defending' cubsfan again. I'd just like to see him make it past day one, for once