QF-GOD GIVEN- TRishi wrote:
Of course, Grimmy never seems to leave the random stage - even on like Day 3. And he seems to do okay.
A++, awesome post, would read again.andersonw wrote:Are you scum?Elmo wrote:I don't think I'm being impatient; in the 'model game' for not random voting, Newbie 465, people ask questions in their first post, even if it's as basic as "are you scum?" - and I can't see any reason to delay doing that. Definitely, if I were not-random-voting, I'd have asked a question or two by now, so I'm curious.
Do you think it's necessarily possible for a transition from non-serious to serious to be narrowed down to any one post in particular?Awesome Pants wrote:You seem to think that we've moved out of the 'stage', can you indicate the exact post where you think this is hapened?
Might you possibly elaborate on that? Whose is the most interesting?MacavityLock wrote:I also think we're seeing some rather interesting reactions.
KingEnigma's, actually. Specifically:Elmo wrote:Might you possibly elaborate on that? Whose is the most interesting?MacavityLock wrote:I also think we're seeing some rather interesting reactions.
I thought that was kind of interesting. Not necessarily scummy. Just... pushy might be the right word.KingEnigma wrote:Everyone who is voting for someone, why are you still voting for them? Apparently we have moved on, and now you all look scummy! (? I mean you guys need to pick one, you cant keep on me for not voting if your voting for someone that you actually dont think is scum)
No, as often some people will still be taking the game lightly while others are taking it more seriously. Having said that, it could be possible to name a post where every post after that post is a serious contribution, or at least an attempt at a serious contribution.iamausername wrote:Do you think it's necessarily possible for a transition from non-serious to serious to be narrowed down to any one post in particular?
Well, it does seem we are out of the random stage. Whats wrong with me unvoting? I just had nothing to contribute at that point.Unvote, because you made me laugh. Vote: Timeater, because you didn't make me laugh. You said "OUT OF RANDOM STAGE UNVOTE" without adding anything remotely useful, and that makes me sad.
I find it only a tiny bit scummy - it was probably one of the most notable things I saw on Page 2.Awesome Pants wrote: Do you find this behaviour scummy?
I don't like this. I think that Elmo has a legitimate gripe with what KE is doing. It's not just play style.Farkshinsoup wrote: Unvote: Vote Elmo
It seems like you are voting King solely because you have a gripe with his play style. Not good.
There's nothing wrong with unvoting at that point. But, if we're out of the random stage, you should have something to say. Your post seemed like you were trying to not make any waves and were trying to look as inconspicuous and uncontroversial as possible.Timeater wrote:Well, it does seem we are out of the random stage. Whats wrong with me unvoting? I just had nothing to contribute at that point.
I also think that Elmo has a legitimate gripe with KE. But that's not the issue. The question here should be: is KE's behaviour thus far a scumtell, or a null tell? I say it's a null tell because that's his meta. Of course, it doesn't mean that he's not scum, but I'd like Elmo (or anyone else) to make more of a case for it.Rishi wrote:I think that Elmo has a legitimate gripe with what KE is doing. It's not just play style.
Like this. What do you think the last paragraph of #41 was, if not asking questions and poking at people?Elmo wrote:If you believed random voting was a good way to start the game, and you random voted, you would be trying to move the game forward. You don't, which is fine; you said in 27 that you ask people questions, poke at people, etc instead. But you're not doing that.
My vote's on CDB. Started as random, but I don't see the need to remove it until he starts participating.iamausername wrote: In fact, I think he had a very good question there, and I'd like to hear some answers. Why is everyone voting the person they are voting for? Elmo and Fark are the only ones with any particular reasoning behind their votes that I can see.
Why did you answer a question directed at Awesome Pants?Grimmy wrote:It usualyl happens when someone puts forth a solid vote with a solid reason for that person, which gets people talking about whether or not it is good or bad
I would say that I am still voting for you because it still seems that we are in random voting. Also, I generally don't unvote unless if I think someone else is scummy enough for them to deserve a vote (or if s/he is close to being lynched and I want more discussion).iamausername wrote:In fact, I think he had a very good question there, and I'd like to hear some answers.
I don't see how taking a "zen approach" correlates to being an "active lurker".Timeater wrote: King Enigma - admitted activer lurker with his refusal to random vote?
Translation: I want to OMGUS, but I'm afraid someone might notice. I'm quite happy with my random vote for the moment.KingEnigma wrote:I want to vote for Elmo, but thats mostly because Elmo hurt my feelings....but I may get over it, but it'll take time.
That is completely and utterly false once the vote you'd be OMGUS-ing isn't random. Elmo's vote on you is not random.KingEnigma wrote:uhh, ohmygodyousuck votes are glorified random votes, do we really need to get back into this discussion?
)KingEnigma wrote:I want to vote for Elmo, but thats mostly because Elmo hurt my feelings....but I may get over it, but it'll take time.
... Do you think that Elmo's vote for you is scummy? Do you think that, given what you currently know, Elmo is the most likely player to be scum? If you do, you should be voting for him.KingEnigma wrote:no, but if my vote for him is for nothing other than the fact that he voted for me? Where is the basis of the vote?
That sounds amazingly wishy-washy for the random stage.But in this particular case, Elmo is being a bit bullying towards me, but i'm not seeing this as overtly scummy, so therefore my vote wouldnt be placed on who i think is scum, it would be there to say "oh my god you suck" and that is very much a glorified random vote...