Newbie 813 - Over!

Santos · Post Post #50 (ISO) » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:50 am

Its been five days.

Aquafr3sh,

Can you answer what's been asked of you to chime in on, please?

TDC · Post Post #51 (ISO) » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:09 am

Vote CountaQuafr3sh (2): SunBunD33, DeeJayCee
Santos (1): Shrinehme
WeepingWind (1): BigBear
SunBunD33 (1): WeepingWind
BigBear (1): aQuafr3sh

Not Voting (3): rolandgarros, Santos, Pancho

Prodding SunBunD33 and aQuafr3sh.

BigBear · Post Post #52 (ISO) » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:23 pm

Looking back on Pancho's voting pattern, i find nothing wrong with it.

Unvote:
Vote : aQuafr3sh

Santos · Post Post #53 (ISO) » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:45 pm

But why vote aQuafr3sh?

Unvote

BigBear's vote feels like an opportunistic scum vote because his post about Pancho and then voting are entirely two different things.

FoS: BigBear

Santos · Post Post #54 (ISO) » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:46 pm

Oh, it seems I didn't have a vote out yet. Oh well.

Shrinehme · Post Post #55 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:28 am

His vote is putting AQuafr3sh at three... Three is pretty high for random voting [and considering the person in question isn't here to defend himself... not there's there's anything to defend against].

What do you mean by "opportunistic" scum vote, Santos?

BigBear · Post Post #56 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:07 am

Shrinehme wrote:His vote is putting AQuafr3sh at three... Three is pretty high for random voting [and considering the person in question isn't here to defend himself... not there's there's anything to defend against].

What do you mean by "opportunistic" scum vote, Santos?

scum tend to vote when it suites them best. ex: me voting for some one, and putting them at L-2. where its in the middle of a lynch. sometimes, two people have a case on someone, and it looks like that player is top candidate for a lynch, scum tend to jump on that bandwagon, giving extremely weak cases compared to the heavy cases, or they tend to piggy back a lot. usually, scum are the third or fourth vote for a lynch (when it takes five to lynch). Rarely are scum the beginners of a wagon, but they can be. It's good to suspect that scum could be anywhere. Usually, after day two, lynch analysis is a good tool for finding scum.

Shrinehme · Post Post #57 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:28 am

So your vote was random, I assume.

You didn't have to answer for him.

BigBear · Post Post #58 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:44 am

Santos wrote:But why vote aQuafr3sh?

Unvote

BigBear's vote feels like an opportunistic scum vote because his post about Pancho and then voting are entirely two different things.

FoS: BigBear

why not vote him? Do you really think that I'm going to let us lynch this player, with 2+ random votes on him?

Santos · Post Post #59 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:42 am

The reason I FoS'd you was because you said one thing, then voted aquafr3sh based on nothing.

BigBear wrote:Looking back on Pancho's voting pattern, i find nothing wrong with it.

BigBear wrote:Unvote:
Vote : aQuafr3sh

Those two are incredibly separate things. You say that Pancho's voting pattern is not suspicious. Then you unvote and vote aquafr3sh without saying anything.

That is why I called you out as 'opportunistic'. Its like you're trying to slip a vote in by providing something completely irrelevant to the player you just voted.

Pancho · Post Post #60 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:50 am

BigBear wrote:Have you read any of the thread yet? (i'm not intending this to be OMGUS or anything.) I for one, would say that we are out of the RVS. I want to know what you think of Pancho jumping all over the place.

We're two pages in, we need more content! I expect WoT's already!!!

BigBear wrote:why not vote him? Do you really think that I'm going to let us lynch this player, with 2+ random votes on him?

With no reason whatsoever given as to why you placed this vote, it seems very much like you are being a hypocrite here. Got to say I'm not too happy with someone who claims to want the random voting stage to be done with dropping a third vote on someone with what appears to be no rhyme or reason... Mind voicing your reasons there, Big Bear?

rolandgarros wrote:I meant that posting another random vote after that vote was possibly to show that you were simply just random voting and to prove your intentions. Otherwise, why would you have added that last vote?

And I wanted you to sound off on what WeepingWind wrote.

Did you actually read my post with that fourth vote in it at all? You know, because this post really makes it look like the answer is no...

As far as what WeepingWind wrote, I don't see what you are trying to say is wrong with it.

While I'm on this subject...

rolandgarros wrote:On the other hand, Pancho may have just made a mistake and gotten himself into a situation that as a possible scum (which everybody is at this point) would not really help. His fourth vote seems like a good way of getting out of the limelight,
but it is legitimate
, so this option is a bit less likely in my opinion.

What do you mean 'but it is legitimate'? My reason for the vote was stated as "why the heck not", so I am genuinely curious as to what you are talking about here.

BigBear · Post Post #61 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:07 pm

Santos wrote:The reason I FoS'd you was because you said one thing, then voted aquafr3sh based on nothing.
BigBear wrote:Looking back on Pancho's voting pattern, i find nothing wrong with it.

BigBear wrote:Unvote:
Vote : aQuafr3sh
Those two are incredibly separate things. You say that Pancho's voting pattern is not suspicious. Then you unvote and vote aquafr3sh without saying anything.

That is why I called you out as 'opportunistic'.
Its like you're trying to slip a vote in by providing something completely irrelevant to the player you just voted.

Come on, how do your two paragraphs relate to anything? i do not find Pancho's voting pattern suspicious, and i voted aqua... anything else you want me to say? You mention that I also that I unvoted without saying anything, wasn't I still on my RVS vote? Why is it so bad that I changed to a vote with a reason? If you're asking me why I voted, i have a very real reason, for which I will hold off from revealing at the moment.

Could you also explain the bolded?

Pancho wrote:
With no reason whatsoever given as to why you placed this vote, it seems very much like you are being a hypocrite here. Got to say I'm not too happy with someone who claims to want the random voting stage to be done with dropping a third vote on someone with what appears to be no rhyme or reason... Mind voicing your reasons there, Big Bear?

of course I have a reason, but is it the opportune time for me to give the reason? In order for me to do what I want to do, i have to keep my agenda hidden for the time being, i will reveal it all in due time. Don't worry. but what I will give off at the moment, something that you were doing Pancho, lead me to do this.

Perhaps you don't understand. I really enjoy post RVS discussion, however we are not in the RVS, it is you that is subconsciously claiming my vote as an RVS vote, which it is not a random vote. I just love more rapid discussion fast replies, and heated discussion, during the RVS, there is less of that fun stuff that I enjoy.

rolandgarros · Post Post #62 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:20 pm

Pancho wrote:
What do you mean 'but it is legitimate'? My reason for the vote was stated as "why the heck not", so I am genuinely curious as to what you are talking about here.

Well I meant legitimate in the sense that you just described; I basically tried to say that it didn't seem that scummy or anything like that in retrospect, it was just a logical continuation, if that makes any sense. Either way, I'm not suspecting you for that, just wanted to post an analysis on that fourth vote.

As for BigBear, I'm intrigued by your gambit here, but I'm a bit unsure if I should completely trust this. I do partially agree with what Santos said about the sudden change of vote, but if you claim that it's part of a plan, perhaps you might be on to something. Is there a reason to vote for aquafr3sh though, in light of the fact that he hasn't posted in quite awhile nor did he answer your first question? I'm feeling that it might be related to his random vote on you, but I'll leave that for you to reveal in due time I guess.

BigBear · Post Post #63 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:26 pm

rolandgarros wrote:
As for BigBear, I'm intrigued by your gambit here, but I'm a bit unsure if I should completely trust this. I do partially agree with what Santos said about the sudden change of vote, but if you claim that it's part of a plan, perhaps you might be on to something. Is there a reason to vote for aquafr3sh though, in light of the fact that he hasn't posted in quite awhile nor did he answer your first question? I'm feeling that it might be related to his random vote on you, but I'll leave that for you to reveal in due time I guess.

Yes there is a reason to vote aqua, not specifically because he's been gone. It is not an OMGUS vote.

Santos · Post Post #64 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:26 pm

myself wrote:Its like you're trying to slip a vote in by providing something completely irrelevant to the player you just voted.

BigBear wrote:Could you also explain the bolded?

I feel you slipped a vote on aquafr3sh without any notification as to why you wanted to vote him. You simply stated you do not see anything suspicious about Pancho and then casually placed a vote on aquafr3sh with no explanation.

Am I the only one that saw this?

Shrinehme · Post Post #65 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:50 pm

Santos wrote:Am I the only one that saw this?

It doesn't come off as suspicious to me; would you mind explaining what makes you think that it is?

It doesn't seem like the meaning of his vote would've been any different if he'd stated that he didn't find Pancho's voting pattern suspicious in a completely separate post, and then cast his new vote afterward. He also claims to have a reason, and that he'll explain that reason later [much like Pancho, who claims to have a vote ready up his sleeve].

Pancho · Post Post #66 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:58 pm

BigBear wrote:Come on, how do your two paragraphs relate to anything? i do not find Pancho's voting pattern suspicious, and i voted aqua... anything else you want me to say? You mention that I also that I unvoted without saying anything, wasn't I still on my RVS vote? Why is it so bad that I changed to a vote with a reason? If you're asking me why I voted, i have a very real reason, for which I will hold off from revealing at the moment. Could you also explain the bolded?

Pancho wrote:
With no reason whatsoever given as to why you placed this vote, it seems very much like you are being a hypocrite here. Got to say I'm not too happy with someone who claims to want the random voting stage to be done with dropping a third vote on someone with what appears to be no rhyme or reason... Mind voicing your reasons there, Big Bear?
of course I have a reason, but is it the opportune time for me to give the reason? In order for me to do what I want to do, i have to keep my agenda hidden for the time being, i will reveal it all in due time. Don't worry. but what I will give off at the moment, something that you were doing Pancho, lead me to do this.

The problem here is that you were still in the random voting phase, by your own admission, until your unvote. I am not against putting a vote up without sharing your reasoning in general as I understand that many times there are good reasons to not share what you are thinking until there is some form of response from

someone

, but in this case you have moved from a random vote to an unquantified vote and I think you will have to agree that it looks as though it was still a random vote. I am willing to drop it for now as I don't want to pressure you to divulge your reasoning now that you have stated that there

is

some reasoning, you just need to understand that the manner in which you did this seems rather disingenuous with no explanation on your part.

BigBear · Post Post #67 (ISO) » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:33 am

Hmm.... post 36, i believe that I stated that I thought we were already out of the RVS.

Pancho · Post Post #68 (ISO) » Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:37 am

This is kind of the point I'm making, don't you see? You say you think we are done with it, but then say you were still on your RVS vote. In my quote of you it says 'wasn't I still on my RVS vote'. And from there you move on to an unsubstantiated vote which, up until you were forced to say 'hey guys, I've got my reasons' looked for all intents and purposes like a random vote.

BigBear · Post Post #69 (ISO) » Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:41 am

when I mention my RVS vote, i was talking about how some one (you?) questioned me for unvoting. My Unvote was of my rvs vote, nothing else important.

BigBear · Post Post #70 (ISO) » Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:36 am

BM, Do you think we could get a few prods sent out? I'm not sure what their last date of posting was, but this game somewhat feels as if it's in a stand-still.

Pancho · Post Post #71 (ISO) » Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:08 pm

I'm getting the feeling that you are either just missing what I'm saying entirely or you are intentionally playing dumb. In either case it doesn't really matter as I already said I'd withhold asking for an explanation for the time being to wait for some responses from the rest. (and no, it wasn't me who questioned you in the first place about your unvote, I just noticed some incongruities...)

TDC · Post Post #72 (ISO) » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:57 am

Vote CountaQuafr3sh (3): SunBunD33, DeeJayCee, BigBear
Santos (1): Shrinehme
SunBunD33 (1): WeepingWind
BigBear (1): aQuafr3sh

Not Voting (3): rolandgarros, Santos, Pancho

Sorry, was busy over the weekend.
Replacing SunBunD33 and aQuafr3sh.
Prodding DeeJayCee and WeepingWind.

ConfidAnon replaces SunBunD33.

ConfidAnon · Post Post #73 (ISO) » Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:28 am

Hey guys, looks like I'm finally in my first game!

I'll post notes from my readthrough of the first three pages, post by post:

5-18: Random votes.

19: Very interesting that Santos has to ask about those two votes. They're both random.

23: Pancho votes Santos for calling him out. OMGUS much?

24: Good observation by roland.

25: Santos gives observations about Pancho . . . but I fail to see a clear opinion about him. I find that interesting.

26: Good question by BigBear.

28: Nonpost by Santos. To me, he's the most suspicious so far.

29: Very wishy-washy voting by Pancho. Four votes in less than 30 posts? I do not like that at all. You just past Santos on suspicion list.

36: BigBear speaks the truth. He looks pretty good to me.

45: WeepingWind gets a little defensive of Pancho. Interesting, but not neccessarily suspicious. Keep this in mind of Pancho turns out to be scum later though.

46: Oh look, roland caught it too. I'm not alone!

48: Now Pancho unvotes after getting called out for wishy-washy voting. This could be a noobtell or a scumtell, imo.

52: BigBear just put the third vote on the Aquafresh wagon. That is not good . . . he didn't even give a reason. Very suspicious.

53: Santos beat me to it.

63: I don't like the fact that you aren't telling us your reason . . . you may have a valid reason, but whatever ploy your pulling seems out of place right now. Of course, my opinion may change when I discover the reason, but I don't like this at the present time.

64: Nope, your not the only one that saw that . . . you just called it first.

66: Good post by Pancho.

Conclusion: I really don't have a strong reason for posting a vote right now, but there are some questionable moves my BigBunny and Pancho.

rolandgarros · Post Post #74 (ISO) » Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Welcome to the game ConfidAnon! I don't have time for a full post right now, as I'm about to leave for somewhere, but I just decided to check the thread before I left and saw you here. I think it's nice to have another viewpoint from which to see these things; I'll keep in mind what you observed about Santos, because I didn't catch much from him earlier. With that said, I'll post a much fuller analysis later when I get back.