fhqwhgads wrote:Pyrogen wrote: I was semi-surprised when I was called out on it...
Wait what? I thought it was done to stimulate discussion? Why then surprised? Did you REALLY not think it was going cause a stir doing something out of the ordinary?
SEMI-surprised. I knew it would stir up debate, and no doubt I'd get a random vote out of it, but I didn't expect the "obs your anti-town" from xvart.
fhqwhgads wrote:Pyrogen wrote:So I set a little conversation trap...
Hmm. I'm not sure if you're not just contradicting what you are saying. I really got the impression this was your intention from the start.
[quote="Pyrogen]
Vote: No lynch
until more discussion occurs on the first day and/or someone reprimands me for being suspicious.[/quote]
I've mentioned both possibilities in my original vote.
fhqwhgads wrote:DarthRandal1138 wrote:That, my friend, is mindless bandwagonning, not scumhunting. Each person here should vote their own personal convictions, and not allow themselves to be swayed by some mythical "will of the town."
I agree with this. Putting some meaning in each number of votes is useless and counter productive.
The problem with such a system is that you ignore the influence of scum votes. And trust me, there's going to be scum votes.
Yes. You cannot discount scum votes.
Pyrogen wrote:If I think hes suspicious, I'll place the
second
vote.
Fixed that for you. You either think someone is scummy or not. If he is, you vote. Vote count should not be your concern (unless its the hammer and then we only wait for a role claim. A role claim doesn't make anyone less suspicious either, but it might increase the cost of a mislynch.)[/quote]
Come on are you saying that the first and third vote on someone are the same? When voting the third vote on some one it certainly means you have to be MORE suspicious of that guy then a first vote as it means A: you bring attention to yourself for bandwagoning and B: You are really bringing the heat on this guy and may possibly help create a mislynch of an innocent.
The hammer, sure you need to be cautious, but you likewise need to be cautious on the L-1 (4th vote) as well. If you vote the fourth and scum hammers, they just caused a mislynch and ended the days discussion. I'll use your words which you have so conviently forgotten for this point: You cannot ignore the influence of scum votes. As an IC you should recognize that not all votes are equal?
fhqwhgads wrote:Pyrogen wrote:self vote and unvote
This reeks of an ATE. As townies, our only (non power role) power in this game is our vote. Thus, our numbers are our advantage. Removing yourself is anti-town (unless you are scum, in which case it is pro-town!)
I think I've addressed this to Randal and Xvart.
fhqwhgads wrote:Pyrogen wrote:They will realize my actions are not scum actions, thus preventing my mislynch.
In this perfect word, mislynches also does not happen.
I'm not disagreeing with this point.
fhqwhgads wrote:Pyrogen wrote:I would like to hear more from other people, but its getting late, so I will FOS fgads and with my other hand FOS JustMe for not posting for a while and even then not posting anything truly substantial.
I think I have made my time zone issue pretty clear. Unless not, I was probably sleeping through that whole debate.
Yet you have still posted only THREE times, the least amounts of posts out of anyone else. Surely even with the time zone thing, you can post as much analysis as everybody?
Most of your post has been undermining my innocence. I do not see one quote where you consider my townieness or concede a point in favor of my townieness. Yet you do not vote, nor even FOS me? I find that strange.
UnFOS JM
Confirm big FOS on fgads
I would vote you but Hito is right, I suffer alot from OMGUSing everyone in both Mafia and IRL. I'm going to wait a couple hours to calm down a bit, reread your posts, and see if I still see scuminess, or if other TOWNIES recognize the scumminess in you. I may be wrong; I have been many times.