Open 144 - Near-Vanilla - GAME OVER!

[ODDin]

*sigh*

Pressuring someone is when you actually attempt to get a lynch against said someone, accuse him much more seriously than the arguments would otherwise demand etc.
When adding a vote against someone in order to create a small bandwagon isn't pressure - I am not attempting to get a lynch against this someone, and I am not even making serious arguments most of the time. It's not done to get specifically

him

drop tells - it's done to make everyone drop tells and get the discussion going. See who else joins the wagon. Things like that.
Are you attempting to suggest that pressure tactics are the only possible tactics in a game?

Another thing: I'm not making excuses, I'm answering your questions. The fact alone that you phrase your questions such that my answers sound like what can otherwise pass for excuses is a different matter. What you're doing right now is exactly said pressure tactics - you're focusing your strength on me just for the sake of focusing it on someone. I can live with that.

That being said, nobody has contributed to this game much at this point, and I probably contributed more than most, so I haven't even got what to make excuses for.

[hohum]

You might not be making excuses but you're definitely splitting hairs over game theory. Let's try actually playing the game, shall we?

[ODDin]

Hey, you were the one who began asking questions, eh?

[hohum]

I'm trying to move us along. Seriously though, if he wants to get all emotional and claim, or do something else equally as stupid then let him so I can add to my list of reasons to lynch him.

[MadCrawdad]

It's a lynch, right then and there, no questions asked. Game impossible to play with a player who claimed scum alive. It will become a steaming pile of WIFOM and twisted logic.

If you're so worried about that happening, why say anything to the guy at all at this point? If you're SERIOUSLY concerned that someone may flip out and screw with the game, it seems a little odd that he'd be the guy you'd start with (smilie or not), doesn't it?

[hewitt]

Last post addressed at MadCrawdad.

hewitt - that's why I generally don't like pressure tactics.

I'm not against them because I think it is possible that some information can come out of them or if other players jump in to defend said player and the player turns out to be scum, it's a lead in you know. But I'm generally not good at pressure tactics so I don't employ them.

[Pitstop]

I'm finally here to perhaps follow along with the thread, but I'm going to bed in a few and will be out all day tomorrow .

I will catch up and read back tomorrow night if I get a chance, just don't go lynching me :p

[hohum]

I'm finally here to perhaps follow along with the thread, but I'm going to bed in a few and will be out all day tomorrow .

I will catch up and read back tomorrow night if I get a chance, just don't go lynching me :p

I don't like the fact that you couldn't be bothered to read 5 pages. You could have probably gotten yourself caught up in little more than the amount of time it took you to post that.

[dejkha]

There's not much you do like is there, hohum?

[hohum]

There's not much you do like is there, hohum?

I find not liking things to be an effective scum hunting technique.

[hohum]

Or rather I should say that I find disapproval to be an effective scum hunting technique.

[Kdub]

Looks like we're moving out of the RVS, so I will

Unvote

for now.

[ODDin]

If you're so worried about that happening, why say anything to the guy at all at this point? If you're SERIOUSLY concerned that someone may flip out and screw with the game, it seems a little odd that he'd be the guy you'd start with (smilie or not), doesn't it?

Well, I did read his games, and he wasn't "OMG YOU VOTED FOR ME I R SCUM". Plus, I hadn't anything else to go for.

[yawetag]

How is voting someone into dropping scum tells not pressure again?

Vote: ODDin

I think you're just making up excuses now so you don't have to explain why you're not contributing later.

This vote doesn't count. You must

unvote

first.

[MadCrawdad]

Based on your stated concerns about zer0, it's a little unusual that he'd be the

first

one you'd try to start a 'fake' argument with. Even with nothing else to go on...

[MadCrawdad]

^ post 115 is response to ODDin's post 113

[yawetag]

Current Vote Count

Current as of

Post #114

dejkha

- 3 (Cephrir, Pitstop, hohum)

hohum

- 2 (AndyTony, Khamisa)

Zer0ph34r

- 2 (MadCrawdad, The Corporation)

Cephrir

- 1 (OccamR)

MadCrawdad

- 1 (ODDin)

Pitstop

- 1 (dejkha)

The Corporation

- 1 (Zer0ph34r)

Not Voting:

hewitt, Kdub

[ODDin]

MadCrawdad: It was an "oh man" reaction when I saw he was the only one at this point I can go for. But I decided in favour of that after all.

[AndyTony]

Hush up, theory boy.

I was discussing theory in huhums direction, expressing my concern for what I believed to be a negative mentality - - a mentality that would result in him "Lynch hunting" - - not lynching scum, but lynching easy...

Hurting the town

He seemed to be very against the theory talk when it was pointed at that.

Then, in all seperate posts:

ODDin's approach to this game strikes me as particularly strange.

Theory

how do YOU usually go about the task of hunting scum then?

Theory

I find not liking things to be an effective scum hunting technique.

Theory
--------------------------------
He then puts a vote on someone - - -

based

on theory

How is voting someone into dropping scum tells not pressure again?

Vote: ODDin

I think you're just making up excuses now so you don't have to explain why you're not contributing later.

The vote didn't count, so not only was it hypocriticaly based on theory, he rushed into it before checking the status of his RVS - - what bother's me most is that this is his response to another player not falling into line and planning a lynch of someone who has

barely spoken to us

. It's pretty scummy to say

"If you don't plan this policy lynch with me now, if you don't agree with my game theory of pressuring someone with votes, you can just have one yourself!"

Re-read the post - - it's not striking me as a rational towny.


When his vote is questioned:

I'm trying to move us along. Seriously though, if he wants to get all emotional and claim, or do something else equally as stupid then let him so I can add to my list of reasons to lynch him.

Above is the very thing I was worried about.

Hohum is practically planning the lynch of a player we have barely spoken to. He said his conditions for suicide rested on poor logic - we all know what that means because we've all had at least one game where everyone seemed insane lol

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it and not plan a lynch as fast as hohum is chsing it - - I'd rather chase scum and this person we're discussing hasn't done anything in this game that is scummy yet.

And hohum - - it seems like you voted ODDin because he wasn't chasing the lynch with you - pretty scummy (especially since you rushed into it without unvoting)

And lets not forget the hypocrisy of all the energy you're putting into a player's

meta

- - one of the most common

theory

references of the game.
------------------------------------

Unvote: hohum
FoS: hohum

I'd like to base the opinion on Zero within the parameters of this game. I'm not saying we let any claims slide, I'm saying all circumstances are different, and I'd rather be present in the situation when it comes rather than tightening a rope mindlessly.

Anyone trying to exploit his meta is after an easy lynch (we all frakin know it too - you guys are smarter than that) - - if we keep logical and fair, I'm sure he'll participate - if he doesn't, we handle it rationally and within the circumstances so we don't hurt ourselves and rush into easy lynches

[ODDin]

Wait, AndyTony, where did you see anyone here - be it hohum, me or someone else - try to get an easy lynch on Zer0?

[hohum]

A) You're making a big leap from making lists of reasons to lynch people to actually planning their lynch, especially considering I've never actually brought up any negative points on him.

B) You could lump almost anything into theory conversation. You're hunting for reasons to find me scummy because I took some early shots at you.

C) I've never seen anyone post a case and then UNVOTE that person before. That's sort of a strange move. Do you not care who gets lynched and why?

[AndyTony]

A) "Making a list of reasons to list people" is planning - - you don't make a grocery list of what not to get. For simplicity, let's not call it the planning of a lynch so much as "The wagoning of negative logic" - - We're judging this man on meta and he's barely spoken - -

B) A lot, yes, can be theory conversation - but for someone who advocated they wanted to get conversation rolling, you seemed to have a problem with both rolling conversation, and theory, when it was pointed to you, yet have no problem voting another player because they didn't see eye to eye with you

C) Because it would be unfair to vote you, it's not a case, it's an observation.

[AndyTony]

EBWOP "Making a list of reasons to lynch people"

[hohum]

No, I don't have a problem with tossing my vote around. I never do. And yes, I keep running lists of reasons to vote people in EVERY SINGLE GAME I'M IN.

It's called taking notes based on observations.

I'm not judging him based on anything. You seem t have missed this:

especially considering I've never actually brought up any negative points on him.

I don't see ANYONE advocating lynching him right now. All I see is you defending a lynch which is not actually taking place. Your reactionary stance on a potential Zer0 wagon is very scummy, and REEKS of defending.

[AndyTony]

I'm not saying a lynch is taking place, I'm saying a wagon of poor logic is - -

We're discussing what to do with a player in a "what if" stage based on his meta for scum claiming, no?

Circumstances are always different, and I feel that if he claims such a thing, we should cross that bridge when it comes rather than all try to agree before hand that he would deserve to be lynched with no hesitation