Do you possess a polysyllabic posting restriction, good sir?Blue wrote:This Sir Cyanide bandwagon does look like a paradigmatic juncture for the mafia to quicklynch an expedient exemplary, but I concur that we should dispose of him notwithstanding.
No, I'm just in a perpetual love affair with the English diction; there is a plethora of words so it would be a compunction to restrict myself to hackneyed ones.Shattered Viewpoint wrote:Do you possess a polysyllabic posting restriction, good sir?Blue wrote:This Sir Cyanide bandwagon does look like a paradigmatic juncture for the mafia to quicklynch an expedient exemplary, but I concur that we should dispose of him notwithstanding.
It depends on the game and reason's I have seen both bw votes on a player to get talks going and I see RQS. Where people ask random questions to players to get things going. I don't see where one is less informative and I don't see 4 votes when it takes 11 as serious (well except those of us that inn'ed for a quick lynch of SIR) But on a serious note I don't see the issue.Leafsnail wrote:Not in particular, but it seems unnecessary. The point of RVS is to get responses from people, and piling a load of votes on the same person doesn't help with that.DTMaster wrote:@Leaf
Do you have a problem with the 4 votes?
Piling votes on a player does get information. How could it not?
One, I believe. As I say, in my opinion, the basic idea of the RVS is to get everyone down to the thread and talking, and all voting the same person (without even attempting to get any info from it) doesn't achieve that.farside wrote:How many large games have you played? I ask because I see many times bw random votes day 1 many a time and I see no reason for this response.
I love you.Blue wrote:No, I'm just in a perpetual love affair with the English diction; there is a plethora of words so it would be a compunction to restrict myself to hackneyed ones.Shattered Viewpoint wrote:Do you possess a polysyllabic posting restriction, good sir?Blue wrote:This Sir Cyanide bandwagon does look like a paradigmatic juncture for the mafia to quicklynch an expedient exemplary, but I concur that we should dispose of him notwithstanding.
Good, I pray you do not lynch me then when my bell tolls.Shattered Viewpoint wrote:I love you.Blue wrote:No, I'm just in a perpetual love affair with the English diction; there is a plethora of words so it would be a compunction to restrict myself to hackneyed ones.Shattered Viewpoint wrote:Do you possess a polysyllabic posting restriction, good sir?Blue wrote:This Sir Cyanide bandwagon does look like a paradigmatic juncture for the mafia to quicklynch an expedient exemplary, but I concur that we should dispose of him notwithstanding.
You saying the above is equivalent, in my mind, to what I paraphrased [everyone voting him]. Do you find anyone scummy for any of their votes?Leafsnail, post 49 wrote:One, I believe. As I say, in my opinion, the basic idea of the RVS is to get everyone down to the thread and talking,and all voting the same person(without even attempting to get any info from it) doesn't achieve that.
Um. If you think that this BW isn't helping, why are you just critising about the wagon and not doing anything to actively scum hunt "in the correct way". You aren't doing a good job at leading by example here if you think this method is wrong.Leafsnail wrote:Not in particular, but it seems unnecessary. The point of RVS is to get responses from people, and piling a load of votes on the same person doesn't help with that.
I dislike how you handle this situation. I see more complaints from a 3 page RVS stage, and less questioning/discussion being generated by the player who finds this pointless. Also....Leaf wrote:As for scumminess - not particularly. It isn't like the scum's going to try overly hard get an 11 to lynch bandwagon rolling from the very start of the day (and the third and fourht votes were truly random, anyway). I regarded it more as just pointless play.
Um, and we aren't discussion right now? I'm sorry: point/case taken from the fact we are discussing right nowLeaf wrote:One, I believe. As I say, in my opinion, the basic idea of the RVS is to get everyone down to the thread and talking, and all voting the same person (without even attempting to get any info from it) doesn't achieve that.
Why the concern about a bw vote? Do you really believe that voting people at random gets response any faster? Why?Leafsnail wrote: As for scumminess - not particularly. It isn't like the scum's going to try overly hard get an 11 to lynch bandwagon rolling from the very start of the day (and the third and fourht votes were truly random, anyway). I regarded it more as just pointless play.
Well, my logic was that RVing different people would get responses from more people. Therefore I thought placing lots of them on one person would be less productive. Also... it's what I'm used to, I suppose.farside wrote:Why the concern about a bw vote? Do you really believe that voting people at random gets response any faster? Why?
It gets a response from one person rather than four. Although I guess I defeated my own logic by responding to it :\.farside wrote:So how is it pointless in comparison to RVS?
IThe random number generator wrote:There were 20 items in your list. Here they are, randomized with pregenerated randomization based on persistent identifer http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... postdays=0&:
1. 5. Richard Massive
2. 15. Shadow Dancer
3. 12. Leafsnail
4. 6. the1iffi
5. 16. NavyCherub
6. 13. Blue
7. 18. Henry Hathaway
8. 7. DTMaster
9. 20. Julano
10. 4. SIR CYANIDE
11. 11. Shrinehme
12. 19. Jag Johan
13. 14. Farside
14. 3. FeFiFoFum
15. 2. Chronopie
16. 9. mehplusrawr
17. 8. konowa
18. 1. Fate
19. 17. Shattered Viewpoint
20. 10. JacobSavage
It's also safe and unhelpful.Chronopie wrote:random dice is random. Or broken
When did this happen?Blue wrote:I thought we agreed on mass lynching him due to his unpleasant and anti-feminist behaviour already.
No it doesn't make him more likely to be scum.Blue wrote:Also, the random number generator chose him twice (1/400 chance) which is a good enough reason for me to get rid of him immediately.
Then why haven't you placed a non-random vote?Shattered Viewpoint wrote:I had a feeling we were about to leave the Random Stage.Konowa wrote:@Shattered: Why the unvote?
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &&start=25Shrinehme wrote:When did this happen?Blue wrote:I thought we agreed on mass lynching him due to his unpleasant and anti-feminist behaviour already.
That was a jape and not a good enough reason to vote for me.Shrinehme wrote:No it doesn't make him more likely to be scum.Blue wrote:Also, the random number generator chose him twice (1/400 chance) which is a good enough reason for me to get rid of him immediately.
Vote: Blue
Ah, but if I were mafia I wouldn't be half so obvious. Because then I'd anticipate receiving votes from tunnel-vision players like yourself.Shrinehme wrote:Pushing a wagon for someone whom hasn't done anything particularly scummy is a good vote to me.
