Mini 624 - Game Over!

[imaginality]

I agree with Kenfucius (obviously) but I like that StrangerCoug and maxwellhouse jumped on me hard for my wagon vote. There's really nothing suspicious going on from anyone else, though, either.

Only perhaps this:

Yes.

Because Tom suggested that we kill Godot, and yet he did not put on a vote himself, or give reasons. I want to know why he did that.

Or maybe I'm lacking a sense of humour?

My vote is already ON Godot, Litral. (is this Litral from epicmafia?)

Where Tom answered Litral about why he didn't vote Tom with his "kill that godot guy" comment, but still didn't give any reason for his comment.

[imaginality]

EBWOP:

I agree with Kenfucius (obviously) but I like the fact that StrangerCoug and maxwellhouse jumped on me hard for my wagon vote, a pro-town reaction from them in my book.

There's really nothing suspicious going on from anyone else, though, that I can see. Only perhaps this:

Yes.

Because Tom suggested that we kill Godot, and yet he did not put on a vote himself, or give reasons. I want to know why he did that.

Or maybe I'm lacking a sense of humour?

My vote is already ON Godot, Litral. (is this Litral from epicmafia?)

Tom answered Litral about why he didn't vote Tom with his "kill that godot guy" comment, but still didn't give any reason for his comment.

[StrangerCoug]

Disagree with Strangercoug, personally, about whether the fishing is worth an fos, the way Imaginality went about it isn't exactly ideal, but if fishing for reaction is something that's supposed to be kept only to random voting, then we were still there, a decent amount of votes (including those already on Godot) were the randoms, or appeared to be.

Personally, I think that looking for reactions is something that should be done up until we have something solid to look at, that doesn't necessarily make it mutually exclusive from the random stage.

The random voting stage, by my definition, ends about the time where we get some serious votes. My vote on Litral was serious as he gave zero explanation for his vote (as opposed to imaginality who actually tried, despite the faulty reasoning behind it).

I'm someone who believes in making only one random vote, but more than one random vote by the same person isn't the end of the world.

[Dark wingstalker]

and i would say imaginality just found our first real clue.

So tom, any reason you were promoting a bandwagon?

[Tom]

Tom answered Litral about why he didn't vote Tom with his "kill that godot guy" comment, but still didn't give any reason for his comment.

(1)I joke vote Godot.
(2)Someone else votes Godot.
(3)I point out that a little bandwagon is forming on Godot by saying "yeah lets kill that Godot guy."
(4)Someone asks me why I said kill him without voting him.
(5)I answer that I'm already voting him.
(6)PANIC!

unvote

=/

[Inspector Godot]

I'm willing to accept that it was a joke vote, but it could very well have given us a few clues.

[StrangerCoug]

Tom's vote on Inspector Godot was clearly a joke. It was in the random voting stage, and just because someone was X in Game A does not mean he or she is also X in Game B.

Tom's fine for right now.

[Litral]

I agree that Tom's vote was a joke, and I also enjoy the new information it's giving us. I'm going to try to find scum from another angle this time.

I thought I unvoted.

unvote

I want some more input from chenhsi.

I'd like to ask DWS why he felt it was necessary to unvote when he judged the random voting stage to be over. Just a question.

[geraintm]

It was in the random voting stage, and just because someone was X in Game A does not mean he or she is also X in Game B.

Tom's fine for right now.

no, a player avoiding a game whilst posting elsewhere is nto ag odo sign. means they could be avoiding this one for a reason

[StrangerCoug]

It was in the random voting stage, and just because someone was X in Game A does not mean he or she is also X in Game B.

Tom's fine for right now.

no, a player avoiding a game whilst posting elsewhere is nto ag odo sign. means they could be avoiding this one for a reason

I was referring to the joke vote and have yet to bring up anything about lurking.

IGMEOY: geraintm

for taking my post out of context.

[maxwellhouse]

imaginality: was it a test, or is it backtracking?

i would like for wumbo to talk more. they have not said much at all in this game.

((what does igmeoy mean? =x haha sorry))

[imaginality]

If I was genuinely trying to start a wagon I wouldn't have announced it as obviously as I did. 'Test' is perhaps too strong a word for why I made that post, though, 'experiment' might be better, as I wasn't looking for a particular reaction or at a particular person, just wanted to drop a stone into the game to see how it rippled.

(IGMEOY = I've Got My Eye On You = I'm slightly suspicious of you but not going to point a Finger Of Suspicion at you just yet.)

[Kenfucius]

Disagree with Strangercoug, personally, about whether the fishing is worth an fos, the way Imaginality went about it isn't exactly ideal, but if fishing for reaction is something that's supposed to be kept only to random voting, then we were still there, a decent amount of votes (including those already on Godot) were the randoms, or appeared to be.

Personally, I think that looking for reactions is something that should be done up until we have something solid to look at, that doesn't necessarily make it mutually exclusive from the random stage.

The random voting stage, by my definition, ends about the time where we get some serious votes. My vote on Litral was serious as he gave zero explanation for his vote (as opposed to imaginality who actually tried, despite the faulty reasoning behind it).

I'm someone who believes in making only one random vote, but more than one random vote by the same person isn't the end of the world.

Not disputing the end of random voting, just saying I don't think throwing reaction bait has to end with it. It doesn't necessarily follow that random votes provides a strong basis for solid scumhunting. Nothing wrong with trying something else in between.

Of course, by the same token, while I'm willing to buy that Tom's vote was a joke vote for now, should the fact that Tom left the vote on when imaginality pushed the second wagon be okay if the random stage had ended by that point?

Also, at this point, I agree with Litral and maxwellhouse about chenhsi and Wumbo.

Wumbo's posted once, chenhsi twice, though I've seen the latter posting in other places, any opinions from those two?

[Dark wingstalker]

I'd like to ask DWS why he felt it was necessary to unvote when he judged the random voting stage to be over. Just a question.

I played a game of forum mafia where i forgot to unvote from the random voting stage, and then mine was the majority that got the cop lynched day one.

Pretty careful about leaving my votes sticking around on forums after that

[Kenfucius]

I'd like to ask DWS why he felt it was necessary to unvote when he judged the random voting stage to be over. Just a question.

I played a game of forum mafia where i forgot to unvote from the random voting stage, and then mine was the majority that got the cop lynched day one.

Pretty careful about leaving my votes sticking around on forums after that

Ouch. Well, at least there's no chance of that happening to ya this time.

Still... to pose a question to Litral on the basis of that... any reason why you wouldn't drop a random vote once you judge the game's progressed?

[Tom]

Wumbo's posted once, chenhsi twice, though I've seen the latter posting in other places, any opinions from those two?

I don't believe that it means anything. They could be trying a new playstyle, they could be under more pressure in the other game they posted in, or they could just be prioritizing the games and right now the Day-1-just-out-of-joke-vote-phase game isn't on the top of the list. =/

[Litral]

I'd like to ask DWS why he felt it was necessary to unvote when he judged the random voting stage to be over. Just a question.

I played a game of forum mafia where i forgot to unvote from the random voting stage, and then mine was the majority that got the cop lynched day one.

Pretty careful about leaving my votes sticking around on forums after that

Ouch. Well, at least there's no chance of that happening to ya this time.

Still... to pose a question to Litral on the basis of that... any reason why you wouldn't drop a random vote once you judge the game's progressed?

Depends. If I think my vote has generated enough reactions such that putting it there is no longer useful, I would unvote. Because the vote was made for that purpose anyway. Keep in mind that I'm not disagreeing with DWS, just wanting to hear him explain it.

[Wumbo]

I'm here. Been reading, just nothing is of interest.

nom nom epicmafia

[geraintm]

It was in the random voting stage, and just because someone was X in Game A does not mean he or she is also X in Game B.

Tom's fine for right now.

no, a player avoiding a game whilst posting elsewhere is nto ag odo sign. means they could be avoiding this one for a reason

I was referring to the joke vote and have yet to bring up anything about lurking.

IGMEOY: geraintm

for taking my post out of context.

no, you didn't mention the word lurking, but saying one player in in game a and not in game b sounds like lurking to me. sorry if i got mixed up though
am interested in wumbo thouhg, who admits to lurking

[Wumbo]

Indeed I do.

unvote: Tom

btw. Lulz phase over, serious business now.

[StrangerCoug]

no, you didn't mention the word lurking, but saying one player in in game a and not in game b sounds like lurking to me. sorry if i got mixed up though

Would it be clarified if I said that X stood for any role?

[geraintm]

sorry, i misread your post i think, i read it as Player X is posting in game A, and Player X is not posting game B
that is why i thought you were on about lurking and everything
sorry, been confusing myself

[StrangerCoug]

Un-IGMEOY: geraintm

, but be careful with that next time. Confusing yourself is not good.

[maxwellhouse]

If I was genuinely trying to start a wagon I wouldn't have announced it as obviously as I did. 'Test' is perhaps too strong a word for why I made that post, though, 'experiment' might be better, as I wasn't looking for a particular reaction or at a particular person, just wanted to drop a stone into the game to see how it rippled.

well, ok then.

unvote: imaginality

IGMEOY!!!!!

haha just kidding.

but lurking isn't always necessarily a mafia thing to do. sometimes you just don't know what to say.

[Kenfucius]

but lurking isn't always necessarily a mafia thing to do. sometimes you just don't know what to say.

True.

But then, it's rarely a pro-town thing to do either.

At worst, it's got a scum-vibe. At best, it's just unhelpful because it gives the town less to consider and discuss, and makes it impossible to read the offending lurker. If a game starts off with a slow rate of discussion that people decide has nothing of interest, how does that rate of discussion speed up and get interesting if everyone decides not to bother even trying to generate anything?

vote: chenhsi

until something interesting happens that people can talk about.