My vote was not random in that it was a vote that was placed to generate discussion.
A random vote would be me popping in, giving some random funny/BS reason for a vote, voting a random slot and dipping.
The assertion that I am stifling discussion with my actions is laughable, and the pressure placed on MafiaSSK is generating discussion and readable content(IE: Content you can generate reads from).
That said,
UNVOTE: MafiaSSK
VOTE: Jason
Post
#39 stinks. Here's why:
In post 39, JasonWazza wrote:
In post 35, Deltabreedy wrote:
Let the record show that I started a discussion on page one of the game, and Jason and MafiaSSK are jumping down my throat for *checks notes* stifling discussion.
Let the record show that you are only generating discussion by *checks notes* being a mafia and trying to stall to burn time.
Like seriously, look at your own posts, each of them is an attempt to stop the discussion and stall, they aren't proper discussion questions, they are useless questions meant to stop a conversation then and there.
There's no case to answer. If there was a slip, or a misalignment between what I've been saying I want, and what my actions suggest - I'd understand. Since I placed that vote, there's been an OMGUS vote and a panic about hitting E-2, an ongoing discussion about getting out of RVS (We're out of it now - the first posts in the game from anyone else will have some reference to this conversation) and a counterwagon form. Apparently I've stifled discussion, which is just a barefaced lie.
This is what I want, good discussion that comes off the back of an action that breaks us out of RVS early. I find the assertion that '
Illiciting reactions is literally trolling at best
' from MafiaSSK genuinely laughable. Apparently posting content for people to form reads and make decisions on is '
literally trolling
'. I've seen games in the past where RVS and high-level discussion goes on for as much as 2-3 IRL days. We're now out of RVS on page 2. If I seem a bit annoyed, it's because I'm being scumread by two people for doing
literally the most town-motivated actions possible this early in the game
. Weird.
In post 39, JasonWazza wrote:
In post 22, Deltabreedy wrote:
There's more value to seeing reactions from the wider playerbase than placing my vote on you.
Stop misrepresenting my vote. It was not random. I very deliberately placed someone at E-2 in #11 and trying to paint me as doubling down on something random when that isn't the case is a vast misrepresentation of what's being accomplished here.
And here, you are basically telling me to stop talking and let other people weigh in, that's called trying to burn time.
Like hell, your still trying to focus on the theory of how your vote generates content, and not on the fact that you trying to stiffle it by saying "Stop talking this conversation is done"
All while still not voting your real opinion on me and sticking to your semi-RANDOM vote (it's still random if the only aim is E-2).
This is the meat of it. Apparently clarifying my position and asking that Jason cease and desist with mischaracterising my vote is telling him to stop talking. That's a vast leap that feels semi-emotional in nature. Scum are going to find it hard to form scumreads for genuine reasons, so they're kind of motivated to make mountains out of molehills, which is exactly what's happening here. You don't get to redefine what random means and try to tell me what is and isn't my motivation? Why are you trying to convince ME that I've done something other than what I know my intention was?
Breaking RVS is great, and every post from here on in simply HAS to pass comment on this conversation from which we as a town can generate reads, cases and discussion. Jason has an issue with me doing that, pontificating by calling it grandstanding when there is either a chronic misunderstanding of the situation, or a scum with motivation to jump on a (baseless) case. At the time I was happy to wait for people to engage (since less than HALF the players had actually posted) but now I'm pretty happy to commit a vote to Jason.
--
Ask yourself, had I committed a vote to Jason earlier, how would the conversation have turned out? Would that have been alignment-indicative to yield so quickly on a course of action? Now ask where the motivation comes for misrepresenting an argument and doubling-down when called out on the misrep?
