Open 193 - Friends and Enemies: It's over!

[VP Baltar]

Votecount as of this post:

Vi(3): VP Baltar, Ojanen, Scien
SerialClergyman(2): Sando, PorkchopExpress
Albert B. Rampage(1): SerialClergyman,
PorkchopExpress(1): Vi
Sando(1): Amished

Not Voting(4): Zorblag, Albert B. Rampage, charlatan, Debonair Danny DiPietro
With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.

IT'S CAUSE HE KNOWS THAT VI IS TOWN. And that you're scum, VP... Either way, he's your partner

then so therefore

que?

Obvious joke vote, VP.

Yer, it was a deadpan reply to the bolded grammatical beauty.

[Vi]

So... do you always put the L-# on your votes Vi? Seems to take pressure off when you are early on a wagon... like now.

Yes, I do; and no, it doesn't.
I find it dubious that you apparently consider PorkchopExpress a wagon when you put the third vote on me.

@VP Baltar: It makes sense in context, although it's a bit wordy.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

IT'S CAUSE HE KNOWS THAT VI IS TOWN. And that you're scum, VP... Either way, he's your partner then so therefore

Vote: Sando

Well the yelling has convinced me.

Vote: Sando

[Zorblag]

Good day.

Here are a couple quick questions for everyone to start with.

1. What was your role in the aborted version of this game?
2. Did you know before the game started that Friends and Enemies is intended to be run with 3 mafia and 3 masons?

My answers are townie and yes.

Mod: I don't see any preassigned deadlines in your rule set. Does that mean that we won't have deadlines unless you feel the game is dragging? Also, if two players are tied for the most votes at a deadline is there a tiebreaker or will there be no lynch?

Vote: Albert B. Rampage

for being the first player alphabetically by player name not to have posted since the game started.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Vi]

1. What was your role in the aborted version of this game?
2. Did you know before the game started that Friends and Enemies is intended to be run with 3 mafia and 3 masons?

1. I'll come back to this later.
2. I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't said anything. I did visit the wiki page for unrelated reasons a few days before this game started, but I was more interested in Friends and Enemies and Enemies and That Other Guy (for obvious reasons).

[Scien]

no, it doesn't.

Er? You mean telling someone, 'hey I just voted you but it will take 6 more before any harm comes from it'

doesn't

take pressure off? I understand the pressure it would add if you were placing a l-3, l-2, or l-1... but you are saying that adding l-6 doesn't relieve pressure?

I find it dubious that you apparently consider PorkchopExpress a wagon when you put the third vote on me.

Psh. I am definitely on a wagon, I intentionally added to it. I am coming to like the early game pressure on someone.

But as for me saying you were on a wagon, it's no wagon yet, I was just trying to point out that on the first half of a wagon in I would expect this tactic to relieve pressure.

So I guess you want me to modify my point to "it seems to take pressure off if you are early on a wagon or the first vote, like now..." Very well.

---

To troll:
1) My aborted role was vanilla townie.
2) I kinda knew that FandE was 3 each. I mean, when the setup was suggested I went and looked at the wiki, and it did indeed say 3 and 3. But, upon joining the game, I really didn't notice the difference. Partially because I have never played FandE, partially because I forgot what I read on the wiki until you guys started complaining, partially because it didn't matter to me due to my role I would have been on no team and numbers would matter more in later days for someone in those shoes.

[Zorblag]

@Vi, any reason for the delay on answering the first that you can share now or would that spoil the reason for delaying?

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Vi]

@Vi, any reason for the delay on answering the first that you can share now or would that spoil the reason for delaying?

With all due respect, that seems like a question with an obvious answer. Let me go about my own business for a while.

Scien's post isn't worth responding to.

[Scien]

Ok... maybe an accusation to get you to talk then?

The reason you add the l-# to the your votes when you are the first vote or part of an early wagon would be that you don't want backlash from the person you are voting, as you don't want to get dragged into discussion. However you do want to vote to avoid suspicion. Adding the very high l-# softens the vote's blow, and makes it less likely to get a hard negative response from the voted party.

[Sando]

Me and Amished were the scum before the roles were changed.

As to whether I knew it should be 3/3/6, I thought so, but I know SFA about setups and didn't want to question it in thread, so I asked about it in our QTtopic.

[SerialClergyman]

I reckon lynch them anyway. Yet to be on sando's bandwagon for a lynch.. salivating over the prospect..

[Head_Honcho]

Votecount:

Vi(3): VP Baltar, Ojanen, Scien
SerialClergyman(2): Sando, PorkchopExpress
Albert B. Rampage(2): SerialClergyman, Zorblag
PorkchopExpress(1): Vi
Sando(1): Amished, Debonair Danny DiPietro

Not Voting(2): Albert B. Rampage, charlatan
With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.

Zorblag: For the time being, deadlines are going to be at my discretion. If activity becomes a problem I will go with a stricter system. In the case of a deadline tie I will be going with the longest standing L-1(well, not actually L-1 in the case of deadline) vote.

[Sando]

I reckon lynch them anyway. Yet to be on sando's bandwagon for a lynch.. salivating over the prospect..

So you want to lynch 2 people without waiting to see what the first flips... Interesting.

[VP Baltar]

Ok... maybe an accusation to get you to talk then?

The reason you add the l-# to the your votes when you are the first vote or part of an early wagon would be that you don't want backlash from the person you are voting, as you don't want to get dragged into discussion. However you do want to vote to avoid suspicion. Adding the very high l-# softens the vote's blow, and makes it less likely to get a hard negative response from the voted party.

This is highly irrelevant since she does it in EVERY SINGLE GAME.

[Scien]

Meh... I hadn't gone back to verify the 'Yes I do this all the time' claim. And I have not ever played with Vi I don't think.

Since then I have found examples and they agree with the claim... meh.

So playstyle difference I suppose.

[Amished]

Unvote
Vote: Scien

It's pretty easy to check Vi's "meta" of L-x; regardless, it looks like Scien it trying to latch on to anything, even when it's not particularly relevant to the game.

Also, Sando is correctomundo about us being the scumteam last time which is why I wanted to vote for somebody that had been scum not all that long ago.

[Vi]

Scien, tell me what you think of this.

Unvote: PorkchopExpress
Vote: Scien

(L-5)

[Scien]

It's pretty easy to check Vi's "meta" of L-x;

Yes it is. And I found it after I started looking. I was just hoping for more of a response from Vi than, 'Scien is not worth responding to'. I went to check after I prompted him for more.

regardless, it looks like Scien it trying to latch on to anything, even when it's not particularly relevant to the game.

Yep. Welcome to the early game. Anything to get to real content instead of more of this joking around stuff.

Scien, tell me what you think of this.

Meh, not too scary if that is the point you are trying to make.

[VP Baltar]

I went to check after I prompted him for more.

Actually it looked like you only went back after I told you that you were flat out wrong.

Unvote, Vote: Scien

Lynch all liars.

[Scien]

I was checking after I prompted him for more. I finished and came back after you posted. Nice opportunism there though.

I'm around, but also at work. Are you guys really telling me you want immediate actions out of me?

[Vi]

Scien, tell me what you think of this.

Meh, not too scary if that is the point you are trying to make.

It's not, actually. I was concerned with whether you would hold to your earlier statement that my (L-5) call is anti-Town on policy.
As we've seen, you didn't. This grounds the only halfway-meritorious part of your "case" there.
Yet your vote is still on me, indicating that you still think I'm most likely to be scum... or, given the strength of your case, that you're not interested in scumhunting.

[charlatan]

You guys got rolling quickly.

1. I was a VT before the roles were re-sent.
2. I was vaguely aware, but kind of not really. I read up on both this setup and Night Watch when the idea of another game was proposed, but didn't even notice we had 2 and 2 when confirming the first time.

Vote: Scien

I politely decline to explain this vote.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

1. What was your role in the aborted version of this game?

John Wilkes Booth - Vigilante who could only kill Abraham Lincoln, all other kill attempts would fail. If I killed Lincoln I would die the next day and fufill my win con. Or vanilla townie, one or the other.

2. Did you know before the game started that Friends and Enemies is intended to be run with 3 mafia and 3 masons?

Friends and Enemies 2/2 isn't inherently wrong; in fact I've played that before and had a good time, but I did figure that with ABR in the game we were intended to play Friends and Enemies 3/3.

[Scien]

Yet your vote is still on me, indicating that you still think I'm most likely to be scum... or, given the strength of your case, that you're not interested in scumhunting.

Or that we are still pretty much in begin game, and I was stretching to find something to get the game moving. Having failed I am now partially on defense and partially sitting still on you with no other good target in begin game. You think I should be more suspicious of anyone at this point? You are acting like there is a lot of content here. You really think that I would have a secondary case on someone this early?

You are attacking me for not having a case on you... what about VPs vote, what about Ojanens? What is different about my initial vote? Why am I different than other random votes. Just the fact that I alone asked you a question after my vote? One that later was explained satisfactorily.

You really thought that vote was due to a case? Why didn't I post a case with that vote? Only after my

pressure

vote did I ask you about an element of your play. Only after you told me I was not worth replying to did I trump it up to make you reply.

Something is fishy here.

[Vi]

You really think that I would have a secondary case on someone this early?

Yes. I do.

You are attacking me for not having a case on you... what about VPs vote, what about Ojanens? What is different about my initial vote? Why am I different than other random votes. Just the fact that I alone asked you a question after my vote? One that later was explained satisfactorily.

Your vote was

special

VP Baltar and Ojanen didn't bother to explain their votes. Your vote partially raised my "interest" because

deliberate insults tend to do that

, and partly because you then decided to push a reason onto your vote that

was

explained, albeit not satisfactorily.

A similar question could be asked of you. There are now more people voting you than there were voting me. Why is my vote worth more attention?

You really thought that vote was due to a case? Why didn't I post a case with that vote? Only after my

pressure

vote did I ask you about an element of your play. Only after you told me I was not worth replying to did I trump it up to make you reply.

And you'll notice I didn't reply to your trumped-up accusation. It was essentially the same thing you said earlier, but in a more menacing tone.

So we're on the same page, your position is:
*I'm not particularly scummy
*You don't know who else could possibly be scummy after two pages
*You think you're being "picked on" by me in particular, and three other people in general
Correct?