olio wrote:irrumator wrote:
I think we should all agree to take the first vote in the game lightly.
Sure, if you want to think inside the box.
Okay, I want others to chime in on this, since they haven't......Do you actually think that the first vote of the game should be taken seriously as Olio suggests? Or is it almost 100% of the time a joke/random vote?
(This is toward others). Now after answering that, consider Olio's insistance that it was a serious vote.
olio wrote:irrumator wrote:
In my opinion SL never presented a question to Twito which he said I was making up a defense for. I viewed the situation as SL speaking on behalf of Twito.
No see, He said you were defending your scumbuddy, masterchef (Now BM). Not twito. Nothing to do with twito.
You fail to see the word "questions" there. SL accused me of making up defenses about
questions
directed to MC. In my opinion SL never presented a question to MC. Twito did. Please show me a question SL made to MC.
Lets go over with the timeline again:
1. You asked BOTH of them if they were going to continue being stubborn in their voting for master chef.
2. SL made a comment saying that you were defending MC as his scumbuddy.
3. You accuse SL of defending twito....
SL didn't ever accuse you of making up defenses for questions @MC. He made the comment that you calling him and twito (and you said "both") stubborn was an attempt to defend him. How does that make him defending twito? I don't see your reasoning.
Once again i pose a question to the rest of you: Do you get Olio's reasoning? Look back at Olio's posts again.
olio wrote:irrumator wrote:
So, please clarify this: Why do you think SL's vote was a joke/random one and mine wasn't?
THIS seems like you want your 5th vote on the eventual lynch to be considred a joke vote. Which is rediculous.
Your assumption is wrong. My point was simple: you think SL's first vote is a joke/random one, when there's nothing implicating such a thing in my opinion. When I put in my first vote, you are sure it's not a joke/random one. My point is: you think inside the box when you view first votes as joke/random ones.
Once again i ask everyone else.....how can you consider a vote with no justification, a vote in the 1st post of the thread as a serious, nonrandom joke vote?
Does anyone else agree with Olio here?
irrumator wrote:
As oppiosed to SL's which was clearly the 1st post in the game, and had no merit. There is NO situation where that vote had any meaning, regardless of Sl's alignment. If you are trying to justify the SL lynch via that reason, you sound like scum to me.
Don't put words in my mouth. I've never tried to justify SL's lynch.
And yet you put the 5th vote on a wagon. You don't put the 5th vote on a wagon in a game of this size (putting them at -2) unless you are seriously considering a lynch. So was your goal to lynch without justification?
Besides, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just saying that your words make no sense as anything but a scum trying to defend irrational antitown behavior.
olio wrote:irrumator wrote:
Are you referring to Twito's random joke vote (according to your logic) he made against MC? Do you think concerned townie would've hammered like that?
"Concerned" townie no. But "Mafia scum" no as well. Probably more like "idiot townie"
In the long run you get better player if you always assume that everyone plays as good as they can. By the way, do you think Twito's first vote was a random and joke one?
Yes. Yes i do. It was a random vote (defined as a vote made with no intention to lynch @ an early part of the game which is not serious.) whose only justification was getting MC to actually participate in this game. (incidentally, MC didnt participate).
Heck, we can ask Twito about it.
Also, if everyone plays as good as they can then Twito would never under any circumstances (regardless of his alignment) participate as he did. So your philosophy doesnt help us ascertain Twito's motives there....
irrumator wrote:
A. Your insistance on assuming that SL's vote, the first of the game was nonrandom, had justification, and therefore led you to wagon him.
B. Your nonsensical questions about defending twito, when he attacked you for defending MC, and you attacked both of them in the first place.
C. Your attempt to quicklynch another player (Twito) and your lack of helpful posts. Half your posts are simply "Why?" or some varient of. Give us your own views, and they better be intellegent, unlike day 1.
A. Wrong. I vote SL because he didn't answer my question.
B. Wrong. You just don't get it, accept the fact. Show me a question SL presented to MC and which in your opinion he meant when he talked about "making up defense for questions directed to your scumbuddy".
C. Interesting. Do you remember this:
irrumator wrote:
I swear....i can't believe you guys.....this is a no reveal game, so we need to get information out of people. And your attitude is certainly not condusive to that.
I've found questioning people is a good way to get information. Don't you agree with that?
[/quote]
A. YOU NEVER ASKED SL a reasonable question. Once again:
1. SL and Twito voted for MC randomly,
2. You asked if theyd both be stubborn the whole game
3. SL FOSed you for defending MC by attacking them (he does mention the word question).
4. You asked SL why he's defending twito.
Now if i get you right, you're assuming since SL himself didnt ask any questions, he's defending twito. But you attacked him first (in part 2), and this was his first response......he was responding to your attack. yes, he mentioned the word questions, but that doesnt mean he was defending twito (in fact i think his whole sequence of posts wasnt serious, but you obviously are too stubborn to think of that)
B. See part A.
C. You didnt ask him anything he could answer. Meanwhile, all your questions are things like "Why", which dont do anything. They're completely general, easily ignored, and can be easily avoided. If you claim to be a good player, you'd ask releveant questions, unlike your previous ones. BUt repeatedly asking questions like "why" or "why that vote" (during random voting phase only) doesnt help us in any way, and sounds like scum trying to sound like he's participating.
Oh and lets add D.
Claiming to have CRUSHED reasoning, when theres no conclusion. It's exactly like BM's laughing at accusations, which doesnt do anything but try to avoid the questions being posed at you.
--------------------------
Now i ask, for OTHERS besides me and olio to go over these posts. And please give your opinions. Otherwise, this game isnt going anywhere.
