Open 39: Crush Nightless - Game Over! before 484

[Kerplunk]

I would bandwagon someone, but I am already voting for the player with the most votes...

[Crub]

Heh. I'd vote schiz but I'm paranoid about you being the lyncher.

[inHimshallibe]

Vote Count - Day 1

schismatized: 1 (Kerplunk)
JDodge: 1 (schismatized)
Crub: 1 (JDodge)

Not voting: 1 (spectrumvoid, Guardian, Crub)

6 alive, 4 to lynch

Working on prods and a replacement for sv.

[Guardian]

Oops, forgot I unvoted.

Still feel schis is the best place for my vote.

vote: Schismatized

Crub, why was being afraid of Kerplunk lyncher preventing you from placing a vote? Your vote wouldn't have even -1'd schis.

[Crub]

In short because I think a shis lynch is going to mean insta-lose. I don't care if my vote would put him at 4/3/2/1 away I'm not going to vote for the person who I think is probably the lynchee.

I don't like how kerplunk's random vote turned into a serious vote, and I especially don't like the post kerplunk made about finding the lyncher. To me he's trying to subtly confirm himself as not the lyncher.

Having said that

vote: JDodge

for accusing me of lurking in plain sight and then not posting at all.

[Kerplunk]

Crub, why was being afraid of Kerplunk lyncher preventing you from placing a vote? Your vote wouldn't have even -1'd schis.

Strange question, Guardian. If he thinks schis is the lynchee, then he won't vote for him. Duh. Is this some kind of slip-of-the-tongue?

And Crub, I can easily vote for JDodge right now, but I think schis is the better candidate today. This could be WIFOM, but do you think the lyncher would random vote for his target? This is totally WIFOM actually. Never mind.

[Guardian]

If Crub finds schis most suspicious except for paranoia about schis being the lynchee of Kerplunk, I do not think it would be unreasonable for Crub to put schis at minus two, as it would mean that two more people would have to vote schis, neither being the lyncher, for us to instantly lose.

Basically, I think Crub is getting out of taking a stand on schis by a concern that is not greatly justified at this point.

[Crub]

I never said I found him the most scummy. As I pointed out I don't even find him remotely scummy.

The fact that kerplunk is voting him because "Call it a feeling but the "Yay, first one"-comment seems too eager." And you're voting him because you agree with Kerplunk. Like seriously wtf

Call this a defense on schis or whatever but considering :
a) theres nothing for him to defend against and
b) he hasn't been around at all to comment for almost 2 weeks

I think I'm justified in pointing out that both yours and kerplunks vote have raised my suspicions.

[Guardian]

Heh. I'd vote schiz but I'm paranoid about you being the lyncher.

I never said I found him the most scummy. As I pointed out I don't even find him remotely scummy.

One statement you say you would vote him except for a "paranoid" slight possibility that Kerplunk is the lyncher. That would imply that except for your acknowledgedly paranoid concerns, you find schis the most scummy.

Then, you say you don't find schis even remotely scummy.

Explain how those two statements are indicative of you being internally consistent in your suspicions.

[JDodge]

In short because I think a shis lynch is going to mean insta-lose. I don't care if my vote would put him at 4/3/2/1 away I'm not going to vote for the person who I think is probably the lynchee.

I don't like how kerplunk's random vote turned into a serious vote, and I especially don't like the post kerplunk made about finding the lyncher. To me he's trying to subtly confirm himself as not the lyncher.

Having said that

vote: JDodge

for accusing me of lurking in plain sight and then not posting at all.

Sorry, I've been sick.

AT LEAST YOU AREN'T LURKING ANYMORE YAY

[Crub]

Heh. I'd vote schiz but I'm paranoid about you being the lyncher.

I never said I found him the most scummy. As I pointed out I don't even find him remotely scummy.

One statement you say you would vote him except for a "paranoid" slight possibility that Kerplunk is the lyncher. That would imply that except for your acknowledgedly paranoid concerns, you find schis the most scummy.

Then, you say you don't find schis even remotely scummy.

Explain how those two statements are indicative of you being internally consistent in your suspicions.

Since when do you have to find someone scummy to vote for them? In a stalled game like this a good old bandwagon is great for prodding discussion, I'd just prefer it if we added some pressure on someone that doesn't have 2 serious voters for no apparent reason.

[Guardian]

Since when do you have to find someone scummy to vote for them?

Since... ever? Saying that your vote is not at all correlated with your suspicions is quite scummy... You just passed schis for me.


Idea -- guys, let's all vote for Crub. You don't have to find him scummy to vote for him, just do it .

unvote vote: Crub

[Crub]

Since when do you have to find someone scummy to vote for them?

Since... ever? Saying that your vote is not at all correlated with your suspicions is quite scummy... You just passed schis for me.


Idea -- guys, let's all vote for Crub. You don't have to find him scummy to vote for him, just do it .

unvote vote: Crub

I didn't say my vote was not at all correlated with my suspicions. I said that you don't always have to vote someone because you think they're scummy. Voting someone to see how they react is a valid reason.

Voting someone because someone else felt that "They seemed too eager" in the first post on the other hand ...

[Kerplunk]

Voting someone because someone else felt that "They seemed too eager" in the first post on the other hand ...

Yeah, well that's maybe a bad reason. But my vote is no longer on him because of that. Basically my vote is now on him, because he is lurking.

And Guardian, why should we vote for Crub now? I don't think it's a good idea to lynch someone because you said it. What if Crub is your target?

Aargh. This game is drenched in WIFOM.

[Guardian]

And Guardian, why should we vote for Crub now? I don't think it's a good idea to lynch someone because you said it. What if Crub is your target?

I said we should all vote Crub now to point out the ridiculousness of Crub's reasoning that voting someone doesn't imply suspicion of them.

I said let's all vote him, even if we aren't suspicious, to show him how stupid his statement about votes not being an expression of suspicion was.

It usually is a good idea to lynch someone because I say so, because I'm usually town and I'm usually right, but I'll let that go for now .

But the reason I voted Crub and winked twice was to show that his statement that vote =/= an expression of who you find suspicious was ridiculous.

Aargh. This game is drenched in WIFOM.

This game is drenched in 1/2 of the players lurking, especially SV (replacement needed) and Schis (???). The mod also seems to be lurking a bit, too .

[Crub]

Bandwagon

Vote: Kerplunk

. I really

do

love your avatar, though .

So at that point you thought kerplunk was scum?

[Guardian]

Bandwagon

Vote: Kerplunk

. I really

do

love your avatar, though .

So at that point you thought kerplunk was scum?

No, at that point

I rolled a die

and made a random vote.

So, first off, this is a ridiculous question to ask, except for rhetorical effect. Secondly, do you think we are still in the random stage? Because if not, then comparing how you feel votes should be treated now, and MY actions earlier, is even more ludicrous.

[Crub]

No I'm just saying that it's plausible to vote for someone to get a reaction, or to promote discussion. It's the entire point of the random voting stage.

[inHimshallibe]

d3sisted said he'd replace in. I'm PMing him sv's role.

[d3sisted]

Hm, noone's looking really scummy at this point. But then again, Crub did BW JDodge, so I'll start there.

vote: crub

[Crub]

Hm, noone's looking really scummy at this point. But then again, Crub did BW JDodge, so I'll start there.

vote: crub

How is your vote 2 different from my vote 2 or guardians vote 2?

[d3sisted]

It's not. Like I said, I have yet to see a scummy play, so that vote was pretty much just random, though I'd like to see what it brings up.

[Crub]

It's not. Like I said, I have yet to see a scummy play, so that vote was pretty much just random, though I'd like to see what it brings up.

You're going to be in trouble with Guardian now

[Kerplunk]

Wow. Crub is at L-1 now? Funny how things run.

Could you explain your vote a little bit further, d3sisted? As you are putting someone at L-1...

I will be away this weekend. On Monday I will post again.

Therefore: I will

unvote: schisma

[Guardian]

Hm. Kerplunk is not Crub's lyncher.

I don't particularly want to find out at this point if schisma is Crub's lyncher. I still want to hear much more from Schis and D3sisted.

unvote: Crub

.

FOS: D3sisted

. Coming into the game with a "random" vote to put someone at lynch -1 is extremely suspect. You have nothing better to go on at this stage in the game!?

Actually --

vote: D3sisted

. I really don't like that play.