Ideally, something like "I'm here, here's why you shouldn't vote me, this logic is flawed, etc.": a defense (even though I'll admit it's hard to defend against a first day pressure because they're not based on a lot). Bandwagons do reveal important roles, but they also give scum a huge opportunity to trip up.Mookeh wrote:That's a weird thing to say. What's he supposed to answer?Hypatia wrote:Okay, I will also Vote: Spurgistan but let's hear something from him soon...
What precisely did you want him to address?Hypatia wrote: Okay, I will also Vote: Spurgistan but let's hear something from him soon, because this puts him at four.
Why is a wagon scummy?Ythill wrote: About that wagon on Spurg: voting without a reason, bandwagoning, and following are all a bit scummy. What are you trying to accomplish here?
Even if it wasn't your intention, why would you want to leave the wagon?Mills wrote: Unvote
Vote:Death's Door
I'm getting off this spurgistan bandwagon because it was never my intention to start one on him in the first place - I just wanted him to explain his initial vote.
I didn't like Death's Door's vote for spurgistan. Not because it was a second vote (because at some point on the first day, someone will have to make a second vote inevitably) but just because I didn't like really like the tone of the OMGUS. It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game.
(bolding mine)Hypatia wrote: Ideally, something like "I'm here, here's why you shouldn't vote me, this logic is flawed, etc.": a defense (even though I'll admit it's hard to defend against a first day pressure because they're not based on a lot).Bandwagons do reveal important roles, but they also give scum a huge opportunity to trip up.
And since he was a few votes away from being lynched, I wanted to call attention to it, so that others wouldn't pile on and get him really close, and so that he could get a chance to say anything he was going to say.
I'm not sure if you read (or understood) my post properly so I will reiterate.vollkan wrote:Even if it wasn't your intention, why would you want to leave the wagon?Mills wrote: Unvote
Vote:Death's Door
I'm getting off this spurgistan bandwagon because it was never my intention to start one on him in the first place - I just wanted him to explain his initial vote.
I didn't like Death's Door's vote for spurgistan. Not because it was a second vote (because at some point on the first day, someone will have to make a second vote inevitably) but just because I didn't like really like the tone of the OMGUS. It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game.
Moreover, why is DD's (Death's Door's) "random" (obviously, no vote other than stupid dice votes are random) vote even worthy of comment, yet alone scummy? If it was OMGUS, why is that scummy at this stage?
What a coincidence! Because we don't form random lynching wagons here either!Mills wrote: 1. Why would I want to be on a wagon to lynch someone if there is nothing to suggest they are scum? Where I come from, we don't start bandwagons on people that quickly with absolutely no scum tell. I didn't want to come back the next day to find him lynched and have everyone say "Uh Oh. I guess we were wrong. But I guess that's what happens when we bandwagon someone for no reason! Better luck next time chaps!"
So...casting an OMGUS "random" vote is a scumtell?Mills wrote: 2. I was implying that his vote might not have been random - not in the sense that "no vote is random" but in the sense that I felt he wanted to vote for spurgistan and needed a spurious reason to do so (ie. OMGUS, past game context). Obviously, if I felt this about Death's Door's post, it would be worthy of comment by myself and subsequently worthy of my vote. Henceforth, we arrive at my previous post in which I did both of these things.
It could mean that I have no idea how random wagons workvollkan wrote:What a coincidence! Because we don't form random lynching wagons here either!Mills wrote: 1. Why would I want to be on a wagon to lynch someone if there is nothing to suggest they are scum? Where I come from, we don't start bandwagons on people that quickly with absolutely no scum tell. I didn't want to come back the next day to find him lynched and have everyone say "Uh Oh. I guess we were wrong. But I guess that's what happens when we bandwagon someone for no reason! Better luck next time chaps!"
Joking aside: The point of a random wagon (such as the one I began) is not to move towards a lynch; it is to generate reactions from people. There was never going to be an "Uh oh" because the whole thing is just to see how people react to act to it: Whether people join for serious, or obviously random reasons; whether and how people attack those who did wagoned, etc.
Lynching randomly is very bad (*shock*) but wagoning randomly is very good.
You immediately assumed that the wagon was for the purposes of lynching and jumped off asap. What does that mean? It could mean one of many things: such as (but not restricted to) that you have no idea of how random wagons work, or that you are scum who was fearful of being associated with a wagon which you perceived to be getting into dangerous territory.
I probably should have mentioned earlier when we discussed ourselves for meta purposes that I get frustrated when I have to keep re-explaining something which I find particularly clear (especially after the second explanation). But I digress and in the interest of pleasantries, I will once again explain since you have missed the point for a second time.vollkan wrote:So...casting an OMGUS "random" vote is a scumtell?Mills wrote: 2. I was implying that his vote might not have been random - not in the sense that "no vote is random" but in the sense that I felt he wanted to vote for spurgistan and needed a spurious reason to do so (ie. OMGUS, past game context). Obviously, if I felt this about Death's Door's post, it would be worthy of comment by myself and subsequently worthy of my vote. Henceforth, we arrive at my previous post in which I did both of these things.
Not true.Mills wrote: Regarding your second suggestion, I find this somewhat ludicrous. While it is certainly possible that I am scum (just as it is possible that I am town) and while it is certainly possible that spurgistan is town (just as it is possible he is scum), your deduction here doesn't really follow. Allow me to use a (flawed) induction proof in saying that I have never taken part in a game where a scum who voted for a townie FIRST (before a bandwagon was even likely to occur) then got off the said bandwagon because he was afraid of being associated with it. Why would any scum want to get off a bandwagon here if they were the FIRST to vote? Only a moron would associate the first person to vote as 'part of the bandwagon'. A scum would usually be able to wash his hands of responsibility by being first on a bandwagon because it wasn't a bandwagon at the point that he got on. Again, that's not to say that my alignment or spurgistan's alignment is in any way proven by this particular occurence of events, but it does make it pretty clear that this second particular deduction of yours is pretty ill thought-out.
I was not inferring ANYTHING. I was basically saying that at this stage we can't really analyse it to any great extent - but that what I posited was a feasible probability. Why should I bring it up at all if it is one of any number of possibilities? Simple - to see how you responded.vollkan wrote: You immediately assumed that the wagon was for the purposes of lynching and jumped off asap. What does that mean?It could mean one of many things: such as (but not restricted to)that you have no idea of how random wagons work, or that you are scum who was fearful of being associated with a wagon which you perceived to be getting into dangerous territory.
Okay, so now "voting for someone because you want to (no doubt for nefarious purposes within the context of the game) and passing it off as OMGUS and/or "random" is a scumtell".Mills wrote:
I probably should have mentioned earlier when we discussed ourselves for meta purposes that I get frustrated when I have to keep re-explaining something which I find particularly clear (especially after the second explanation). But I digress and in the interest of pleasantries, I will once again explain since you have missed the point for a second time.
No - an OMGUS vote is not always a scumtell.
No - a "random" vote is not always a scumtell.
No - an OMGUS "random" vote is not always a scumtell.
Yes - voting for someone because you want to (no doubt for nefarious purposes within the context of the game) and passing it off as OMGUS and/or "random" is a scumtell.
I believe that this last case is what is occurring here based on the general tone and structure of the post. It's what I personally feel and I don't expect everyone to interpret the posts by players in the same way. Subsequently, you may not agree with my particular interpretation but that does not mean that I am any less entitled to it.
I don't know how you can read anything into that other than him jokingly casting an OMGUS for Spurg because of meta experience. Yes, heDD wrote: Oh yeah? Well, 2 can play at THAT game...
Vote: Spurgistan because we NK'd a vanilla instead of a power role. (Jordan thought we might wanna lynch you but we figured Petunho was town-ier and was on to us in a way)
If Spurg had voted for me for meta reasons, then I could have made it OMGUS said:vollkan hypothetically wrote:
vote: Spurgistan for being skeptical of me at the end of Mini 495
That's essentially the same as DD's. I don't get what makes it scummy in any way at all.vollkan hypothetically wrote:
Oh yeah? Well, 2 can play at THAT game...
vote: Spurgistan for being skeptical of me at the end of Mini 495
In the forums where I have played before, town has relied on bandwagons, and on bandwagoning basically everyone, waiting for someone to trip up. A good playstyle? Well, it's different from the playstyle current on this forum.vollkan wrote: 1) What "flawed logic" (or equivalent) was there for him to address? You say "not based on a lot" but what arguments were there against Spurg? You seem to be trying to construe this as a serious wagon.
2) That bolded sentence - could you explain what you mean?
vollkan wrote:3) Why did you not want the wagon to reach close to a lynch?
vollkan wrote: Lynching randomly is very bad (*shock*) but wagoning randomly is very good.
No I haven't. Look, I will ask this in the most simple way possible.Mills wrote: I'm not explaining a fourth time. You've obviously missed the point on both issues.
What is it, presumably in the "tone and structure", which conveys any sort of "nefarious purpose"?Mills wrote: Yes - voting for someone because you want to (no doubt fornefarious purposeswithin the context of the game) and passing it off as OMGUS and/or "random"is a scumtell.
I believe that this last case is what is occurring here based on thegeneral tone and structure of the post.It's what I personally feel and I don't expect everyone to interpret the posts by players in the same way. Subsequently, you may not agree with my particular interpretation but that does not mean that I am any less entitled to it.
True. But you aren't addressing what I said:vollkan wrote: In the forums where I have played before, town has relied on bandwagons, and on bandwagoning basically everyone, waiting for someone to trip up. A good playstyle? Well, it's different from the playstyle current on this forum.
It's a day one wagon. It's not a serious wagon, unless he somehow does something incredibly scummy, or the town decides he is worth lynching; then it goes from a non-serious wagon to a serious one.
Could you please number your responses to these questions.vollkan wrote:Cross-posted with Hypatia.
(bolding mine)Hypatia wrote: Ideally, something like "I'm here, here's why you shouldn't vote me, this logic is flawed, etc.": a defense (even though I'll admit it's hard to defend against a first day pressure because they're not based on a lot).Bandwagons do reveal important roles, but they also give scum a huge opportunity to trip up.
And since he was a few votes away from being lynched, I wanted to call attention to it, so that others wouldn't pile on and get him really close, and so that he could get a chance to say anything he was going to say.
1) What "flawed logic" (or equivalent) was there for him to address? You say "not based on a lot" but what arguments were there against Spurg? You seem to be trying to construe this as a serious wagon.
2) That bolded sentence - could you explain what you mean?
3) Why did you not want the wagon to reach close to a lynch?
I don't see your point. One was addressing the fact that you clearly indicated that you wanted Spurg to respond to something. Three was simply highlighting the fact that if the wagon had gotten to L-1, or lynch, we would very likelyhave been handed the scum on a platter.Hypatia wrote: Put one and three in your post beside each other. Let them speak to one another. What could they each teach each other?
Has he completely tripped our scumdars yet? Do you want to see him accidentally hammered by a townie, or "accidentally" by a scum? I want to pressure him for information, not lynch him.
The point was not strictly to gather information on Spurg but, rather, on everybody else. The reactions of other people are just as important.Hypatia wrote: Okay. I'm done talking about this for now, since our conversation is basic mafia-playing principles hashed out in excruciating detail. Anndd... have we gotten any information about Spurg? Nope.
They do coexist.Hypatia wrote: One and three either cannot coexist or they answer the question of each other.
vollkan wrote: 1) What "flawed logic" (or equivalent) was there for him to address? You say "not based on a lot" but what arguments were there against Spurg? You seem to be trying to construe this as a serious wagon.vollkan wrote:3) Why did you not want the wagon to reach close to a lynch?
It is not a "risk we should take". If anybody put the wagon to the point of soliciting a claim, they would be pretty much of obvscum. The correct response would (I am talking very broadly here) be to insist that the wagonee does not claim, and to instead lynch the wagoner.Hypatia wrote: Oh, and about #2. Do I really have to say that:
RESOLVED: Bandwagons are a major way of getting information on the first day
IN THAT: Scum can get caught in them and do something stupid or counterclaimable; and they also get people talking about the particular bandwagon.
SOME MAY SAY: "Oh no! There is a drawback, we may out a power role!"
BUT I COUNTER: "That is a risk we should take; it is a day start so we have no other info; persons rarely have incentive to give up information unless they are pressured."
I already have (in post 40). But, since you asked, I shall illuminate it for you:Hypatia wrote: And at the risk of being juvenile, you started the "bandwagon" anyway. Please, illuminate your purpose in doing so.
Bright enough?vollkan...illuminated wrote:The point of a random wagon (such as the one I began) is not to move towards a lynch; it is to generate reactions from people. There was never going to be an "Uh oh" because the whole thing is just to see how people react to act to it: Whether people join for serious, or obviously random reasons; whether and how people attack those who did wagoned, etc.
That assumes that we know the wagon is on an innocent. In Day One we cannot know that without something like masons. So in order to turn around and lynch the wagoner, something must happen for the wagonee to grow a little halo. I've read dozens of games on this site and have seen COUNTLESS versions of the "Hey, X is at -2. Claim, X, or we will lynch you." X claims, town evaluates X's claim based on its probability and X's previous behavior. Either X is lynched, or the wagon moves elsewhere.vollkan wrote: It is not a "risk we should take". If anybody put the wagon to the point of soliciting a claim, they would be pretty much of obvscum. The correct response would (I am talking very broadly here) be to insist that the wagonee does not claim, and to instead lynch the wagoner.
I’m not going to entreat a theory discussion. Suffice to say that in my limited experience based mostly on reading, I’ve seen the act of wagoning often decried as a scumtell. I didn’t mean to infer that such behavior was infallible evidence. My statement was made with the intention of prompting further reaction from those involved.In #37, vollkan wrote:Why is a wagon scummy?
Unless one has not visited the forums (and sometimes even then) neglecting to remove a vote at any point is as willful an act as casting a vote. This is far more suspect when the vote is placed for arguable reasons. Yours was a based on a weak, semi-serious information quest as early as post #9 (deep in the random voting phase), and was removed the moment I cast suspicion on the wagon.In #41, Mills wrote:Why would any scum want to get off a bandwagon here if they were the FIRST to vote?
