Mini 1088: Cookie Thief Mafia (Game Over)

[andrew94]

err lewarcher

poison ivy seems to be deducing a lot of stuff from nulltelling situation

[lewarcher82]

imo, poison posted a wall of nothing. Ll is the one who shows a contraddictory behaviour. I prefer voting Ll at the moment, and I never remove a vote before the player I voted answers.

however: when you guys are done molesting the VI, give me a call and we can start being serious about this game.

[RobCapone]

VoteCount 1.1

drmyshottyizsik (2): andrew94, Elleran
RobCapone (1): Kublai Khan
Darox (2): Zed, Llarmarble
Zed (1): RobCapone
Elleran (4): drmyshottyizsik, Stigmata, Llamarble, PoisonIvy
Llarmarble (1): lewarcher82

Not voting: Darox

With 12 people alive, town needs 7 votes to lynch someone.

Just being picky but you got Llar voting twice, and you dont have furclow voting and he isn't in the not voting either

[Llamarble]

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being really strongly): how strongly do you believe this actually happened?

Uh, maybe 2?
I wouldn't have mentioned it if I found it inconceivable, but certainly less than 15% likely.
Early in the game, when there's practically nothing to go off of, cases are necessarily reachy.
Then as more content appears I am able to get better developed reads.
Overstating early cases tends to make them more effective at getting us to somewhere useful.

I think I also forgot the unvote before voting rule which is likely the reason for the incorrect votecount.

Unvote;

VOTE: Elleran
Elleran is at L-3.

[lewarcher82]

(naturally I can choose which case I wanna overstate, right?)

so is it a vote on a scummy player or a vot to get information, Llamarble? vote for scum or vote for pressure? pick one. or pick both, but give details.

[Llamarble]

It's both.
As I explained in my previous post, early votes tend to be based on reachy accusations (or nothing at all in RVS).
These early votes apply pressure and help generate content.
They do that best when there is at least a modicum of logic behind them,
so it is best to place early votes on whoever is scummiest, even if that player is not incredibly scummy.
Elleran, having made the buddying statement of saying he is almost convinced Shotty is town,
contradicting his statement about having reason to vote Shotty, is the scummiest player so far.
Therefore he gets my vote.
Is that clear?

[lewarcher82]

Yes, but I do not see a scummy contraddiction. I see a VI.
And I see 4 people voting a VI. A 4-people BW who grew in a few hours.

Poison, do you realise that when Elleran says he is serious about his vote, he naturally refers to Shotstick's overreaction, and not to his own early wagon-joke?

[Darox]

I like it too, but unfortunately, I don't know how it's done. I'll try to update VC as often as possible.

It's done by sniping the first post of the new page and doing a regular vote count. Nothing fancy to it.

[FakeGod]

VoteCount 1.2

drmyshottyizsik (2): andrew94, Elleran
RobCapone (1): Kublai Khan
Darox (1): Zed
Zed (1): RobCapone
Elleran (4): drmyshottyizsik, Stigmata, Llamarble, PoisonIvy
Llarmarble (1): lewarcher82

Not voting: Darox, Furcolow

With 12 people alive, town needs 7 votes to lynch someone.

[RobCapone]

Since rvs seems to be over

unvote

[Kublai Khan]

Ok, round of questions then...

@Elleran: Re: post 22 -- Why did you sarcastically accuse drmyshottyizsik of starting a wagon? He was the first and only to vote for andrew94 so far. Plus Darox had 2 votes at the time...

@drmyshottyizsik: Re: 23 & 25 -- Do you honestly believe that Elleran was trying to misrepresenting you as someone who was trying to start a wagon on andrew94?

@lewarcher82: Re 39 -- Why do you keep insisting that Elleran is a village idiot? Expand on that, because I think we must have widely different definitions of what a VI is.

@PoisonIvy: Re 47 --

VOTE: drmyshottyizsik for trying to start a "wagon".

- WRONG!!! Shotsick was ACTUALLY the first person voted under the exact same statement.

Maybe I'm dumb, but what does this mean?

We either have mafia or a serial VI who cant read to see that shotsick was voted first and voted him for trying to start a "wagon". Even under the use of sarcasm, a "wagon" is what i would use if someone was attempting to start a wagon, but no one was taking the bait.

Again, what do you mean by taking the bait? Also, explain what you define as a VI. (Let alone whatever a "serial VI" is.)

@andrew94: What do you think of Elleran's posts?

Uh, maybe 2?
I wouldn't have mentioned it if I found it inconceivable, but certainly less than 15% likely.
Early in the game, when there's practically nothing to go off of, cases are necessarily reachy.
Then as more content appears I am able to get better developed reads.
Overstating early cases tends to make them more effective at getting us to somewhere useful.

Ok cool. My mind utterly rejected it as wild speculation and if you'd gone above a 3 I'd really worry about you.

Though I'm annoyed that you've planted a bad(?) seed in my brain.

It's done by sniping the first post of the new page and doing a regular vote count. Nothing fancy to it.

Have you made a serious game-related comment yet?

Also, why no vote (not even a random one)?

[Darox]

Since rvs seems to be over

unvote

Please explain to me what prompted this outlandish statement and why you believe it to be true.

Kublai, yes I have.

[Elleran]

@Elleran: Re: post 22 -- Why did you sarcastically accuse drmyshottyizsik of starting a wagon? He was the first and only to vote for andrew94 so far. Plus Darox had 2 votes at the time...

Why? For two reasons.

First reason: As an random vote.
Second reason: To get any reaction from the random player that I have chosen to randomly vote by providing an intentionally random reason.

By the way, guys, there are no VI (the role) in this game. The mod confessed that before pre-game on the Queue thread. So no, I'm not a VI.

========================================================================================================

As I explained in my previous post, early votes tend to be based on reachy accusations (or nothing at all in RVS).
These early votes apply pressure and help generate content.
They do that best when there is at least a modicum of logic behind them,
so it is best to place early votes on whoever is scummiest, even if that player is not incredibly scummy.

I agree with this. I hate RVS. Why? It leads to nowhere. I prefer games in which the RVS is completely skipped. I put serious votes on people for two reasons. One, to put pressure and to make people talk. I use it as a tool to incite reaction. Two, because I think the person is scum. You guys are accusing me of 'having a contradictory logic' or 'making buddying comments'. I can't disapprove the second comment at this point because unvoting now will look like I'm completing my 'buddying process' or even complying with the pressure of the rest of the players that my vote was too quick and unreasonable. Keeping my vote on him still looks good to me. Like you guys said, it's too early to decide on people's alignments--I completely agree. That doesn't mean I can't have opinions.

[Darox]

When people say VI, they never mean the role, unless they explicitly say "the VI role".

[RobCapone]

Since rvs seems to be over

unvote

Please explain to me what prompted this outlandish statement and why you believe it to be true.

Kublai, yes I have.

Just a feeling I had, could be because somebody has 4 votes already and 4 is a bandwagon forming

[Darox]

Since rvs seems to be over

unvote

Please explain to me what prompted this outlandish statement and why you believe it to be true.

Kublai, yes I have.

Just a feeling I had, could be because somebody has 4 votes already and 4 is a bandwagon forming

Why do you feel 4 votes is the magical number to step out of this magical RVS zone?
Do the votes need to have any backing behind them? Does 4 essentially random votes on somebody signal the end of the RVS? Do you have any opinions on the person being voted? Or is it too insubstantial for you to form an opinion?

[RobCapone]

1. No magical number but discussions Plus 4 make it seem more than rvs from what I can tell

2. The votes in this instance, or from what I can tell from the skimming I have done on m phone, seems there is substance in some of these votes

3. I have been glancing in on my phone from work and school, once I get to a pc, I'll look over the thread more carefully

[RobCapone]

ok reading through, I can sort of see why some people are voting Elleran but quite frankly I just think it is a big misunderstanding but she did try to get the game out of RVS with her unvote and vote again, but not sure that really means much

the two things that stand out still is Shotstick's promise that he was pro-town, just seemed to come out of nowhere for me, I don't really like the llarmarble comment about the scum talking pre-game, the fact that Darox hasn't placed an RVS vote yet when it is clear that we are moving out of RVS, and the fact that andrew has basically done nothing so far

[Darox]

Why is it important that I place a random vote before we leave the random voting stage?

[RobCapone]

why do you feel that you should not place a random vote in RVS?

[Elleran]

@RobCapone: Look at my gender before assuming what it is. I'm a guy.

[drmyshottyizsik]

RVS's are pointless, they only help scum

[Darox]

why do you feel that you should not place a random vote in RVS?

Not going to fly, burden of proof is in your court.

Why do I have to put down a meaningless vote that I will remove as soon as I see something genuinely voteworthy?

[andrew94]

elleran seems to be promoting discussion with his 'random' style.
p.s. we gotta policy lynch shotty

[drmyshottyizsik]

try it i dare you!