I think I get what you mean and I know it's a "random" vote, but feel free to explain this sentiment to me. A game is as good a place to do this as anywhere.
In post 18, FourTrouble wrote:I'm not a huge fan of random voting - it makes more sense to have a reason behind votes, as far as I'm concerned. For example, I'm not sure why a run-on sentence is worth voting someone, but I guess this early people are looking for any minor detail to latch onto.
@deadjoker
What information does the mini-wagon on charter give us? You say it has given us "information" to work with, but you don't actually offer any suggestions or serious analysis. It's like you were about to offer a potential lead, and then suddenly decided to keep your thoughts to yourself, as if your thoughts didn't have any value. I'll be honest, from my perspective, I get the feeling you are worried your interpretations of the mini-wagon will be construed as scummy. Townies usually don't worry about APPEARING scummy, whereas one of the biggest scum-tells is people putting too much effort into appearing pro-town. This seems like a case where you attempt to appear pro-town (suggesting we have information to work with), while at the same time taking no positions, and offering no real leads or information. Maybe you can explain why you kept your interpretations of the mini-wagon to yourself? Or explain what "information to work with" you were referring to?
ok, two things. One, please get an avatar, helps everybody a lot to know people from each other. It just makes the thread a bit more readable, esspecially with rereads.
Second: I might be a bit busy and rather rushed, but that second alinea already starts to take the block of text form that makes it rather hard to work through. Since this is the start of the game and you are a townsperson after all, let me put a bit of work in and analyse this stuff.
First sentence, nice use of a rhetorical question, makes me want to read on. For a bit. Like the quotation marks, clearly give away what you mean there. Second sentence is a great core.
Then we get a horrible line full of comma's that actually argues your point you gave in the first sentence but doesn't add anything of value. Shorten it or cut it, this only makes people not want to read what you are writing.
Fourth is more of the same, won't convince anyone because it's in the middle of a huge block of text, doesn't add anything new. "from my perspective" isn't a good thing to use here cause it weakens the weak thing you said already. It makes the argumentative value of the sentence even lower as the first thing another person will think is: "well, that's your perspective, why should that be mine as well?"
I like how you tell what tells you are going to look for (overacting), I agree with it. Fine. Could have used a new alinea, since the next sentence (where you argue deadjoker is indeed doing this) brings a new piece of evidence. It's connection with the "information" is a bit loose. New subject? new alinea.
Last questions are in principle good, rhetorical in use again because you imply deathjoker won't have the answer. At least, I think he won't. You could again have made this more readable by placing each on a new line, new alinea, since they are the conclusion to your case:
Can you explain why you kept your interpretations of the mini-wagon to yourself?
And can you explain what "information to work with" you were referring to?
All in all, I like what you are saying, it's as good a case as you can bring on page one. But please try to make it easy to read by everybody. Nobody likes blocks of text.
And a bit of a tip from an experienced player: people are more likely to read your case if you end it with a vote. On page one, the above would clearly have been enough for a deadjoker vote:
vote deadjoker
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.
