Hi James
Got a busy day today, but I’ll parse this thread as soonn as I can.
"Do I have permission to....refute some of the bs that Inferno just spewed out?"--TywinL
“Does anyone know if Inferno is prone to going of on huge tangents of twisted logic regarding basically alignment neutral posting? Asking for a friend ...”—MagnaofIllusion
not an rvs vote. I don't do rvs. looked at the recent vc before the one on pg 5 was updated, and saw Lamees was a wagon. wagons are good for generating discussion so I voted. on a skim I haven't seen anything else that stuck out .
In response to James:
At the vote count of page 4 that you mention, there were two votes against Lamees. Two votes are a wagon?
At that time, there were also two votes (a "wagon", if you will) against xx2008. How did you (
In post 106, littlemafiagamer wrote:In response to James:
At the vote count of page 4 that you mention, there were two votes against Lamees. Two votes are a wagon?
At that time, there were also two votes (a "wagon", if you will) against xx2008. How did you (
In post 106, littlemafiagamer wrote:In response to James:
At the vote count of page 4 that you mention, there were two votes against Lamees. Two votes are a wagon?
At that time, there were also two votes (a "wagon", if you will) against xx2008. How did you (
In post 106, littlemafiagamer wrote:In response to James:
At the vote count of page 4 that you mention, there were two votes against Lamees. Two votes are a wagon?
At that time, there were also two votes (a "wagon", if you will) against xx2008. How did you (
I think you should have a reason for voting people now, so it shouldn't be random that you're going after people with wagons.
For inferno vs lamees earlier, I think it is TvS. It is definitely not SvS, because scum probably wouldn't start bussing like that. In my first game I was scum, and I generally avoided interactions with inferno (my scum partner) as much as possible, so as not to attract attention.
In post 48, xx2008 wrote:I feel that RVS shouldn't be force-ended, and it will end naturally once we have some information.
Xx wins a town point here.
Imo scum is more lax in rvs and the potential for AI posts is surprisingly high.
Flavor's declaration of RVS being over (indicated by his "serious" vote on xx) comes off odd to me with how little support he put behind the vote. The irony is that the vote itself seems forced.
VOTE: Flavor Leaf
What information can we get from RVS?
Plenty.
Reactions from players - a new scum player will tend to get extremely defensive if placed on L-1 for instance
Observations of players behaviour - anyone standing out as a VI? anyone who obviously has something to hide? anyone who is trying too hard?
and in future days, I find it sometimes helps to go back and look at who said what day 1 in light of flips
I agree with this. However, now I suppose RVS has officially ended, or is at least close to ending. Once it's ending or beginning to end, there's no point in starting RVS back up. I don't even know how to restart RVS without starting a new game.
As for the sheeping on the read, I think Flavor's response is genuine enough - (although I wish he'd say
how
you can tell when town is doing it) but LMG's... not so sure.
I got a bit of a LAMIST vibe too from xx2008. Why did he declare random voting to be over? I think I'm changing my vote.
I fail to see the connection between LAMIST = ending random voting. If anything, I think scum would prefer town to get bogged down in RVS for like 9 days, then quicklynch someone in the last 24 hours . So, I think exiting RVS in a timely fashion is something towny - assuming it is exited with enough information to start off with. So in this case, I don't see why declaring random voting to be over (which xx didn't do) = LAMIST, and this feels tbh a bit opportunistic.
Why I thought xx's posts were LAMIST was primarily the tone of the posts - the overabundance of "we" in #53 especially. Basically, he seems to be trying to hard to reinforce the notion that he is town.
to be clear, XX didn't say "RVS is now over" - he said "I suppose it [RVS] is really over".It looks to me more an
observation
than a
declaration
if you notice the distinction?
Now this post here is townleaning. Jones is really delving into the details of my posts, which little details can mean a lot.
Now, being towny does come out naturally, so there's no point in trying to look town intentionally, but I don't think there can be someone who is "overly towny". A very towny player might end up making LAMIST posts. In #53, there was really no other way for me to state what I wanted to state without using we's, because it's not possible to play mafia all by yourself.
means by being "too cool for RVS". (I'm paraphrasing his post). He says his vote is not random but he then says he voted for Lamees because her name came first in the list before xx2008. Making a vote by getting on a two-vote wagon but choosing one name over the other because of the order of the list seems flimsy to me. His not-random vote seems kind of random...
I also ask myself same question as xx2008:
- RCEnigma says that he views James's flimsy explanation (flimsy, in my opinion) as town. Based on ... ?
@littlemafia
sometimes games get this rvs drag which becomes "a voted b so analysis analysis"
a says "whatever, it was a joke, it was rvs"
then we're back to square one
. So, I think exiting RVS in a timely fashion is something towny - assuming it is exited with enough information to start off with. So in this case, I don't see why declaring random voting to be over (which xx didn't do) = LAMIST, and this feels tbh a bit opportunistic. 
