How many days in a row has it been your birthday now?
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
I believe the argument is that using dice eliminates the possibility of someone pointing to your vote and saying "oh that wasn't random, your "reasoning" is masking something else!". Especially with a night start like we had in this game.Talitha wrote:Yeah, I struggle to see how using dice is any more of a cop out than a "Hi everybody" or a "Die, die, die" accompaniment to an early day 1 vote. But I'm happy to be enlightened.
This is a pretty terrible vote. "Before discussion starts"? You're only two pages late on that score... are you sure that it's the only reason?Peabody wrote:Dang it, I need to get a random vote in before discussion starts:
vote mathcambecause I suck at math.
Yeah that question was (obviously) kind of rhetorical. I'm really after a response to two questions: firstly, why you made the "random" vote in the first place when there had been 2 pages of discussion already on which you could have made a "real" one and secondly, given the aforementioned 2 pages of discussion, why you thought "before discussion starts" was an appropriate thing to say when that boat had clearly sailed.Peabody wrote:Yup, I'm sure its the only reason.Cyberbob wrote:This is a pretty terrible vote. "Before discussion starts"? You're only two pages late on that score... are you sure that it's the only reason? Vote: Peabody
This is another questionable vote. Are you always this jumpy?Peabody wrote:Charter, I fail to understand your reasoning for calling both Hoopla and Vaya town. I hardly heard anything from hoopla, and the Vaya reading seems a little weak. You said you agree with everything Vaya said so far? Honestly, I find some of Vaya's posts a bit disagreeable. Can you please point out which post exactly you are referencing when you say you agree with Vaya?
Unvote; Vote Charter
Gut, mostly. It feels like a bunch of townies getting really caught up in shaking their fists at each other without anyone really having done anything scummy.CoCo wrote:How so?Cyberbob wrote:coco/vaya/mathcam/charter argument is a giant mass of red herring, overreaction and nulltell
The best thing you could possibly do for any game is to do your utmost not to contribute to random voting. The "RVS" is something that's become almost codified and while a couple of random votes are usually the only way a game can be started the best thing for the town is to get away from them as quickly as possible.Peabody wrote:This is my first game where I'm not a replacement on this site. I wanted to experience the RVS.
The argument was useless in the sense that neither of them really had anything scummy on the other but it was plenty useful in forcing people to react to something "serious". Those reactions are very useful.Peabody wrote:The only events that transpired was the questionable argument back and forth between Vaya and Coco. Many of you have already said the conversation was useless.
You were asking him to point out a post he was referencing because you find some the person's points whom he was agreeing with "a bit disagreeable". I really can't see how you could justify voting for him to raise the pressure with a question as mild as that.Peabody wrote:I was applying pressure to Charter to hear an explanation, not much unlike many other player's jumping around.
I didn't say that you're all townies, I said that that's what the argumentmathcam wrote:Chalking it up to a gut feeling that it's an all-townie argument is a pretty strong statement -- you think all 4 of us are townies, and have made no valid points? Perhaps you could explain CoCo's behavior that I'm questioning him about above then.
I don't think much of anything that anybody has done with regards to the argument in question has been a scumtell.Cyberbob wrote:Gut, mostly. It feels like a bunch of townies getting really caught up in shaking their fists at each other without anyone really having done anything scummy.
Okay, sure.mathcam wrote:Since we're only talking about what you're thinking in the first place (and not demanding you have absolute certainty before speaking), isn't the latter the relevant piece of information?
Most likely. I can tell that I'm being a wee bit incoherent, but I'm not really sure how to rectify it.mathcam wrote:And okay, I can sympathize on the line-splitting, though I think you use the term null tell a little too loosely.
Brilliant.Peabody wrote:Honestly, I don't understand why my vote has to be "justified".
And an attempt to find an excuse to move your vote away from charter in order to try and divert suspicions at worst.Peabody wrote:It is a pressure vote at best.
What, would you have preferred it if I'd used the word "know" instead? Yeah, I'm sure you wouldn't be jumping all over me if I had.Peabody wrote:I don't like your word choice. It "feels" like a bunch of "townies". If I were to take a wild guess, I could see how a member of the mafia could 'feel' that there is an argument among townies. Word choice is crucial in detection of mafia. Obviously, its not the best point, but something to pay attention to.
I honestly wouldn't mind betting he's an alt of someone, and that they're doing almost exactly this.Hoopla wrote:As a side-note, Harumafuji's posts are hilarious. They look like the end-result from something from Translation Party.
So you might say that it... "feels" wrong?Peabody wrote:I don't know, just the whole wording of the post seems forced. The post gave me a bad feeling in the gut. I did tell you all that it wasn't the best point. I feel that I ought to contribute my observations if I believe something isn't quite right, don't you agree?
I don't necessarily think he'sle Chat wrote:i dont find Harumafuji's account-imposed posting restriction to be scummy. i assume it was something he decided he would do before he received his role and therefore is just a Harumafuji-tell not a scum-tell. It seems like an easy lynch to push for, though. hmm!
Yeah I know. I suppose it's because I've been more or less refreshing every few minutes, having had a lot of spare time and not a lot to do over the last few days.mathcam wrote:A page a day is disappointing? I agree that a few of us need to step up a little more, but as a whole, I think we're doing fine. I'd also point out thatyouwere the one being very dismissive of the earlier conversations.
Cam
I guess this is where we disagree; I didn't read it as a joke at all, particularly given his defence of it as a serious "RVS vote" when called on it.CoCo wrote:a player that made a lame RVS joke.
I thought the point was that he never said this, and has consistently gone for the "I was seriously taking part in the RVS stage for the first time because I am a newbie" line of defence?CoCo wrote:Could someone point out the post in which Peabody says something such as "The RVS vote was a joke"?
ThatCoCo wrote:Orddung! You weren't reading becauseyou thought the 4-way argument was based upon null tells. You STILL have yet to comment on that.
Oh, aCoCo wrote:Post 1: Shouldn't that have been obvious? He separated it with a line and everything. I am certainly not going to reach at straws for a lynch around that. I'd rather look at how a player behaves.
Oh yes, clearly I'm trying to play both sides here. That's why I've been defending myself rather vigourously against a bunch of people who were involved on both sides of the aisle.CoCo wrote:Post 2: Blatant fence straddling. I don't expect you to agree with me, but you must have other thoughts about the situation. Who in that tug-of-war looks the scummiest?
Don't really see how, seeing as I think you know perfectly well what I mean.CoCo wrote:This is a non-answer. I think you can do better.
I don't really see why I should have to pointlessly repeat myself when you can see the answers to the vast majority of these questions already in my previous posts.CoCo wrote:And now I'm asking. You should be just as proficient at answering my inquiries as you were to theirs.
Fine (bolding mine):CoCo wrote:Can't say I didn't see that coming. How about explaining my overreactions? Go on, quote posts.
CoCo wrote:Oh for fuck's sake! L-2 right out of the fucking gate is a scummy wagon. Stop digging for an explanition. There's nothing more to say.I'd say the same about any wagon like that starting up right away.
I singled you out because you voted third and allowed the wagon to take off. I've said this.The fact that you continue to carry on and ask me to explain something that is as plain as day furthers my resolve that you're scum.
All of these bolded parts are rather combative, and in the last instance you even go so far as to be derisive.CoCo wrote:Ha ha ha! That's an OMGUS vote.you don't see anything scummy about someone going to L-2 during the random phase.
I refuse to believe
No, I didn't.CoCo wrote:Lol, you missed my following post, didn't you, Cyberbob?
Read the first part of my post and get back to me. I'm not saying that you definitely did not draw any potentially useful reactions, only that it was pretty obviously not on your mind at the time.CoCo wrote:Read 201 and get back to me.
I'm sure you do; plenty of people do. I just don't buy it here; you were getting pretty genuinely angry IMO.CoCo wrote:I'm sorry I don't offer a play-by-play. Suffice to say I keep many of my motivations secret in order to trap scum later.
Okay, so I did this and I'm really not seeing anything that might justify a non-OMGUSy vote. You never answered his question about why you were attacking Vaya but not him. You did - eventually - talk about why you didn't go after Sens, but you never said anything about charter's wagon-vote.Cyberbob wrote:I'll have a look at charter.
Col.Cathart wrote:I was on CoCo side there,but didn't actually back him up, because in my opinion he was making mess.
Ah, so you didn't want to be associated with someone who was coming off poorly even though you agreed with them. That kind of fits 'flying under the radar' to a tee.Col.Cathart wrote:I only avoided taking active discussion there, because I just didn't liked the way CoCo made his arguments
So don't ask any questions; make assertions based on your perspective of the argument. Give people something to think about whenCol.Cathart wrote:and Vaya clearly stated his mind, so I didn't had reason to ask him any more questions.
This isCol.Cathart wrote:That, or I was just afraid of false scum accusation because of it. Just look what happened when I decided to state my different opinion about Peabody - Charter immediately cried 'SCUM!'. I saw already a tide coming in CoCo's direction, so going against it would be the same as with Charter and Peabody, but in much more extreme version.
I think you'll find that not contributing anything is often just as (if not more) likely to land you in hot water with the town than contributing a "bad" opinion.Col.Cathart wrote:In short - Yes, I don't want to be lynched, but for different reason than scum Do you?
You must be the world's best skim reader if you were able to not only come to the conclusion that Cathart was deserving of a vote, but also that your previous target was less so, in a single glance.Vaya wrote:I haven't been able to pay much attention to this game lately, but I have at least skimmed through it.
Unvote
Vote:Col.Cathart
I should be able to read through this game more thoroughly and post more this weekend.
The dangers of skimming-based votes rear their ugly head!Vaya wrote:I remembered what you said earlier wrong, I thought you did say that you thought he wasn't scummy earlier. I guess I really should take a closer look at this game soon. Since I was mistaken about that,
Unvote:Col.Cathart
This point has been dealt with already. The argument that the vote was (or conceivably might have been) a joke is rendered null and void by the fact that, when challenged on it, he defended it as if it was not.Col.Cathart wrote:Random vote after random voting stage - I still don't think it's a really big deal. More like a poor attempt at humor. Why people are making such a fuss about it is beyond me.
What are you referring to here?Col.Cathart wrote:Because it went to the dead end. He said he finds it weird, I said, it doesn't look weird to me at all. What's more to say here? Cyberbob also left this alone after it, because there was nothing more to follow.
Oh, that.Col.Cathart wrote:I'm referring to Peabody's post 160. After that, his point I thought 'whatever' since I knew we were going nowhere. You made on more post about it, and topic was never picked up again if I recall correctly.
Oh, that.Col.Cathart wrote:I'm referring to Peabody's post 160. After that, his point I thought 'whatever' since I knew we were going nowhere. You made on more post about it, and topic was never picked up again if I recall correctly.
I'm so happy with my vote on you it hurts. The response to the charge against Hoopla having "pushed a case" on Haru and Sens has been covered multiple times already. I really don't know why you would pretend as though it hasn't been (I'm making this assumption based on the fact that you didn't actually mention it).Peabody wrote:Hoopla - Going with Sensfan's point, I'm starting to see a pattern. You are pushing cases consistently based on "policy" votes. Haru did translation party, Sensfan for lurking...
I don't think either of you are actively lurking at the moment, so not a whole lot I guess?charter wrote:Everyone, what do you think of Col.Cathart's using 'charter is active lurking' as a reason to vote me while admitting he is doing it himself?The fact that I'm not active lurking is besides the point, but I touched on this in 290 saying I find him scummy for it.
I agree (especially after going back and reading the post you're referring to again - Peabody that is not the right quote), but I'm unsure as to whethercharter wrote:It's not the accusation that I'm active lurking, it's the fact that he is voting me for something he admits to doing. Pot. Kettle. Very black.
Here you are more or less admitting that haven't read the thread very closely - if at all. Peabody having an RVS vote is not scummy; Peabody having an RVS vote when serious discussion had well and truly gotten underway is a huge copout and incredibly lazy. He might have dodged any major suspicion for it if he had played it as a joke - but he didn't. He defended it as a "serious" random vote, which - given the aforementioned discussion that had already taken place - is completely bogus.SerialClergyman wrote:Peabody having an RVS vote is in no way suspicious.
Only 1/5? How do you know?SerialClergyman wrote:The early bandwagon wasn't scummy. There could well be scum on the wagon, but 1/5 is meh odds anyway.
I think what people want is for you to post even when you haven't been explicitly mentioned or asked to.Talitha wrote:Hmm, maybe it's just anaturalresponse to someone pointing a finger at you.)
And if one of us flips town the other one was buddying, amirite? I haven't been looking to give him a free pass or anything of the sort; he just hasn't captured my attention as much as some others.SerialClergyman wrote:Your interacton with charter make you likely to be scum together if one of you flip scum. It's not a masive part of my read, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on him anyway, if you would..
No, I didn't - I was going by Cathart's admission of having actively lurked (in his opinion) earlier in the game and was talking about why it was scummy of him to turn around and go after charter for doing the same thing (in his opinion).SerialClergyman wrote:Oh - as for the misrep, don't you change your opinion that they are both doing it in post 334?
Counterpoint: my position on the initial wagon. Even in its "second form" (describing it as having changed is completely bogus, as it actually didn't - but whatever) it was both a sweeping declaration and a gut read.SerialClergyman wrote:To expand on the word careful, I mean careful that anything he attacks he is unquestionably right on. By that I mean there's almost no gut read, almost no sweeping declarations, almost no theory that can be argued with. His point always start at a minor scummy sentence and regularly stay there, never becoming something even mildly controversial.
I also expressed a frustration at my inability to effectively put into words what I meant. "Null tell" was the closest term I could come up with, but saying that it taught me nothing about anyone is incorrect. You'll note that mathcam suggested that I was using "null tell" too broadly; I agreed with him. I still do.SerialClergyman wrote:Cyberbob - your stance on the inital argument WOULD be a good argument in your favour had you stuck with your town read, but it eventually boiled down to 'the entire thing is a nulltell, which is barely better than not commenting on it at all. If you'd said the four participating are likely to be town - that'd be taking a stance. Saying it's taught you nothing about anyone isn't.
Well, I thought CoCo came out of it looking a bit "off" due to his being a bit emotional for early Day 1 (this was before the his-usual-playstyle discussion), and there was also a question mark hanging over his handling of SensFan.SerialClergyman wrote:M'okay - could you give me an idea of what it did teach you about the people involved?
The vote was lazy because it allowed you to "get on the board", so to speak, without actually having to make a concrete statement on the game up to that point.Peabody wrote:Please read my vote again. Within the same post, I contributed to the discussion about the bandwagon. Please tell me how this is a 'huge copout' and 'incredibly lazy'. I think you are overexaggerating your point, giving it more validation than it deserves.
You're being incredibly obtuse here. You used almost literally the exact same language in your attack on my position as I did in that position. You came out swinging against my usage of terms such as "feels" rather hard, then - when questioned - immediately switched to "oh it justPeabody wrote:I'm assuming that this post is what you are referring to as my contradiction, le Chat and Cyberbob?
Someone please explain to me how this is a contradiction. I wanted to point something I saw as suspicious, even if it is a weak argument, and this is consistent with my gameplay the entire game so far. If I notice something, I mention it. I hope that answered your question in post 337, le Chat.
Comments can be taken back far more easily than votes.CoCo wrote:Cyberbob, cut the crap. Peabody made the late RVS vote, made a ------ line and then commented on the game.
I said he didn't make aCoCo wrote:Show me where he didn't comment on the game.Cyberbob wrote: The vote was lazy because it allowed you to "get on the board", so to speak, without actually having to make a concrete statement on the game up to that point..
Peabody wrote:Dang it, I need to get a random vote inbefore discussion starts:
Oh, aCoCo wrote:Yes, but he separated it with a line.
I'll agree to disagree about the random vote issue, but I'm only talking about this now because he (and now you) brought it up. Most of my recent pushing of his wagon has in fact revolved around his later play - his previously-mentioned hypocrisy in particular.CoCo wrote:I honestly think your line of attacks are incorrect. I don't see it as being scummy. Some of his other behavior? Maybe. But don't reach for straws when you could evaluate his later play.