Mini 1337 - Elite Mafia (Game Over)

Milk · Post Post #21 (isolation #0) » Fri May 18, 2012 2:28 pm

VOTE: Tomith i don't like rqs.

Milk · Post Post #26 (isolation #1) » Sat May 19, 2012 5:46 am

Questions may generate discussion, but all discussion as a result of it never seems relevant or helpful to the game. Tell me how much success you've had with this method in the past and if me not answering me is noteworthy in your reads.

Seacore: asking random questions isn't scummy, but it affects how I view their play.

Milk · Post Post #31 (isolation #2) » Sat May 19, 2012 1:45 pm

In post 28, roflcopter wrote:
@milk, if it isn't scummy why did it deserve a vote?

Rvs and all that jazz.

Milk · Post Post #56 (isolation #3) » Sun May 20, 2012 4:07 pm

In post 35, roflcopter wrote:
@milk, if its a totally random vote why did you point out an in-game reason for it in the first place?

RVS usually means the reason you voted someone is random, or doesn't correlate with who you think is scum.
Me not liking RQS has nothing to do with someone elses alignment, thus it's rvs.
It doesn't really matter if it's in game or not, so long as the reason isn't serious.
https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=RVS <wiki entry

MormonCoffee wrote:I'm not being cautious in not voting for bork, lol. I'm just wanting to hear more from everyone else. I'm still a bit perplexed as to why Milk was opposed to a simple RQS, then tried to get off from voting for Thomith, saying that it was RVS. IMO, if you don't approve of random questions, why be okay with random voting?

They're quite different. As you can see now there has been more discussion about my vote than the questions asked. It allows people the chance to break the game into serious mode (such as seacore's vote), and keeps the discussion relevant to the current game.

Thomith wrote:they are being cautious maybe? i don't know if that is a scum/town tell though, as both can be cautious.

caution about what? there isn't anything to be cautious about as town.

Milk · Post Post #58 (isolation #4) » Sun May 20, 2012 7:24 pm

ugh. No i don't view it as a scum tell (in fact i said it the same sentence). I view it as dumb. I don't believe thomith is scum, and I honestly don't have any strong reads at the moment. and the reason I am defending myself is because it's currently what we are discussing. You all seem really confused on a simple post, and all apparently believe I think I am going after thomith. I want to clarify.

You also have "reasonable doubt" and "caution" confused. Scum are cautious cause they don't want the attention cause then they'll slip up, town are doubtful cause they are unsure if they are correct or not. Cautious is self aware, which is a characteristic of scum.

Milk · Post Post #60 (isolation #5) » Sun May 20, 2012 9:18 pm

In post 58, Milk wrote:I view it as dumb.

Milk · Post Post #62 (isolation #6) » Sun May 20, 2012 10:21 pm

I can tell what kind of player he is for asking (along with following your reasoning on bork), and that effects what kind of trends I think he would follow as scum and what trends he will follow as town. I do this with everyone's posts (such as I can tell what type of player you are by your need for clarification of wording), and I group them and treat them differently. Ultimately his play is no different from yours as mine is from yours, but I keep these sort of things in mind. I also was more talking about "the play" with that last quote.

what is it about this question that is helpful to figuring out my alignment though?