I really hate it when people change names while quoting to try and slant opinions. I haven't mangled your name once, so please show my name the same respect and stop spin doctoring the thread.
GIEFF wrote:But my point remains; you focused on me because I didn't vote, but that's hardly enough to differentiate me from others who posted no content WITH a random-vote, is it?
Yes, I believe it is. (See my thoughts on joke posts below.) In addition, since then the reasoning for my vote has evolved somewhat based on your reactions. I believe your arguments have essentially amounted to "Why are you picking on me instead of <name>?" That's not a valid defense.
GIEFF wrote: Especially considering the fact that so many others have still posted no meaningful content.
This I agree with 100%, although I do have to try to remember that not everyone has as much access to the boards as we seem to.
GIEFF wrote:It was a joke that I hoped would also generate discussion (which it did, and continues to do, even self-referentially). I thought it would be obvious that it was a joke, so much so that I assumed your vote of me was also a joke, as mykonian's was. I can and do have it both ways, and this should be clear. Joke-posts generating serious discussion is how every game I've started on this site has pulled itself out of the random-vote phase into the actual game.
I disagree with this philosophically. Joke posts (even "meaningful" ones) can and do generate conversation, true, but so do bandwagons. How did you decide your method of generating conversation more valid than mine?
Furthermore, as we appear to be proving quite well in this game, joke posts can (and oftentimes do) get misinterpreted to the detriment of the Town. It is for this reason that I generally prefer to avoid joke posting, unless I'm combining the joke with what I believe to be meaningful content, like my OMGUS in my original vote for you (see below).
GIEFF wrote:And why are you comfortable with your vote now? It seems to me as if the only reason of your original three that remains is the fact that I didn't random-vote early on.
This is correct. However, your reaction to my original point makes me think that this is quite a bit bigger a deal to you than I would expect from a pro-Town player on Day One.
Regarding post 33 (and your later reference to post 45): This might be a sign of me being away from the game for too long, but doesn't "OMGUS" usually signify a joke vote? My memory of the term is that it indicates something no more serious than "bah." My intention with using the term was to indicate a lack of seriousness. *shrug*
Regarding post 37: I intentionally was noncommittal because, *gasp*, I wasn't committed! And, assuming all posts in the thread can be taken at face value, mykonian's logic could have been correct. He has since admitted it wasn't anything more than a joke vote, but the logic itself wasn't completely baseless, just its application.
GIEFF wrote:And you can't explain your first reason very well. It only makes sense to focus on the player who hasn't joke-voted if you really think a lack of a random vote is really an advantage for a scum later in this game, or at least that you think the scum will think that. Seems pretty bogus to me.
Again, this may be a "generation gap" kinda thing, but in mid- to endgame situations, I've found that voting patterns in earlier Days can be a very useful tool in scumhunting. When people post without voting, it gives them an out when that pattern analysis begins... and so yes, I do think that a lack of a random vote can be an advantage for scum later. Obviously you disagree. Again, *shrug*.
As much as I dislike your style of argument (the abovementioned name mangling), you have made certain aspects of your point, and at least you're well-spoken. Also, you are right that my goal of a bandwagon has seemingly changed directions. However, your reactions as a whole still leave me with a bad taste in my mouth... I'm going to think about this, give it a bit of time to digest, and come back to my vote tomorrow.