* Percy's vote for _over9000 does not count, since he didn't unvote first.
With 12 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.
A better question would be, why even bother FoSing someone at this point in the game? Why not just switch your vote? Unless your first "random" vote was not random.PsychoSniper wrote:And more importantly, why do you switch it away from the very person you FOSed? Wouldn't it make more sense for you to keep your vote on him?
kirroha... use of the word fishy and that I am allergic to fish.iamausername wrote:semioldguy! Imagine someone has a gun to your head, and is telling you that you must choose one of kirroha or PsychoSniper to be lynched RIGHT NOW. Who do you choose, and why?
But that wouldn't really apply to percy here as he clearly is not against voting for someone early.PsychoSniper wrote:Uh, actually, it would not be too strange if he FOSed someone without voting anyone. Some people don't like early voting.
I kind of covered that in the second part of my post. That first sentence was me responding to Farkshinsoup about "why FOS and not just vote?" My response was that he was already voting that very guy even before the FOS, which makes it even starnger that he should go and remove that vote and randomly (or so it seems) put it on someone else who made a spelling mistake.semioldguy wrote:But that wouldn't really apply to percy here as he clearly is not against voting for someone early.PsychoSniper wrote:Uh, actually, it would not be too strange if he FOSed someone without voting anyone. Some people don't like early voting.
Why did you think this needed to be pointed out? Do you think a premature hammer was a significant risk at that stage?CJMiller wrote:Percy already has 3 votes. Not a L-x situation yet, but the hammer is a silent killer. Watch what you say, the mafia are everywhere.
I don't like the way you presume to speak for the whole town in saying this.PsychoSniper wrote:Either way, I think we all agree that Percy = first real suspicious guy for the Day.
Mountain out of a molehill. Well, not quite a mountain - let's say a big hill instead.Psycho wrote:Either way, I think we all agree that Percy = first real suspicious guy for the Day.
CJM's action was a little odd, but nowhere as much as Percy's.
QFT.Iam wrote:I don't like the way you presume to speak for the whole town in saying this.
I find it strange that CJMiller pointed out Percy being at 3 votes, but not me, even though I got there first. Chronologically, CJMiller is my first suspicion of the Day, Percy being the second.Psycho wrote: I think we all agree that Percy = first real suspicious guy for the Day.
Word. And then placing a fourth vote on top of Percy. I'm all for pressure wagons, but that much out of the RVS seems kinda silly. I don't want to answer completely for Percy, but I don't think Sniper's question is has much merit because the Percy's RVS shouldn't mean much, if anything, while the FoS seemed to be transitioning out of it. However, Sniper does thankfully qualify his vote with:I don't like the way you presume to speak for the whole town in saying this.
btw:It's not an outright confirmed scum action, obviously
How can you have hard feelings on people this early in the game? Inside information?Personally I do not think that he (Percy) is scum
I wanted to switch my vote (this being the everyone-gets-attention phase), but I screwed up, so I corrected it. I didn't have a good reason for switching my vote, but did I need one?PsychoSniper 27 wrote:@Percy, why do you feel the need to make sure that your vote is switched to _over9000 for a simple spelling mistake? I know this is the random voting stage, and most of the votes don't make sense, but why do you feel it's important that you must make sure that a random vote switch is acknowledged? It shouldn't matter in this case, would it?
As I said before, I don't want to turn this into a "Either CJMiller or Percy must be scum!" fight. I didn't want to be voting for "real" reasons so early.PsychoSniper 27 wrote:And more importantly,why do you switch it away from the very person you FOSed? Wouldn't it make more sense for you to keep your vote on him?
At this point in the game, my votes don't mean suspicion (and neither does anyone else's, for the most part). My FoSes do.Farkshinsoup 28 wrote:why even bother FoSing someone at this point in the game? Why not just switch your vote? Unless your first "random" vote was not random.
My "crime" is not voting for someone I'm suspicious of. My explanation is that I marked my suspicion with a FoS, but didn't want to leave the random vote stage and therefore left my vote random.PsychoSniper 33 wrote:Either way, I think we all agree that Percy = first real suspicious guy for the Day.
CJM's action was a little odd, but nowhere as much as Percy's.
Urgh, tunnelling on the two of us to start with, when all of this has exploded out of not much at all, is pretty dumb. There are people who still haven't really got to posting, and much more info can be gathered about the entire playerbase. Why do you want to end the random vote phase when it's what generated this information in the first place?semioldguy 38 wrote:I think getting started on them is getting us out of the random voting stage and will hopefully lead to some content. It's early and we don't have much to go on, getting started on them will start giving us more to look at. If you don't want to get started on them what would you propose we do instead? Which other direction do you think we should take?
You can do better than that, buddy. Some reason flashed through your brain when you were working your fingers around that keyboard of yours. Care to enlighten us?CJMiller 40 wrote:I don't know why I said that, either.
Why do you want to stay in the random voting stage for longer than need be? What is the purpose of the random voting stage as you see it? I personally dislike the random voting stage and I'll tell you why I want to move on from the it, which you say has generated this information... but then you answered your own question...Percy wrote:Urgh, tunnelling on the two of us to start with, when all of this has exploded out of not much at all, is pretty dumb. There are people who still haven't really got to posting, and much more info can be gathered about the entire playerbase. Why do you want to end the random vote phase when it's what generated this information in the first place?semioldguy 38 wrote:I think getting started on them is getting us out of the random voting stage and will hopefully lead to some content. It's early and we don't have much to go on, getting started on them will start giving us more to look at. If you don't want to get started on them what would you propose we do instead? Which other direction do you think we should take?
How do we not generate any useful content unless one of you is scum? That makes no sense at all to me. You can get reads off of the other players and how they see the situation as well as use what people say to start going off in new directions. Just because we start somewhere doesn't mean we are going to stay with that same focus until the end of the day or that other things aren't going to be coming up for discussion.To clarify: Yes, getting started on us will generate content, but it won't be useful content unless one of Psycho, CJMiller or myself is scum.
Why the jump to such a harsh conclusion? I didn't say anything about lynching one of you, just to get some ideas on what position other people would take about what's going on. If anything, what you are saying is something that could help us to find scum if you are all town, by seeing who is trying to convince and hasten the lynching of one of you without further support.If we're all town caught in a clusterfuck of vague reads, the scum will rub their hands and hasten this along until one of us gets lynched. I'd prefer to keep my focus wide at this point.
I don't understand your (Percy's) vote on Pablo and I don't understand what reaction you're expecting from Pablo that will magically give you a scum/town read on him.Pablo wrote: And I quote: "Care to enlighten us?" Or are you just fishing for reactions now?
I want to see the follow-up to this now that Percy's replied.Fark wrote: It might seem like I'm ignoring his point, but I'm not. I'm waiting to hear Percy's response before I pass judgement.