Mini 829 - Internal Struggle Mafia (Over)

[ryan2754]

Can you explain your weird vibe here in more detail?

I can't quite put into words what I mean. It seems like hiphop attacking IK without really attacking him. Sort of a buddying proposition that later he can say: "look, I found him suspicious earlier" type thing. I had no trouble understanding IK's vote reasoning about him being the FIRST one to place a second vote, but it seems hiphop misses it, possibly on purpose, and then IK gives a fairly level-headed response, with a smiley. It just comes off as an early form of buddying. Nothing too intense, agains just a vibe.
My biggest issue with the exchange now, looking back on it, is that I can't tell if IK's vote on Dank is still a random vote with a seemingly real reason or a "Real" vote as Paradoxombie suggests - SOMETHING I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS, TO BE HONEST. And Something I would like IK to clear up ( Which I realize he did in 78)

Anyone else getting a weird vibe by this post. Sort of like, "If he is revealed as town, I told you it could of been lack of experience." Seems like a sort of fencesitting.

The newb card defense is weak in general, especially after hiphop mentions he has played 3 games.

I don't understand how your response here relates to my quoting of TORO. More explanation necessary.

Nope because I don't have too much time to do a meta read at the moment, which is why I asked DRK for her thoughts. While meta reads are useful at times, I rather base an arguement against/for you with what you posted in game.

So this quote below madeby you was in response to DRK's post? (Italicized Mine)

Ryan posting a few things at a time is part of his meta

. But how is the content of his posts? I am more interested in what he posts, rather then how much.

1. That was actually just a random vote, not a real reason. I use that reason in every RVS I get into simply because it's a good, reliable, repeatable reason (because someone inevitably makes a second vote).
2. Correct.
3. I don't understand what you mean 'voting the bandwagon'. Do you mean voting ON the bandwagon? As in being part of the bandwagon? In that case, I'd actually thought the RVS was over, and so unvoted Dank (unvoted my random vote) in preparation of an examination of the bandwagon. That didn't occur, however, because shortly thereafter I was pursued because of the unvote.

1.) Fair enough. Can you link to other games where you used this from this site?
3.) I guess that makes more sense, I guess. I find it extremely weird you think we are out of the RVS on page 1, and just because someone gained 3 votes. I just see no reason to unvote.

So you chose not to follow up on the examination of the bandwagon because you were being pursued? You can scumhunt and defend at the same time, I do it all the time.

-Town expects A to happen
-I make B happen instead
-Town is surprised that B happened instead of A

By this logic, B doesn't have to be scummy, just unexpected, or in this case, misunderstood (I'm a confusing person). A is also not necessarily pro-town, just what is expected. My question is, how is it actually scummy for me to have acted in this manner?

In light of your "thinking we were out of RVS" on Page 1, I guess it doesn't look nearly as scummy. It was just fairly unclear why you unvoted Dank (not being bandwagoned) and discuss the bandwagon on Jason in the same post, without transition. Just doesn't flow at all. Not necessarily scummy. Looking back now, I would have found it more scummy if you unvoted JasonT at that point (it would seem you would be afraid of a L-4 scenario, which has been discussed). Given your explanation, and the fact that your vote was on Dank, I guess it makes sense. The post (18) with no transitions just made it seem as though you were unvoting jason.

I can see how it'd be seen as contradictory. It would have been impossible for me to investigate at that exact point. Instead, I was hoping for something else to happen, some new development that I could see concerning the bandwagon. However, thing's didn't turn out as I'd expected.

It's even more contradictory given that you now say you didn't pursue because you were being pressure about your unvote. So now we have the following scenario:
1.) IK says he is going to pursue/examine the Jason RVS bandwagon.
2.) When asked later to do it, says there's nothing to look at.
3.) Later says he didn't look at it because he was being pursued for unvote (very scummy)
4.) Admits it may be contradictory, and then says it was impossible for him to look at something at that "exact point." Then why even mention looking at the bandwagon on page 3? Why not save it for later?
All this seems very contradictory.

Seems I find hiphop and IK fairly strong lynches at this point

Hiphop: Unvotes when called out; revotes a lurker right after Paradoxombie asks why he unvoted and subsequently didn't place another vote somewhere else; attempts to go back to RVS (a form of deflection); claims inexperience, which can only take you so far; worrying about L-3/L-4; Hypocritical on IK's unvote, where he did the same thing; deflecting onto lurkers on PAGE 3; would rather vote lurkers than scum number 1; after voting a "lurker", takes his vote off before allowing said lurker to post, which goes against his strategy to lurker hunt; votes toro without reasons, and says its a hunch.

IK: Somewhat experience, so such mistakes seem surprising; says he's going to examine RVS jason wagon, then says there is nothing to look at, then says he didn't pursue it because he was being pressured on his unvote (completely different reason), then says at that exact point couldn't look at RVS wagon.

And how long did it take ryan2754 to write that!?

About 35 minutes. Multiple open windows helps with quote tags and quick copy/pasting. Plus 3 pages isn't that bad to analyze.

Does seems like RC is slightly strawmanning in his argument on Dank. The voacbulary issue was a small portion of Dank's a rgument, where the jist of it is the bandwagon.

I tend to agree with Paradoxombie's ideas about Toro, but I would like him to respond before I think about voting him. You can tell alot from someone's defense.

I also think IK's defense as of yet is far from adequate and the same about Hiphop, with an AtE and constant WIFOM.

Suspects:
High: IK, HipHop
Medium: Toro
Slight: RC

@Paradoxombie: I like for people to generally have a chance to defend themselves before I throw a vote at them. As I have stated, I would like a response from Toro, IK, and Hiphop. Once they all respond fully to the allegations against them, I am sure a clearcut candidate for a vote will come up. I barely place pressure votes on people. The vote is the best thing for the town, and I don't use it lightly like some people.

[ryan2754]

Also, Alex, can we get an updated vote count?

*Sure.

[hiphop]

@ryan Everything you said on me is the truth how can I defend against it. I unvoted without reason, I did not revote, claimed inexperience about unvoting, I voted lurkers, without voting most suspicious, and I voted Toro, called it a hunch then, and later gave a reason. This last part I didn't have time to give a reason at that moment to explain why, because I had to go.

You didn't ask a question, so I don't know what you want me to respond about.

[Toro]

Okay, my current list of possible scumminess...(from highest possible threat to lowest)

----------------------------------------------

1

-

hiphop

Why? Playing the newb card after three games is just downright stupid, I belive he's just using it as a coverup for the slipups he made earlier. Plus typically in the games I've played on other forums, the player who places an OMGUS vote (and this time w/o any reason) is 80% of the time scum.

2

-

RedCoyote

Why? After reading back a little bit, I read back on the part where DTM (P84) points out that RC started getting a bit defensive over being put at L-6. Which makes me concerned he's hiding something.

-------------------------------------------------------------

These two are the only two that concern me atm.

And since I guess it's now wrong to vote for those who you believe are scum now. I'll do this.

Unvote

.

[Toro]

Okay, my current list of possible scummies...

----------------------------------------------

1

-

hiphop

Why? Playing the newb card after three games is just downright stupid, I belive he's just using it as a coverup for the slipups he made earlier. Plus typically in the games I've played on other forums, the player who places an OMGUS vote (and this time w/o any reason) is 80% of the time scum.

2

-

RedCoyote

Why? After reading back a little bit, I read back on the part where DTM (P84) points out that RC started getting a bit defensive over being put at L-6. Which makes me concerned he's hiding something.

-------------------------------------------------------------

These two are the only two that concern me atm.

And since I guess it's now wrong to vote for those who you believe are scum now. I'll do this.

Unvote

.

Fixed.

[Toro]

Those in danger of suppression #3:
dank (1) - RedCoyote
hiphop (1) - Zachrulez
Idiotking (1) - jasonT1981
jasonT1981 (1) - Shrinehme
RedCoyote (1) - DTMaster
toro (3) - hiphop, ParadoxZombie, dank

Not Voting (3) - Idiotking, ryan2754, DeathRowKitty

------------------------------

NEW VOTE COUNT

[Shrinehme]

@

HipHop

: It guess you missed my Finger of Suspicion directed at you. If you could respond to this post, that'd be nice...

Also, I'm done with my random vote.

Unvote

.

[Idiotking]

1.) Fair enough. Can you link to other games where you used this from this site?

Only one, my second game (first I lurked and third I replaced into):

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &&start=25

I hope that works... first time trying to make a link on this site. You may be able to draw some meta from that as well.

*For future reference: write shown_text

3.) I guess that makes more sense, I guess. I find it extremely weird you think we are out of the RVS on page 1, and just because someone gained 3 votes. I just see no reason to unvote.

In my experience, when someone gets that many votes in RVS, everyone starts freaking out.

So you chose not to follow up on the examination of the bandwagon because you were being pursued? You can scumhunt and defend at the same time, I do it all the time.

It's more like I chose not to follow up on the examination of the bandwagon because the bandwagon became a moot point as soon as other, larger bandwagons formed. Sadly, the only person I can suspect right now (barring lurkers) is hiphop. I have difficulty in the early parts of games because there's nothing for me to go on. My main strategy is seeing the gaps in people's logic. Unfortunately, at this point there's so little actual logic and almost no fact, and as such, it's hard for me to do my job correctly...

Still, you're right, I should be doing something, at least.

It's even more contradictory given that you now say you didn't pursue because you were being pressure about your unvote. So now we have the following scenario:
1.) IK says he is going to pursue/examine the Jason RVS bandwagon.
2.) When asked later to do it, says there's nothing to look at.
3.) Later says he didn't look at it because he was being pursued for unvote (very scummy)
4.) Admits it may be contradictory, and then says it was impossible for him to look at something at that "exact point." Then why even mention looking at the bandwagon on page 3? Why not save it for later?
All this seems very contradictory.

People can have more than one reason for doing things. A third would be that I was about to go somewhere at that point, and didn't have any time. Is that relevent? Is it a valid reason? No, but it's also true. My point is, it's very possible for someone to not pursue an examination like that because they were BOTH pressured and had nothing to go on. A little contradictory I can understand, very contradictory is a little much. If I were you I'd be more worried had I (me now) had said two things that can't actually both be reasons at the same time.[/url]

[DTMaster]

@Ryan

Whoops. I misread the quote, I thought you said Hiphop since the main discussion was on him. My bad.

So this quote below madeby you was in response to DRK's post?

I should have said "So, Ryan's lack of post is part of his meta?" Sorry about that confusion but yes I was just repeating what DRK said in my 72 and acknowledging the fact that she said this game play was part of your meta.

[Idiotking]

For clarification, this:

It's more like I chose not to follow up on the examination of the bandwagon because the bandwagon became a moot point as soon as other, larger bandwagons formed.

is why I'm not pursuing the bandwagon NOW. The other reasons are ones for why I didn't pursue THEN.

[Paradoxombie]

Hiphop, could you show me the three theme games you played in?

[Paradoxombie]

Plus typically in the games I've played on other forums, the player who places an OMGUS vote (and this time w/o any reason) is 80% of the time scum.

I'm not liking this argument.

Toro, why would a town player unvote when they have 2 clear suspects?

[Idiotking]

Upon reread, I'm wondering.

RC: Can you explain why you reacted so defensively in your latest post? According to DTM (at least I think it was DTM) you only had one vote on you at the time. Is there any reason for you to snap back like that? Also, can you explain exactly WHY you didn't explain your vote at the time of it's post? As in, a real reason, please.

[RedCoyote]

Um no. The first RVS so post #1 was Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:48 pm. My almost prod request was Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:16 am.

Yeah, but I said you were

talking

about the need for prodding literally 24 hours into the game. Yeah, you said after another day of inactivity, but that's besides the point. My larger point was that players complaining about lurkers from 24 hours of inactivity (over the weekend no less) aren't being reasonable.

Your first post from the first RVS vote took place on Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:52 am which is about 36-37 hours hours. Like I said if you hadn't posted for another day (ie add 24 hours so around 60 hours later then we might have to prod you.)

So am I a lurker? Is one post every 36 hours unacceptable to you, despite the length or content it contains?

You offered your explanation AFTER I noticed there was nothing supporting your vote, and 2 people pointed out the bold part. If you look at it in isolation, it looks like you are voting to just get rid of the lurker suspicion.

That's your interpretation. Did you consider asking me if this was what I meant before assuming this?

1. You could have said something if your real life is taking time away from the game in your first post.

2. You clearly read the game up to that point for that post and could have backed up your case with your first post.

That's your perogative. If you honestly think that everyone has the same ability to keep tabs on the game as you do, and, further, they should be scolded if they do not meet this standard, than I would hope you're as stern with other players as you've been with me.

You'll notice that dank's main and strongest point is the bandwagon logic issue. The rest of the town focused on the "vocabulary of that post". So this argument is a tad bit weak.

Has dank asked you to speak on his behalf?

dank used quotation marks, meaning, in my opinion, that he realized hiphop misspoke. If he realized hiphop misspoke (otherwise why did he call attention to the words?) then shouldn't he have asked hiphop rather than punishing him for what he knew would be a false interpretation?

Another meta call?

By no means am I pressuring you into doing so. I would hope that, if you are concerned with my activity levels enough to vote me, you would be interested enough to see if I'm acting purposefully different in this game.

I agree with what you said earlier; I don't take anything from meta either.

This has a defensive tone over something so minor, especially when there are 2 main bandwagons that are taking center stage.

If your vote was purely to pressure me, why were you asking other players to back up your wagon in post 79? From my experience, players who cast pressure votes are not looking to start a serious case around their votes and request other people join their wagon.

I don't think I am being defensive, I think I am responding to your concerns. I would not consider my posts emotional or defensive, and I can point you in the direction of posts from completed games that would fit these criteria better if you'd like.

Can you point out the 3 times I forced my case against you?

I would not equate what I stated "brought it up" with what you asked "forced your case".

While this is premature, TO THE TOWN: Doesn't Redcoyote's post seem odd to you guys? He used a post-RVS argument to

support his RVS vote

. His post still bothers me.

No content, no reason, not even admitting

he is RVSing

.

We left

the RVS

already so I suggest you read up.

(empahsis added).

You brought this up three times before letting me respond to it.

And I wasn't "pulling an argument" against you, I was asking you a question. There is a sure difference between the two. Wait, you were calling me defensive?

Since you aren't as active as the rest of the town I wanted some other input to my case. Which is why I asked: if that post was odd to anyone else. I don't see why you have a problem that I asked my question to the town in general.

My problem is that you were using an argument based on false information without letting me respond. Shouldn't you be more concerned with figuring out the truth than looking like you are being tough against someone?

---

...and you didn't think to give that reason with your vote?

I was waiting for you to ask me.

although as DTM just pointed out, you used that argument on the wrong person.

Did I? My point was that I believe dank realized hiphop may have misspoke, hence the quotation marks, yet he wasn't sincere enough to ask hiphop what he meant. This implies that he's either uninterested in understanding hiphop's motivations, or that he doesn't really care.

---

you do realize we're talking about your vote on dank right?

Refer above. Do you have anything you're uniquely interested about, or are you content with asking the same questions and making the same arguments that have been used multiple times?

---

Alot of WIFOM....If you actually are town I would not expect scum to hop on at the end for the lynch that may give them away far to much do you not think? Infact I would expect scum to be in the middle/start of a wagon instead.

I agree and I am concerned with hiphop. I think there was/is scum riding his bandwagon earlier in hopes that they would be able to take advantage of hiphop's emotion.

---

These walls are painful.

If you choose not to read everything, that's on you, my friend. I will try to make it a little easier for you though. I won't answer your question because I already did earlier in the post

---

I like dank's post 99, but does he have anything to say about my suspicions of him?

---

RC: Can you explain why you reacted so defensively in you latest post?

Could you point out exactly what it is you found "defensive"? I am concerned that the term lurker is being thrown around carelessly, and I am concerned players like DTM, Toro, and Shrine are making assumptions about me before asking for my response to things.

Also, can you explain exactly WHY you didn't explain your vote at the time of it's post?

Well, to be honest, I was gauging for town reactions. I had expected someone to ask my why I was voting for dank, so then I could have a discussion with them. Instead, Shrine, Toro, and DTM lectured me for random voting and DTM went so far as to push people into starting a wagon against me because of my "random" vote.

I'm still not quite certain who has sincere intentions in their heart, and who is attempting to misdirect. I'm not certain who was being extremely critical of me for the sake of the town, or for the sake of making themselves look as if they're helping. What do you think about this Ik? Am I bluffing, making it up as I go along, or do you think there was an deeper reason behind my first post?

[Shrinehme]

If you choose not to read everything, that's on you, my friend. I will try to make it a little easier for you though. I won't answer your question because I already did earlier in the post

1. That basically reads to me as "Deal with it." <.< Well... maybe you haven't seen it yet, but, you [everyone who hasn't already, actually] should check out, and I agree with, many of the points brought up by the original poster in the "We're talking too much, but saying too little" thread.
I'm very grateful that you don't separate each of your points into different posts, but lengthy walls generally do more harm than good... so can you keep them to a minimum? Please?

2. Ah, I missed that. My bad. I'll fetch it.

dank jumped on what I thought was simply misspeak. The words "scum number 1" are interchangable with "sounding scummy" (e.g. Ik is

scum number 1

/Ik is

sounding scummy

).

I see!

I wouldn't say the two phrases interchangeable; that's may have been what he [HipHop, was it?] intended to mean, but like I'd said to DTMaster earlier: "I realize they are, by denotation, the same thing; the connotation is, to me, different, though [For example: the difference between "I hate you", and "I dislike you very much"; they mean the same thing, but the tone/intensity implied is different]."

... The way you [anyone] conveys what they mean is pretty crucial. There was definitely a better way to phrase "scum number 1", and the way he worded it made it seem as though he was more confident in his suspicion than he was.

Is your vote still on Dank for this reason?

I am concerned players like DTM, Toro, and Shrine are making assumptions about me before asking for my response to things.

Don't be too concerned... you have to admit that a stray vote placed just a short while after the RVS ended with no explained reason behind it that had little to do with the people/discussion at hand DOES look like a random vote. It was an honest and fair mistake.

[alexhans]

Those in danger of suppression #4:

dank (1)

-

RedCoyote

hiphop (1)

-

Zachrulez

Idiotking (1)

-

jasonT1981

RedCoyote (1)

-

DTMaster

toro (3)

-

hihop, Paradoxombie, dank

Not Voting (5)

-

Idiotking, ryan2754, DeathRowKitty, Shrinehme, Toro

Happiness with Posting Level:

SATISFIED

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

[Toro]

(Hey alex, I unvoted hiphop about a page ago.)

* Oops... Well... Fixed. I always screw up in one of the first votecounts... Thanks for letting me know.

Okay to be honest guys, I'm not the world's greatest scumhunter. Although, sometimes I'll pick up on stuff real easily, so far this game I've got nothing except what you've guys got. Don't cast me off as useless however, as I still am a member of the town.

I'm not liking this argument.

Toro, why would a town player unvote when they have 2 clear suspects?

Because like I quoted, according to you people it's wrong to vote for the guy who you believe is scum, if you have no original reason to. Do I have to post something original about a player I find suspicious in order to vote for them?

And what's wrong with my OMGUS argument?

[Zachrulez]

Who said it's wrong to vote for who you believe is scum? Where do they say that?

[DTMaster]

@Idiot King
In your 109 can you put your name with that quote. I know this is on the same page, but it makes looking up the source a lot easier (especially since it was the only quote. You can leave out the ="name" tag for a chain of quotes like in your 107)

@Redcoyote

Did you not read what I said? I was talking about prodding if you had not posted for

another day which I added up the hours for you equivalent to almost 60 hours in game if you did not post your vote. I did not said I wanted a prod at

36 hours in

, since it is unreasonable to ask you for that.

Quote in my iso 5:

One more day and we might need a prod

Overall though, I find that your posts are acceptable since you cover great detail in each post. I am willing to wait for them.

Did you consider asking me if this was what I meant before assuming this?

Yes, which is why I'm pressuring you to explain yourself. That is the entire concept of a pressure vote. Do I always have to ask you something to answer your reasoning?

In your response to DRK:

I was waiting for you to ask me.

I don't mind questions to clarify, or to expand on points. Even questions to make corrections to things. But when we have to ask you for your "core arguments" I find it problematic.

You stated your non-random vote on Dank's wasn't obvious, and I would assume you set it up so someone asks you for it. Then you will reply with a good analysis that you kept in reserve. We can go on for a WIFOM debate on why scum or town would do this, but I'll summarize my thoughts on this style: Easy to create a pro-town image, good backdoor exit if no one presses you, comes with an excuse: "you simply didn't ask me", and implies you only respond if something is addressed to you or someone addresses you.

If you honestly think that everyone has the same ability to keep tabs on the game as you do, and, further, they should be scolded if they do not meet this standard, than I would hope you're as stern with other players as you've been with me.

I'm not sure one sentence explaining your real life situation takes that much time. I find it just responsible to explain yourself in situations where a full post is needed, but you cannot answer it yet at that time.

Has dank asked you to speak on his behalf?

Actually no. I gave my interpretation on a more pressing part of your argument (his bandwagon logic) rather then simple misinterpretation of words (that you haven't debunked yet. Just restated your point.) Since you didn't call him out when he posted without answering you:

Dank: What are your thoughts on RedCoyote's case against you? And since I did it anyways: your thoughts on my criticism on that one line.

My fault for answering/questioning your case. Your fault for not pursuing on it even though danks posted after your case.

why were you asking other players to back up your wagon in post 79?

I wanted more outside input on this case. I'm not asking players to back me up, I asked them if they found something odd with your first post in isolation and if there is something I missed when I looked at it. If there was nothing there to incriminate you, then there is nothing there.

Wait, you were calling me defensive?

Yes I was with my whole L-6 statement.

Shouldn't you be more concerned with figuring out the truth than looking like you are being tough against someone?

I am, but we have very little to base a good case on since it is just 5 pages in. Exploring your reactions would be the best way to make a good read. If I find something odd in a post, I will point it out and shift my thoughts in that direction.

I just find some problems with some of your reactions, so I'm stressing on it. But I think it's time for me to do a quick re-read of everything so far to see how things are going and post my general comments. I notice that I am starting to tunnel a bit with RC which I don't want to do unless I'm certain of his scumminess.

[DTMaster]

EBWOP: Actually, my bad on this statement:

Since you didn't call him out when he posted without answering you:

Dank: What are your thoughts on RedCoyote's case against you? And since I did it anyways: your thoughts on my criticism on that one line.

My fault for answering/questioning your case. Your fault for not pursuing on it even though danks posted after your case.

I didn't finish reading your post when I was answering the questions addressed to me so I retract this since you are questioning him.

[DeathRowKitty]

And what's wrong with my OMGUS argument?

Inexperienced cornered townies also have a tendency to cast OMGUS votes, especially when the pressure starts to dissipate. He did give a reason, although I'm not particularly happy it came after his vote.

My point was that I believe dank realized hiphop may have misspoke, hence the quotation marks, yet he wasn't sincere enough to ask hiphop what he meant. This implies that he's either uninterested in understanding hiphop's motivations, or that he doesn't really care.

That's not the way I'm interpreting the quotation marks. I won't speak for dank, but I know (or at least I think) I've used quotation marks around terms I was using from someone esle to clarify I mean the same thing the person originally posting it did. Of course, in this case, dank had a different idea of what "scum number 1" meant, so this may not be the case.

Also, can you explain exactly WHY you didn't explain your vote at the time of it's post?

Well, to be honest, I was gauging for town reactions. I had expected someone to ask my why I was voting for dank, so then I could have a discussion with them.

It's kind of hard to gauge town reactions when you disappear for a couple of days in between posts. I have no problem with you posting once every couple of days with a lot of content or with trying to read reactions, but I just can't see the two working well together.

I was just repeating what DRK said in my 72 and acknowledging the fact that

she

he

said this game play was part of your meta.

[Toro]

And what's wrong with my OMGUS argument?

Inexperienced cornered townies also have a tendency to cast OMGUS votes, especially when the pressure starts to dissipate. He did give a reason, although I'm not particularly happy it came after his vote.

/nod.

Who said it's wrong to vote for who you believe is scum? Where do they say that?

Pretty much all the talk about me just jumping on the hiphop bandwagon, the reasons were there for my vote, they just weren't mine.

*Fixed tags.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm with #24 here, this certainly sounds real fishy to me. In a game of this size there'd have to be at least 2-3 scum members.

I'm considering on putting a vote on hiphop, but his lack of experience sort of is making me feel sympathetic and going against it. But you know what, after rereading his posts, I'm definitely not getting a real townly feeling from him, so...

Vote: hiphop

Those were the two posts you made regarding hiphop up to and including your vote. You gave one explicit reason, which consisted of you saying the post before you is right. If you agreed with other reasons given, say so. If not, it appears as though you have no reason, which is what's happened here. Also, putting a disclaimer with your vote doesn't give a pro-town read...

[hiphop]

@ paradoxombie They are not even at this site they are at http://forums.utopiatemple.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26
Pip squeek says Mafia, that game never finished, Final Fantasy VI Mafia, replacement at the end, and currently playing World of Warcraft Mafia.
On this site I am playing http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0 as a replacement in a beginner’s mafia

@shrine The inexperience part was not the unvoting, I unvoted because, as I explained before, it was just a random vote. The inexperience part was not revoting.

[Toro]

@ paradoxombie They are not even at this site they are at http://forums.utopiatemple.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26
Pip squeek says Mafia, that game never finished, Final Fantasy VI Mafia, replacement at the end, and currently playing World of Warcraft Mafia.
On this site I am playing http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0 as a replacement in a beginner’s mafia

@shrine The inexperience part was not the unvoting, I unvoted because, as I explained before, it was just a random vote. The inexperience part was not revoting.

You're referring to your IK vote right? Because that wasn't a random vote by you, you gave a non-RVS reason to justify your vote on him.