Quagmire 113 wrote:I still don't have much to add... the wagon building on me is silly but probably necessary, I don't have any solid enough scum reads yet, and only two people read town to me so far. I believe I've commented on everything else.
I don't feel as though it's your role to observe the game, but to play it along side us. It's probably sounding a bit like a broken record, but none of us here need to lecture you about the necessity of participation. I'm especially curious to hear you ask questions and provoke other players, not just pop up and say, "have I commented on everything? k, l8r."
Your
post 112 is a good example of what I don't want to see. The basis of the question is terrific, but it's asked from a position of weakness and nonchalance. What I mean by that is, like, okay, you spent two seconds looking at the latest vote count, but why not go deeper with it? Why not go back to Flare's latest post, Cyberbob, or Nacho, and ask them about the post with which they voted? If you think the reasoning is weak (you've said it yourself that you've seen nothing scummy so far), maybe you should tell them why it is they're getting overly excited. I'd be happy to see Quagmire v.s. cruelty over The Tracker wagon.
Again, I don't want to come across as patronizing, because I know you're aware of all of this. I honestly just want to see you play the game with us. I feel completely shortchanged at this point.
---
Flare 124 wrote:I was gonna say that it doesn't apply since everyone disagreed with the person that posted it and then I noticed it was Quagmire. Your question is completely valid now
To be perfectly honest, even at the risk of catching flak for my opinion, I don't particularly care whether or not he has. I personally wouldn't play a game that way, but I see the strategy behind it as well. [WIFOM]I think I would care more about it if I was scum, because I would be worried if he were my partner and there may or may not have been someone missing from a QT that may or may not have been available to us before the game started and/or during the day.[/WIFOM] Either way, this would neither encourage nor discourage any vote, policy or not, I would cast for Quagmire.
Flare 126 wrote:It is a random vote. I just think that having a vote is better then not voting. Check all the games I've been in and you'll see that I've never unvoted without revoting for someone else.
That's a valid strategy, but there's something seriously amiss here. First of all, you're either skimming the thread, which is bad, or you're ignoring us, which is worse. Both me and Hoopla asked you, and then hito reminds you, before you finally answer. I don't even think it's that great of an answer to be honest. You say it's part of your meta, a strategy to keep a vote active at all times, which is fine, but not when you're keeping your vote on a "random" person. So, secondly, you're skirting responsibility for your vote. When you say that The Tracker is your "random" vote, this implies that you don't want to be held accountable for it, and that you're excused from casting a vote based on your real suspicions. That just ain't going to fly with me, pal. Lastly, this shirking of responsibility is dangerous when your general philosophy of playing is,
Flare 82 wrote:I'm not gonna go attack someone cuz then someone will attack me for attacking someone
If you're going to stick to the "always vote someone" strategy, then you need to make it count. Don't come back at us with, "I have to always vote someone", and then call your vote random. It doesn't work that way at this stage of the game, and especially not when your "random vote" happens to be on the largest wagon. Unless I am overestimating you, you are playing some serious misdirecting and dodgy games with us. I'm getting a serious bad vibe from you, and I don't know if your playstyle and rhetoric is just completely turning me off, or are you just acting extremely scummy. I think it's somewhere in the middle.
Unvote
because a
vote: Flareonage
is much more in line with my heart and mind at this point.
Flare 130 wrote:That deserves a policy lynch.
As I've said above, I'm completely neutral on this. I happened to catch the thread before Hoopla brought it up, and it doesn't really positively or negatively affect my position on Quagmire. If Quagmire continues to play like he has, I can support his lynch, but I am firmly against a policy lynch otherwise. It just makes it worse that you, of all people, are the first one to vote Quagmire on this basis. Mostly because I feel as though this is your out to cast a "non-random" vote without "being attacked" for your opinion.
---
I like Nacho's
132, and I think he breaths a little life into what may or may not have been a dying Tracker wagon.
---
Flare 136 wrote:Now that I think about it it doesn't deserve a policy lynch.
So will you be unvoting and revoting your "random" target again? Already you're backing away from your position again.
Are you normally this flightly, Flare? That may be what's giving me such a negative view of you, because I think people who wagonhop, especially when they hop back to a "random" vote, completely turn me off. I really don't want to be seen as tunnelled on you, but seemingly every post you make gives me a worse impression of you. Don't get me wrong, I also get frustrated with stalwarts who would sooner slit their wrists than see another point of view, but I'd much rather someone argue their point of view than raise the white flag the second someone questions them. I don't have to tell you, Flare, which group you fall into.
---
Flare 138 wrote:Flareonage is pretty solidly town.
Quagmire 139 wrote:Policy lynches are the worst things that could possibly happen in mafia.
Flare 130 wrote:That deserves a policy lynch.
Explain, please. Do it with passion too, because I'm on the complete opposite side.
