Is it really a random reason? Doesn't seem like one.remussaidow wrote:vote: idiotkingpregame pseudo-agreeing with me is enough of a random reason to get things rolling.
TheButtonmen wrote:Vote: MichelSableheart
'cause Bandwagons are hawt.
Worried about a buddy?AWA wrote:TheButtonmen wrote:Vote: MichelSableheart
'cause Bandwagons are hawt.Vote: TheButtonmen
Bandwagoning so soon? And under the pretense of joking? I think not.
Nope. I just think that bandwagoning is dumb. This particular one sounds suspicious to me.AGar wrote:Worried about a buddy?AWA wrote:TheButtonmen wrote:Vote: MichelSableheart
'cause Bandwagons are hawt.Vote: TheButtonmen
Bandwagoning so soon? And under the pretense of joking? I think not.
So do you propose we just twiddle our thumbs around and not lynch anyone and let scum pick us off one by one then? Bandwagoning is how a lynch comes 'round.AWA wrote:Nope. I just think that bandwagoning is dumb. This particular one sounds suspicious to me.AGar wrote:Worried about a buddy?AWA wrote:TheButtonmen wrote:Vote: MichelSableheart
'cause Bandwagons are hawt.Vote: TheButtonmen
Bandwagoning so soon? And under the pretense of joking? I think not.
Are you for real with this? Ever consider people may have just had poor timing and aren't on the site 24/7? This game is a majority start for confirmations, so scum trying to hold off confirmations don't always get that to work. And as for not posting in the thread pre-game, why should he? I didn't either, and I confirmed and bookmarked the thread two days ago. Does that make me one of his buddies? Ever consider people just don't feel like pre-game banter and would rather focus their time on other games?MichelSableheart wrote:I personally have a feeling that scum was trying to lengthen the time they had for discussion. I know for sure that MME was rather slow confirming, and he also didn't post in the game thread pre-game. Definately wants time to talk to his buddies before exposing himself in here.
No, I propose that we use reasoned argument instead of random jumping-on-wagons. Bandwagoning is how rushed kills come along.AGar wrote:So do you propose we just twiddle our thumbs around and not lynch anyone and let scum pick us off one by one then? Bandwagoning is how a lynch comes 'round.AWA wrote:Nope. I just think that bandwagoning is dumb. This particular one sounds suspicious to me.AGar wrote:Worried about a buddy?AWA wrote:TheButtonmen wrote:Vote: MichelSableheart
'cause Bandwagons are hawt.Vote: TheButtonmen
Bandwagoning so soon? And under the pretense of joking? I think not.
Bandwagoning also pulls scum out of hiding, establishes reads on players and often can lead to a telling scumslip. So your view on bandwagons is flawed and distorted.AWA wrote:No, I propose that we use reasoned argument instead of random jumping-on-wagons. Bandwagoning is how rushed kills come along.
Whether my view on bandwagons is flawed or not, it is my view of them; they're an extraordinarily easy way for scum to hide behind a wall.AGar wrote:Bandwagoning also pulls scum out of hiding, establishes reads on players and often can lead to a telling scumslip. So your view on bandwagons is flawed and distorted.AWA wrote:No, I propose that we use reasoned argument instead of random jumping-on-wagons. Bandwagoning is how rushed kills come along.
Besides, it's the early game. If you can use "reasoned argument" to find scum after one or two posts by players, then you go right ahead and do that. In the meantime, while you look like an ass, I'm gonna move my vote, because your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.
VOTE: AWA
I don't quite get this. My caution in rushing into a potential mislynch (which, by definition, is accidentally lynching a pro-town) is scummy? I don't follow.AGar wrote:your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.
Forgot to address this part. I don't intend to use reasoned argument after one or two posts; we have nineteen days of discussion with which to analyze. Just because there are only one or two postsAGar wrote:Besides, it's the early game. If you can use "reasoned argument" to find scum after one or two posts by players, then you go right ahead and do that.
When making that vote, it was the best lead I had. Him not being online is a possible explanation, of course, but that doesn't erase the slight increase in possibility of MME being scum.AGar wrote:Are you for real with this? Ever consider people may have just had poor timing and aren't on the site 24/7? This game is a majority start for confirmations, so scum trying to hold off confirmations don't always get that to work. And as for not posting in the thread pre-game, why should he? I didn't either, and I confirmed and bookmarked the thread two days ago. Does that make me one of his buddies? Ever consider people just don't feel like pre-game banter and would rather focus their time on other games?
MichelSableheart wrote:[1]When making that vote, it was the best lead I had. Him not being online is a possible explanation, of course, but that doesn't erase the slight increase in possibility of MME being scum.
[2]As for the reason for posting in the thread pre-game, I already discussed that. We only have 19 days till deadline hits, so any discussion we can have before the game actually started is a bonus. Besides, with pre-game discussion, scum would have had less time to form a plan. I'm not talking about random banter, I'm talking about actual discussion and attempts to find the scum. I still haven't heard a good reason why we shouldn't have started discussing the game as soon as we received our rolepm's.
[3]And aren't you a bit of a hypocrite when attacking my reasoning for being weak? If you compare my reasoning for voting MME with your reasoning for voting DavidParker, I think you'll find that my reasoning is far more solid.
[4]There is absolutely no reason to disregard reasoning after one or two posts. In fact, the sooner players start to use actual reasoning, the better IMO. In an ideal world, random votes wouldn't exist. I consider you deterring the use of reasoning an attempt to needlessly stall discussion.
Unvote
Vote: AGar
I don't expect to come in and find scum immediately, though I do believe it's possible. However, I do believe that voting for a valid reason is far more effective in the early game then voting completely randomly.AGar wrote:[1] - So you expected to come in and find scum right off the bat? I think you're an idiot then.
I expect chauchau to be a good enough mod to not have hours between his different rolepm's, so everyone should have received his role pm when the game is open for posting. And voting to get a reaction is highly overrated.AGar wrote:[2] - Pregame confirmations shouldn't be used as a deadline extender. FFS, not everyone has gotten a role, and you can't even vote to get a reaction. You sir, are proving to be more and more of an idiot.
AGar wrote:[4] - Where did I deter the use of reasoning?
AGar wrote:Besides, it's the early game. If you can use "reasoned argument" to find scum after one or two posts by players, then you go right ahead and do that. In the meantime, while you look like an ass, I'm gonna move my vote, because your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.
You also have to understand something. Games usually open with RVS or RQS because they are a way to start discussion. However, they are definately not the best way to start discussion, let alone the only way to start discussion. In my experience, actually using a believable reason for your vote, no matter how weak, is far more likely to start discussion then a random vote is.AGar wrote:You seem to misunderstand something. Games usually open with RVS or RQS. You don't just come in and say "BTW I'VE GOT SCUM FOUND LOLZ." Why? Because then the town comes to one of two conclusions - either you're an idiot, or you're scum trying to push a mislynch or start an early bus on their partner, and still an idiot.
So basically beginning a false case and trying to bury someone before they come into the game is a valid play in your books. Got it.MichelSableheart wrote:I don't expect to come in and find scum immediately, though I do believe it's possible. However, I do believe that voting for a valid reason is far more effective in the early game then voting completely randomly.AGar wrote:[1] - So you expected to come in and find scum right off the bat? I think you're an idiot then.
You really are dense. I didn't mean chauchau (a her, btw) didn't send all role PMs out at the same time. I meant not everyone has looked in their inbox and read their role PM. Thus, not everyone is aware of the game, thus discussion would be akin to tunneling, as you are not getting the full picture. And if you think voting to get a reaction is highly overrated, then you obviously are a fairly poor scumhunter.MichelSableheart wrote:I expect chauchau to be a good enough mod to not have hours between his different rolepm's, so everyone should have received his role pm when the game is open for posting. And voting to get a reaction is highly overrated.AGar wrote:[2] - Pregame confirmations shouldn't be used as a deadline extender. FFS, not everyone has gotten a role, and you can't even vote to get a reaction. You sir, are proving to be more and more of an idiot.
Mm yes. I said that he was going to look like an ass for trying to use reason after one or two posts by players. You, clearly a misrepresenter extraordinaire, seem to believe I said never use reason. I didn't. Even AWA, whom I was attacking with that point, didn't interpret it that way...MichelSableheart wrote:AGar wrote:[4] - Where did I deter the use of reasoning?AGar wrote:Besides, it's the early game. If you can use "reasoned argument" to find scum after one or two posts by players, then you go right ahead and do that. In the meantime, while you look like an ass, I'm gonna move my vote, because your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.
If there is a better way, then how come the majority of this site, a site DEDICATED TO THE GAME OF MAFIA, isn't using these "better ways"? Hmm? HMM? I'll tell you why - because your idea is a sure way to get yourself killed. You are trying to create a scumtell out of what you dislike about a particular group of players' out-of-thread business, NOT what they are doing in the game to make them scummy. What do you do, may I ask, when a game starts with closed PM confirmations and no confirmation stage posting? What if the mod only keeps to himself who has confirmed and simply puts a number up? What do you do then?MichelSableheart wrote:You also have to understand something. Games usually open with RVS or RQS because they are a way to start discussion. However, they are definately not the best way to start discussion, let alone the only way to start discussion. In my experience, actually using a believable reason for your vote, no matter how weak, is far more likely to start discussion then a random vote is.AGar wrote:You seem to misunderstand something. Games usually open with RVS or RQS. You don't just come in and say "BTW I'VE GOT SCUM FOUND LOLZ." Why? Because then the town comes to one of two conclusions - either you're an idiot, or you're scum trying to push a mislynch or start an early bus on their partner, and still an idiot.
Allthough we are a site dedicated to mafia, far too few players learn to think. Every newbie game tells it's players that games are usually started with random voting. Far too few newbie games tell it's players why that is. With as a result that most players don't realize that absolutely the worst thing you can possibly do at the beginning of the game is actually vote completely randomly, because that means that you don't take any responsibility with your vote, don't have any intentions behind your vote, and as such your vote won't do anything to help spark discussion.AGar wrote:If there is a better way, then how come the majority of this site, a site DEDICATED TO THE GAME OF MAFIA, isn't using these "better ways"?
I make up a different reason for why somoene is slightly more likely scum. The mod preferring certain players to be scum, or a player with a preference for townroles replacing out are also favourites of mine. Basically, I make up a reason to vote a certain player, a proces that is sometimes known on this site as random voting. Not to mention the fact that I'm rarely the first to post after the thread opens, so usually I can comment on one of the earlier posts in the thread.AGar wrote:What do you do, may I ask, when a game starts with closed PM confirmations and no confirmation stage posting? What if the mod only keeps to himself who has confirmed and simply puts a number up? What do you do then?
Both questions serve a very important purpose: determining motivation of players. Which is exactly what can be expected from questions to get discussion started. I seriously have a very difficult time understanding why you are attacking reasoning and questions that make little sense, when you are perfectly happy to completely ignore reasoning that makes no sense at all. Why is "I vote X because his avatar is blue, allthough this doesn't have any bearing on his alignement" a good reason to vote early, but "I vote X because he did something that scum is extremely slightly more likely to do then town" not?AGar wrote:why did you not actually promote USEFUL discussion in the pre-game? All you did was point out something about AWA's past experience, ask why people weren't posting in the thread, and say we should use pre-game for discussion. Not ONCE did you actually attempt to start any kind of relevant discussion.
So why don't you IC then. Or write an article in MD? You seem to be complacent. As far as I'm concerned, this point is now moot.MichelSableheart wrote:Allthough we are a site dedicated to mafia, far too few players learn to think. Every newbie game tells it's players that games are usually started with random voting. Far too few newbie games tell it's players why that is. With as a result that most players don't realize that absolutely the worst thing you can possibly do at the beginning of the game is actually vote completely randomly, because that means that you don't take any responsibility with your vote, don't have any intentions behind your vote, and as such your vote won't do anything to help spark discussion.AGar wrote:If there is a better way, then how come the majority of this site, a site DEDICATED TO THE GAME OF MAFIA, isn't using these "better ways"?
So you are admitting that at the beginning of every game you either: a) active lurk, or b) make up scumtells.MichelSableheart wrote:I make up a different reason for why somoene is slightly more likely scum. The mod preferring certain players to be scum, or a player with a preference for townroles replacing out are also favourites of mine. Basically, I make up a reason to vote a certain player, a proces that is sometimes known on this site as random voting. Not to mention the fact that I'm rarely the first to post after the thread opens, so usually I can comment on one of the earlier posts in the thread.AGar wrote:What do you do, may I ask, when a game starts with closed PM confirmations and no confirmation stage posting? What if the mod only keeps to himself who has confirmed and simply puts a number up? What do you do then?
Only because I'd love to see you hanging from your neck in a high branch, scum.MichelSableheart wrote: I claim that my effective statement of "MME is scum" (yes, it was intended that way), did what it was supposed to do: start actual discussion.
Because I'm not trying to say X is scum because his avatar is blue, and it is full and well clear that it is simply a method of starting discussion, seeing if a player overreacts to having a vote on him. You, on the other hand, are saying X is scum because you made up a scumtell that you tailored to him, and actually think that you are right in that matter. I'm not attacking reasoning - reasoning is part of this game, and you apparently are not seeing that everything I am saying to you is reasoning right now - I'm attacking your terribly flawed logic. Just because people go with the status quo (which I even admitted I am not fond of, but I didn't feel like typing out 11 questions at this point in time), doesn't make them scum. You are repeatedly and consistently trying to make up scumtells to suit your needs and push a case that isn't there in order to fuel a mislynch.MichelSableheart wrote:Both questions serve a very important purpose: determining motivation of players. Which is exactly what can be expected from questions to get discussion started. I seriously have a very difficult time understanding why you are attacking reasoning and questions that make little sense, when you are perfectly happy to completely ignore reasoning that makes no sense at all. Why is "I vote X because his avatar is blue, allthough this doesn't have any bearing on his alignement" a good reason to vote early, but "I vote X because he did something that scum is extremely slightly more likely to do then town" not?AGar wrote:why did you not actually promote USEFUL discussion in the pre-game? All you did was point out something about AWA's past experience, ask why people weren't posting in the thread, and say we should use pre-game for discussion. Not ONCE did you actually attempt to start any kind of relevant discussion.