alnkpa wrote:Me? In what way am I backing off? I really don't see it. Was just asking about RVS, as it seems to be a common factor in a game.
I think Bulvious was referring to Fatso.
Um, he was talking to me.alnkpa wrote:Me? In what way am I backing off? I really don't see it. Was just asking about RVS, as it seems to be a common factor in a game.
Hey, I just found one! Startransmission said why.Fatso wrote: WOOHOO! The thread is unlocked!
Anyways, I don't like RVS very much, so I'm not voting until I see an actual scummy post.
1. I've completed around 15 games.startransmission wrote: 1. What's your Mafia experience?
2. What's your favorite band?
3. What role/alignment do you prefer?
4. Do you find it harder finding scum, or convincing other people that you've found scum (the latter assuming you correctly identified someone as scum)?
LOL appeasement.Fatso wrote: *Sigh* If you insist:
Vote: alnkpa
for being the only person (I think) who has neither posted or been voted for.
What are you referring to?Zdenek wrote: Hey, I just found one! Startransmission said why.
There really isn't much reasoning to my vote for you. I think RVS is as good as any strategy right now with the little amount of information we have to go on. However, my vote wasn't random because I felt you should of held your ground and not waiver when confronted. Again, not much to go on, so hopefully this will yield some info next day.Fatso wrote:Wonderful... A bandwagon on my butt because I said I didn't like RVS, was pushed to vote, and voted...What are you referring to?Zdenek wrote: Hey, I just found one! Startransmission said why.
Unvote
Vote: lynchking
Please provide reasoning as to your voting for me.
Before we launch, anything to say about it?startransmission wrote:
The potential debate between them interests me greatly.
Really, it didn't read as either of those to me. I read it as "I'm not going to put in any valuable input until people address me or are addressed by others."Fatso wrote:
Anyways, my opinion wasn't "I totally hate RVS and I'm never voting in it. EVER." It was "I don't like RVS that much, so I'm not going to vote right off the bat, but if it's really that important to you, I guess I will."
Was it that, though? Voting is your primary tool - if it isn't placed, you're not helping the town. Do you understand this now? I understand you were one of the first to post so it's hard to find anything worth commenting on. But then... Why even comment if you don't find anything going on worthwhile? Just to post? That doesn't make sense to me. If you post early, it should be RVS, RQS, intro, or early analysis. That said, I don't disagree at all with your vote on Lynchking even though it does seem sort of OMGUS to me.Fatso wrote:
Wonderful... A bandwagon on my butt because I said I didn't like RVS, was pushed to vote, and voted...
To be truthful, my original vote wasn't a whole lot more than RVS. I figured it was better than voting on someone for profile info, however. In retrospect however, I'm quite happy with my vote. He's proven quite reactive, and thus far he's only made one attempt at scumhunting and that's only after someone sheeped my vote without explanation.BS wrote:
I see RVS is pretty much over with the storm that's following Fatso's comment. I knew he was going to get jumped allll over for that. I certainly agree that sitting back and coasting through the RVS / RQS is bad news, since less input means less information we have to go on, but I can understand why he might not like RVS. I've been trying to get my husband to try the game, and he just does NOT understand how RVS can work or how it moves into scum discussion. I know he's not the only one that feels that way, and quite frankly everyone that hates random voting gets immediately pointed at. Scumtell - meh. It's just too common in a newbie game.
L-2 isn't really that bad unless two scum aren't voting and they hop on the wagon. Considering an early lynch is not helpful in the least to town, we'd have one or two pretty big scumspects to deal with.Fatso wrote:
And Zdenek, you do realize you put me at L-2 over a disagreement in how the game should be played.
I just don't see how swinging a loaded gun around is "valuable input."Really, it didn't read as either of those to me. I read it as "I'm not going to put in any valuable input until people address me or are addressed by others."
And how many attempts have others made?and thus far he's only made one attempt at scumhunting
Fatso wrote:What are you referring to?Zdenek wrote: Hey, I just found one! Startransmission said why.
Startransmission wrote: Already the RVS provides us an interesting post. Once could argue that Fatso not wanting to engage in the RVS is a sign that he wants to fly under the radar, that he wants to keep his hands clean until later in the game when perhaps a wagon is already built for him to jump on. That might be going a bit far, but it's an example of how the RVS can start dialogue.
This post is coasting through RVS. You answer the questions, tell us about your playstyle, and then this, which is full of unnecessary filler, and you completely ignore the biggest problem with Fatso's play, the appeasement.Banana wrote: I see RVS is pretty much over with the storm that's following Fatso's comment. I knew he was going to get jumped allll over for that. I certainly agree that sitting back and coasting through the RVS / RQS is bad news, since less input means less information we have to go on, but I can understand why he might not like RVS. I've been trying to get my husband to try the game, and he just does NOT understand how RVS can work or how it moves into scum discussion. I know he's not the only one that feels that way, and quite frankly everyone that hates random voting gets immediately pointed at. Scumtell - meh. It's just too common in a newbie game.
No, I put you at L-2 because your first post failed to move the game forward, and when you were called out on it, you gave up your previous stance and voted.Fatso wrote: And Zdenek, you do realize you put me at L-2 over a disagreement in how the game should be played.
So you think we should quick-lynch Fatso?lynchking wrote: There really isn't much reasoning to my vote for you. I think RVS is as good as any strategy right now with the little amount of information we have to go on. However, my vote wasn't random because I felt you should of held your ground and not waiver when confronted. Again, not much to go on, so hopefully this will yield some info next day.
One quick thing. This is really a matter of opinion, but I really feel the OMGUS vote is far scummier than the folding in to the RVS pressure.Zdenek wrote:This post is coasting through RVS. You answer the questions, tell us about your playstyle, and then this, which is full of unnecessary filler, and you completely ignore the biggest problem with Fatso's play, the appeasement.
Why didn't you vote then? Until the end of RVS you didn't say one word. As startransmission phrased it 'flying under the radar'.Banana Stickers wrote:I certainly agree that sitting back and coasting through the RVS / RQS is bad news, since less input means less information we have to go on,
Let me get this straight: I said I didn't really want to RV, everyone wanted me to RV, I RVed, and now you're voting for me. Is that basically it? I never said I wouldn't RV if someone requested I do so, and yet that's what I'm being prosecuted for.Zdenek wrote:No, I put you at L-2 because your first post failed to move the game forward, and when you were called out on it, you gave up your previous stance and voted.
(This is referring to me, right?) How was my second vote OMGUS in ANY WAY?startransmission wrote:One quick thing. This is really a matter of opinion, but I really feel the OMGUS vote is far scummier than the folding in to the RVS pressure.
I've never really found OMGUS to be a great scum-tell.StarT wrote: One quick thing. This is really a matter of opinion, but I really feel the OMGUS vote is far scummier than the folding in to the RVS pressure.
The fact that you didn't say that you wouldn't vote RV someone is irrelevant; caving to pressure is scummy because it shows that you are overly concerned with what people think.Fatso wrote: Let me get this straight: I said I didn't really want to RV, everyone wanted me to RV, I RVed, and now you're voting for me. Is that basically it? I never said I wouldn't RV if someone requested I do so, and yet that's what I'm being prosecuted for.
A few things wrong with this. When you say "Overly suspcious" do you mean you're merely suspicious of me? Or are you admitting to doubting my town-ness without significant reason?Fatso wrote:
The only person I'm overtly suspicious of now is you, Bulvious. I don't really understand why you're making such a big deal out of me not liking RVS, and then not liking the fact that I voted when it was practically requested I do so. I have to say, you do seem more super-actively-scumhunting-towny than anything else (from my experience).