Mini 275: Subject Mafia - It's all over!

[cropcircles]

Yikes! I really didn't mean to apply that much pressure.

Unvote

because apparantly I'm incapable to paying attention to the number of votes someone has, without getting a count.

I also seem to have become distracted from my original task.

Vote Kenji

[Kenji]

The "CropCircles is paranoid about evil scum mods" vote count!

Miali1020 - 1 (Jimmy the Rez)
RangeroftheNorth - 1 (Sineish)
Petroleumjelly - 2 (quailman, Turbovolver)
Quailman - 1 (pablito)
Turbovolver - 2 (Sotty7, Stewie)
Sineish - 1 (RangeroftheNorth)

With 12 alive, it is 7 for a lynch

[Sotty7]

Un-FOS: petroleumjelly

. The FOS was a comment on random voting, not suspicious behaviour.

If that's the case why not FOS me? I random voted. As did Jimmy, Sineish, pablito and stewie. Why not FOS all of us? Strange that you picked PJ out of all of those choices to FOS. Was it just because he said that he used a randomizer?

So far Turbo, you've come across as extremely jumpy, to me anyway. You unFOS PJ and then in the very next post vote him. . What's that about?

[cropcircles]

The "CropCircles is paranoid about evil scum mods" vote count!

That's right! Can you blame me?

[Don Gaetano]

Just checking in to say I'm here, sorry for not posting on page 1.

I really don't like the way Turbovolver is acting, but since it can just as easily be explained by playstyle/stupidity, I don't want to see a bandwagon form on him, so I will refrain from voting for anyone at present.

[Turbovolver]

Un-FOS: petroleumjelly

. The FOS was a comment on random voting, not suspicious behaviour.

If that's the case why not FOS me? I random voted. As did Jimmy, Sineish, pablito and stewie. Why not FOS all of us? Strange that you picked PJ out of all of those choices to FOS. Was it just because he said that he used a randomizer?

Please re-read the thread. I've already explained that the FOS wasn't a demonstration of suspicion, and yes it was because he said he used a randomiser.

So far Turbo, you've come across as extremely jumpy, to me anyway. You unFOS PJ and then in the very next post vote him. . What's that about?

Yeah, I Un-FOSd him because it wasn't about suspicion. Then, having a look through the thread, I thought that the post I quoted was more suspicious than anything Stewie had done, so I moved my vote. Unless the town is bandwagoning somebody I think is scum, my vote will always be on the person I find MOST suspicious. And in the early days, that will change, a lot.

[Jimmy the Rez]

Random voting (still) for the last person to confirm (see how it isn't

really

random? I think I even said semi- or mostly random... or something similar), and I'm leavin it there until we can at least

see miali1020 post.

Yup, random votes are fun, pointless, and make for the start of day one. I can't understand why so many people get all excited about them, though.

FOS: cropcircles because I'm not getting why you're jumping on Turbo when both sides of the argument seem to have decent points.

Remind me to run all of my FOS's by you first, so that I can make sure that both sides of an argument don't have valid points ;p

[pablito]

Alrighty, so Quailman doesn't need my vote anymore, and I don't see anything scummy from him - so

Unvote: Quailman

.

And honestly, I think the random voting arguments are just distracting us from some better discussion. But for right now, I can see why the arguments started and what scant clues they are offering.

[cropcircles]

Hmm...does anyone else think that using a Finger of Suspicion for any purpose other then suspicion a little...off?

[Turbovolver]

Hmm...does anyone else think that using a Finger of Suspicion for any purpose other then suspicion a little...off?

FOS: cropcircles

(a

real

one)

What is this? Scum trying to see if they can keep a bandwagon on me, based on shaky evidence? Asking all players whether it's OK for you to put your vote back on doesn't look good.

And now for

why

the evidence is shaky. Look at the original FOS - I don't think anyone reading that gets the impression "votes using random numbers are a scum tell". Stewie had a rather convoluted use of the word random, but I think he realised the FOS wasn't serious when he called it 'random' himself.

In my opinion, it's obviously just early day 1 banter, and to try to make it suspicious is reaching.

[cropcircles]

Err...I suppose that should have ended with a . I was joking.

[Stewie]

I tell him no it's not random (it had a reason)

The point of your FOS, from what I can gather, is to discourage people from random voting. I said it was random because there was no reason to choose one random voter over another. Later, you explained that it was because he specifically said that he used a random number generator. However, what do you think everyone else did? At best they rolled a die and then flipped a coin. Random means random, and that's why I made my clarification. My vote wasn't really random, but "randomish," which is a word I use instead of using "arbirary."

Anyways, it's seven to lynch, yet nobody has three votes or more. Allow me to do the honours:

unovte, vote: Petroleumjelly

because we need to get the game moving somewhere.

[petroleumjelly]

In response to Turbovolver:

In the post that you found where I was "too agreebale" I was responding to the idea that "randomized" voting is weird. I of course was not "hunting scum" at that point, because I was instead defending my actions, and approving of the discussion that it created. I was (and am not) suspicious of those people who said that my randomized vote was weird, so I had no reason to go about pointing fingers on Page 1.

Seems discussion has veered off into reasons behind random voting and FoSing and what those actions could potentially mean, which also does not "hunt scum".

I agree we seem to be moving pretty slowly, so

Vote: Turbovolver

. You seem a little trigger-happy there, and you have pre-empted that sort of behavior by saying that you will "change your vote, a lot" on Day 1, as if you are excusing yourself from future bandwagoning. Not much to go off of, but you may as well address it.

[Turbovolver]

I agree we seem to be moving pretty slowly, so

Vote: Turbovolver

. You seem a little trigger-happy there, and you have pre-empted that sort of behavior by saying that you will "change your vote, a lot" on Day 1, as if you are excusing yourself from future bandwagoning. Not much to go off of, but you may as well address it.

What's there to address? Yes, I have said that my vote will change a lot, at least on day 1. Yes, this could be me pre-empting bandwagoning behaviour? But, who cares? If I go bandwagonning for suspicious reasons, I don't think people are going to look back and say "oh, he said he'll vote lots he must be innocent". Because the thing is, even though my vote changes a lot it is always accompanied with my reasoning on the matter. If my reasoning doesn't ever sound genuine to anybody, THAT'S when people should be voting me.

And petroleumjelly, don't read too much into my vote. I still think you're the most suspicious, and hence you get my vote, but I don't think anybody has shown themselves to be worth a lynch just yet. There's very little to go on so far, and all I can do is be paranoid about the exceptionally agreeable people. In my books that's a scum tell.

*more clarification stuff about random votes*

The fact that they used a random number generator is irrelevant, it's whether they tell us they used it or not. I originally thought that random votes were used to apply a small amount of pressure at random and see how people reacted - and there's no pressure when you tell the person you are voting them solely because they were picked out of a hat. That's what the FOS was about.

Now though, I've been schooled in other ways that random votes can be useful and I'm also beginning to see that even with just random votes there are little inane comments people make (e.g. my FOS) that people jump on and hence start up the day. So no, I'm not really against random votes... I'm getting to understand them better and see their benefits.

[Kenji]

Miali1020 - 1 (Jimmy the Rez)
RangeroftheNorth - 1 (Sineish)
Petroleumjelly - 3 (quailman, Turbovolver, Stewie)
Turbovolver - 2 (Sotty7, petroleumjelly)
Sineish - 1 (RangeroftheNorth)

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch

[Sotty7]

Now though, I've been schooled in other ways that random votes can be useful and I'm also beginning to see that even with just random votes there are little inane comments people make (e.g. my FOS) that people jump on and hence start up the day. So no, I'm not really against random votes... I'm getting to understand them better and see their benefits.

Unvote

With so little to go on day one people do jump all over the smallest thing, it helps get the game going with a bit of discussion and the random vote thing seems to have helped us there. Plus you're right, you have explained your vote on PJ well enough, so I have unvoted you for now.

Anyways, it's seven to lynch, yet nobody has three votes or more. Allow me to do the honours:

unovte, vote: Petroleumjelly

because we need to get the game moving somewhere.

Any real reason to this vote Stewie? Or is it simply as you said, just to get a bandwagon going?

Any chance of a

MOD prod

on Miali1020 he hasn't posted at all yet.

[Kenji]

Consider Miali1020, mod prodded....

[Sotty7]

Thanks!

[Jimmy the Rez]

okay, it's been a while, and I need to post more.

I agree we seem to be moving pretty slowly, so

Vote: Turbovolver

. You seem a little trigger-happy there, and you have pre-empted that sort of behavior by saying that you will "change your vote, a lot" on Day 1, as if you are excusing yourself from future bandwagoning. Not much to go off of, but you may as well address it.

What's there to address? Yes, I have said that my vote will change a lot, at least on day 1.

Is it really needful to say that you're going to change your vote, though? Just the part where you say it makes a pre-emptive excuse for behaviour that really isn't that off base, especially if you're going to handle it in a "state reasons, give insight, vote" kind of manner. If you need to point out so you have something to fall back on later, then yes, I would have to say

that

has some scumminess to it. So, just don't do that, k?

There's very little to go on so far, and all I can do is be paranoid about the exceptionally agreeable people. In my books that's a scum tell.

I agree with this completely

[cropcircles]

Just for the sake of moving us along,

Vote Turbo

again. Too eager to point fingers, over defensive, yada yada yada.

[Turbovolver]

Just for the sake of moving us along,

Vote Turbo

again. Too eager to point fingers, over defensive, yada yada yada.

In my opinion a player is "over defensive" (in a scummy way, at least) when their defenses of their actions start to involve reaching, when they begin defending against things they haven't been accused of yet, or another I recently discovered is when they go on a campaign to defame their attacker(s) in any way possible.

I don't think I've done any of these things... are you really voting me just because I'm a verbose player who is happy to explain all of his actions and voice all of his suspicions?

[cropcircles]

In

my

opinion, over defensive also includes when someone feels the need to respond to not just votes and FOSes, but every mention of their name, and defend it.

I also am not feeling the PJ "case" at all. So I really don't see a better place for my vote.

[Turbovolver]

In

my

opinion, over defensive also includes when someone feels the need to respond to not just votes and FOSes, but every mention of their name, and defend it.

Well, yes. If people are commenting on me, then I think it's pretty much

expected

that I will throw my two cents in.

I would think it scummy if somebody

ignored

every mention of their name, and only responded when they got a vote or an FOS. Are you suggesting that a true pro-town player would ignore disucssion about themselves until a bandwagon started to build, and only comment then?

I really don't agree with your logic here.

I also am not feeling the PJ "case" at all. So I really don't see a better place for my vote.

I quoted a post that I found slightly suspicious, and pointed out why. That was my "case". I even later said that with nothing better to go on I was stuck with being paranoid about agreeable players, and that I didn't feel anybody was worthy of a lynch yet. What I'm saying is, it was never a strong case and I've freely given away that fact... so why do you think your disagreement with

paranoia

is worthy of a vote?

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

The people voting me for the whole "my vote will change a lot" comment I can at least understand, but here it looks like cropcircles was making up his own reason to rejoin my bandwagon. And if you ask me, it doesn't check out.

Vote on cropcircles pending, depending on his response.

[Quailman]

Whew! Ten posts each for Turbovolver and Cropcircles. And Turbovolver just reached three votes. I wonder what will happen if he gets more...

unvote: PetroleumJelly; vote: Turbovolver

[cropcircles]

Man, this really just isn't my day. Third try for posting this.

In

my

opinion, over defensive also includes when someone feels the need to respond to not just votes and FOSes, but every mention of their name, and defend it.

Well, yes. If people are commenting on me, then I think it's pretty much

expected

that I will throw my two cents in.

When people address you, it is. Otherwise, it is not.

Especially

when you're just repeating yourself.

I would think it scummy if somebody

ignored

every mention of their name, and only responded when they got a vote or an FOS.

Yeah, that's not really gonna catch you many scum.

Just because someone says "so-and-so is looking suspicious" we don't need a retort from that player. And not when that retort is just a restatement of the post that made the player suspicious.

Are you suggesting that a true pro-town player would ignore disucssion about themselves until a bandwagon started to build, and only comment then?

See, your misunderstanding what I'm saying. You're not just commenting on the things people say, but you follow up every accusation of yourself with a complete restatement of your defense. That's not needed. It just makes you look over defensive.


See now, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

I really don't agree with your logic here.

I also am not feeling the PJ "case" at all. So I really don't see a better place for my vote.

I quoted a post that I found slightly suspicious, and pointed out why. That was my "case". I even later said that with nothing better to go on I was stuck with being paranoid about agreeable players, and that I didn't feel anybody was worthy of a lynch yet. What I'm saying is, it was never a strong case and I've freely given away that fact...

Everything here is completely useless and pointless. I

can

read. I

saw

what you said. When people write nothing, but do it in a lot of words, it

is

a tell.

...so why do you think your disagreement with

paranoia

is worthy of a vote?

See, I'm not voting you because you attacked PJ. I was saying that the case against you is stronger then the case against PJ, thus you are a better place for my vote.

The people voting me for the whole "my vote will change a lot" comment I can at least understand, but here it looks like cropcircles was making up his own reason to rejoin my bandwagon. And if you ask me, it doesn't check out.

Vote on cropcircles pending, depending on his response.

You're attacking your attacker. By your own definition, you're being over defensive. Real slick.