Huh? I made more than one mistake. I think I was on pretty much every lynch, and we lynched three or four townies; so there's three or four mistakes right there.
In post 41, Fancy-Pants wrote:How do you distinguish pro-town/suspect votes from RVS ones this early in the game? I don't think anyone's vote has been particularly suspicious. Calling votes "opportunistic votes" this early in the game also seems a bit ambitious to me. At the same time, this is a small game, and it only takes 5 to lynch. I don't think 2 votes on someone in RVS is any cause for concern though.
Look at NumberQ's vote. Clearly joking and sarky. RVS.
Look at pieceofpecanpie's vote. It doesn't look like a random vote to me (and it certainly provoked Maestro, see the post after). Pro-town in the way that he wanted to minimise confusion.
Both are fine.
Now look at Fancy-Pant's vote. It is clearly meant to be an RVS vote, but the accusation of misreading is serious. It's an unhealthy mix of serious and random, yet it doesn't seek to get a response from N at all. It isn't pro-town enough for something that's half serious.
Just because it is early days doesn't mean we can't distinguish serious play from RVS.
In post 61, frog wrote:Yes, you did, which is why his vote is half serious. See #58.
I did see #58 - I quoted it. I just don't see the seriousness in FP's vote. But I'm not the one that made the vote, so I'm going to stop talking about it and let FP answer for themselves.
Are you proposing a policy lynch on frog because they had the same avatar as Salamance? I know you were just in the Phineas and Ferb game, in which Sal mislynched in lylo; are you blacklisting him?
How is misreading a serious accusation? Intentionally misreading/misinterpreting I could see, but in this case it was just a silly mistake.
Your distinction of pro-town/scummy and RVS votes seems completely arbitrary. You could argue that other votes are suspect in the exact same way you did to mine. Eg pieceofpecanpie is accusing maestro of trying to cause confusion, numberQ is accusing me of smurfing. Both carry the same level of inherent scumminess as "misreading", which is not a whole lot at all.
@Frog I actually couldn't tell Number was clearly joking until Fancy's answer. Then when I looked back at it it definitely looked so. Anyhow, what makes you compare their three votes only. I mean I know it is somewhat of a follow up from the little discussion between you and N, but what makes you think scum is more likely to be a second vote caster in this RVS to poe the three of them?
@Maestro Do you consider my vote serious or joking? What about Fancy-Pants' vote?
Eh, I consider it not entirely serious. You based it on a joking comment about alts so I certainly hope it isn't.
I think originally Fancy-Pants' vote might've been joking too, but he seems to have stuck with it and I guess it had a mediocre reason for being placed in the first place. I'd say we're out of RVS now so I guess it's not joking anymore.
Neither is mine; frog is scum until otherwise confirmed. Always.
In post 68, Maestro wrote:
I think originally Fancy-Pants' vote might've been joking too, but he seems to have stuck with it and I guess it had a mediocre reason for being placed in the first place. I'd say we're out of RVS now so I guess it's not joking anymore.
Hmm? Nothing's changed about my vote. I'll change my vote when better reasons come along.
Yeah, my vote on Fancy was a complete joke. But if it makes everyone happy:
UNVOTE:
Also I'm not an alt of N or periodNQ or anyone.
--
Anyway, frog is pretty scummy. Like Fancy said, he draws pretty arbitrary lines regarding what is serious and what isn't. Also, how is misreading, especially in this context, scummy at all? And another also, what exactly is so "unhealthy" about mixing seriousness and randomness? People don't always vote 100% randomly in RVS, sometimes they (myself included) like to have some guidance to their pseudo-random vote.
In post 71, numberQ wrote:Yeah, my vote on Fancy was a complete joke. But if it makes everyone happy:
UNVOTE:
Also I'm not an alt of N or periodNQ or anyone.
--
Anyway, frog is pretty scummy. Like Fancy said, he draws pretty arbitrary lines regarding what is serious and what isn't. Also, how is misreading, especially in this context, scummy at all? And another also, what exactly is so "unhealthy" about mixing seriousness and randomness? People don't always vote 100% randomly in RVS, sometimes they (myself included) like to have some guidance to their pseudo-random vote.
VOTE: frog
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most things in mafia pretty arbitrary? As I remarked earlier, Fancy's vote 'brushed me up the wrong way'; it should have been apparent that it was my
opinion
from the start. I had a go at explaining why in #58, but I don't seem to have done a good job.
@ Tochica, I haven't yet seen anything else that warrants a vote. I compared the three votes as I was asked what I thought of the other wagoning players.
You said my vote, which called Fancy an alt, was pure RVS. Fancy voted N because N misinterpreted something. Why did Fancy's vote brush you differently than mine? Is voting for someone for misinterpreting during RVS scummier than voting for someone for being an alt (well, Fancy isn't an alt) during RVS? You also called pecan's vote pro-town... what?? He said names were confusing enough without Maestro mixing them up. What exactly was pro-town about that?
In post 71, numberQ wrote:Yeah, my vote on Fancy was a complete joke. But if it makes everyone happy:
UNVOTE:
Wait a minute...
In post 71, numberQ wrote:People don't always vote 100% randomly in RVS, sometimes they (myself included) like to have some guidance to their pseudo-random vote.
VOTE: frog
So your vote was a completely guided pseudo-random joke?
I like this avatar, though for simplicity's sake I'll change it.
