Mafiascum.net

yawetag wrote:I don't see how three people voting the same person is "random."

Okay, call it , if that makes more sense.

It amounts to the same thing in practical terms - the description "random" applies to the lack of actual case for the votes and does not imply that all random stage votes will be truely random.

yawetag wrote:Especially when 1) NONE of them even hinted it was, and 2) This was done within a few posts.

What? Empking's reason was "" (which he later clarified to mean he doesn't like the letter 'B'), and Jebus' response to your comment on the two-man bandwagon was "Because vote: Braeden". The former is blatantly not serious and the latter infers a lack of seriousness in presenting the vote itself as the reason for the vote.

Then, of course, we know charter's vote was not made with ill intent.

yawetag wrote:

Spolium in 223 wrote:You were asked a simple yes/no question, sidestepped it a few times and didn't actually get around to answering it until someone voted you.

No. I answered it when my question was answered.

Okay, you're right - I take that back.

However, I still don't like how you refused to answer the question until yours was answered, since this suggests that your answer could have been dependent upon the answer given by one of the bandwagoners.

yawetag wrote:

Spolium in 223 wrote:Except not, because then we'd have some pretty damned obvious scum (although the most likely scenario would be that at least 2-3 voters unvoting before anything could happen).

Let's say there's 3 of them. We vote a couple votes on someone, one of the scum attaches on. We vote another vote, another scum attaches. Then a townie hammers. I hardly see how you can sniff out the scum in that setup.

Even if this was the case, as the bandwagon approached L-1 any townies would have unvoted because their non-serious bandwagon was unjustifiable.

Yeah, like a townie would quickhammer on a 100% unsupported case.

It's entirely unfeasible to say that (a) townies would keep their votes, or (b) scum would risk drawing attention by pushing it as far as L-1 (bear in mind that both (a) and (b) would need to occur for scum to get it to L-1).

Gamma wrote:vote Gamma

AGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

YOUR LYNCH AGAINST CHARTER WAS UNCALLED FOR WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN INFORMATION.

I WILL LYNCH YOU BECAUSE HINDSIGHT DSFAFSDFSS

I see the point Gamma's trying to make, but pre-emptively belittling prospective accusations against him in this aggressive manner really rubs me up the wrong way.

Spolium wrote:

yawetag wrote:I don't see how three people voting the same person is "random."

Okay, call it

jokevoting

, if that makes more sense.

I have to agree with Yawetag here, just as I did earlier, although it may
have started out as , the votes together formed a very
real band wagon that could easily have become our first "major wagon"
for no other reason than a larger than normal number of
were placed on a player.

Spolium wrote: Even if this was the case, as the bandwagon approached L-1 any townies would have unvoted because their non-serious bandwagon was unjustifiable.

The thing with band wagons is that they can get out of hand, and sometimes someone having more votes can give off the impression
of being more scummy. I've been in numerous games where innocent
townies have been lynched on not so serious band wagons. I'm not
sure how experienced all of our players are here, but it is possible that
in a l-1 situation a townie might place a hammer without "much" of a case
simply because everyone else was voting for him/her so they must be
scummy.

Think you can cite one or two games in which this happened?

I've never seen a jokevote bandwagon turn into a proper bandwagon, nevermind a lynch.

When I get a chance I'll look over some past games and see if I can find something.
I'm sure it must have happened in mafia history though.
<For the record I think we should remember though that we aren't certain yet that they were just joke votes>

Grimmy wrote:

Nightfall wrote:

Grimmy wrote: I tried to make a list of what roles could be assigned to certain properties in this game. I would also assume that this could be a breaker in the game if everyone name claimed.

Grimmy, are you proposing we name claim?
I'm getting deja vu here...

Quite the opposite.

I think that by nameclaiming, we will more than likely tip off the scum as to who, if any, our power roles are.

Read discussion pages 4-6, and see why we didn't agree with nameclaiming.
Also, your list was stupid; if someone is a "scummy place", but is town, that would derail a lynch on him.

until I realize why the heck did he selfvote.

pacman281292 wrote:Strong FoS: Gamma until I realize why the heck did he selfvote.

Superficially it appears to be pre-emptive satire of what he expected to be a slew of accusations following his hammer. This hasn't happened though, so either he got what he wanted or he jumped the gun.

Either way, I can see where he's coming from in this respect. What concerns me is his lack of activity since that point, and the possibility of underlying reasons for the move.

fair enough

UnStrongFoS, FoS: Gamma.

yawetag wrote:Why should I answer questions when mine have been ignored?

because there is no reason on god's green earth why you should sink to the level of an anti-town player based on pure spite?

Alabaska J wrote:because there is no reason on god's green earth why you should sink to the level of an anti-town player based on pure spite?

And their actions weren't anti-town?

Two anti-towns don't make a right.

Spolium wrote:Two anti-towns don't make a right.

but three lefts do.

Grimmy

Nightfall wrote:<For the record I think we should remember though that we aren't certain yet that they were just joke votes>

For the record, I think we can be fairly sure that they were all jokevotes - see my observations in #225.

Grimmy wrote:but three lefts do.

I guess Stalin, Chairman Mao and Casto all ended up on the right, for all intents and purposes.

Were you actually making a point here? If so, it escapes me.

Hey guys

EBWOP: As I read can you guys click on my sig and vote for Owen?

Stranger I'm terribly sorry, I just checked the Theme Queue..I'm gonna be up by tomorrow. So I'm gonna have my hands full with 3 games and I just got back in Survivor and my other mish mashs + modding. I can't take on this game as a faver.

Spolium wrote:

Nightfall wrote:<For the record I think we should remember though that we aren't certain yet that they were just joke votes>

For the record, I think we can be fairly sure that they were all jokevotes - see my observations in #225.

Grimmy wrote:but three lefts do.

I guess Stalin, Chairman Mao and Casto all ended up on the right, for all intents and purposes.

Were you actually making a point here? If so, it escapes me.

it was a joke.

Two wrongs dont make a right, but three left turns do!

(picture it, use your hands to point, and you will get the joke)

Grimmy
hates when the joke loses funny by having to be explained

Alabaska J wrote:

Jebus wrote:Post 43 - Random (?) vote on gamma, reason that 'yawetag is obv noobtown'
Post 53 - Defends his vote by saying noobs don't play solely in noob games. This is where 43 starts to look scummy.

what

Jebus please clarify

Don't worry Grimmy, I got it

Alabaska J wrote:

Alabaska J wrote:

Jebus wrote:Post 43 - Random (?) vote on gamma, reason that 'yawetag is obv noobtown'
Post 53 - Defends his vote by saying noobs don't play solely in noob games. This is where 43 starts to look scummy.

what

Jebus please clarify

Clarify what?

Nightfall wrote:Don't worry Grimmy, I got it

Alabaska J wrote:

Alabaska J wrote:

Jebus wrote:Post 43 - Random (?) vote on gamma, reason that 'yawetag is obv noobtown'
Post 53 - Defends his vote by saying noobs don't play solely in noob games. This is where 43 starts to look scummy.

what

Jebus please clarify

Clarify what?

are you Jebus?

:/
No, but I think what he wrote is pretty straight forward.

Oh hi Nightfall, how's the citation hunt coming along?