Open 420: Medical Mafia - That's all, folks!

[Venmar]

And you're getting worked up about this... why??

[Mortontfrh]

@ Venmar why did you put Robo at L-3 in RVS?

Why do you question Venmar putting Robo at L-2 but not Robo putting you at L-2?

[Jackal711]

Holy RVS Batman.

VOTE: mortonfrh

For starting this mess, and starting what amounts to a PL wagon on Rach

[RachMarie]

whoops miscounted the votes Robo is at L-2 and I am at L-3.

@ Mort it was the WAY he did it just sliding on after 2 other votes on Robo. I was questioning to get discussion going.

[Mortontfrh]

whoops miscounted the votes Robo is at L-2 and I am at L-3.

@ Mort it was the WAY he did it just sliding on after 2 other votes on Robo. I was questioning to get discussion going.

Explain to me the difference between Post #9 putting you at L-2 and Post #12 putting Robo at L-2.

[RachMarie]

This early, I am somewhat suspicious of everyone and I certainly can understand if others are suspicious of me and not get my knickers in a twist over it. My focus is getting discussion going and pegging the other players so I can figure out who is scum.

[Mortontfrh]

This early, I am somewhat suspicious of everyone and I certainly can understand if others are suspicious of me and not get my knickers in a twist over it. My focus is getting discussion going and pegging the other players so I can figure out who is scum.

That doesn't answer my question at all. You were given two nearly identical situations. You opted to pursue Venmar's vote over Robo's nearly identical vote - Why?

[RachMarie]

I am not done with Robo yet. his vote on me was very much OMGUS. But I figured I would see what panned out from Venmar first.

[Robocopter87]

That was the mother of all OMGUSs. Don't undershoot my OMGUSness. It was pro.

And you're getting worked up about this... why??

You got a better way to spark discussion?

@ Mort it was the WAY he did it just sliding on after 2 other votes on Robo. I was questioning to get discussion going.

Wow. Rach has got this figured out. Bravo.

[Zachrulez]

Ok so here's the deal. I don't find Venmar's vote all that interesting. He did exactly what I would have done if our positions were reversed and he had voted Robo first. My response to the vote pretty much would have been bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning, even in liking the reasoning I had for voting Robo. People tend to find bandwagoning scummy in RVS so the tendency is not to do it, but then when you avoid bandwagoning you end up in a situation where you can be in RVS for quite some time because no one wants to be that guy that puts a 2nd vote on someone. This is where Robo's actions become interesting because he voted in this manner and then abandoned that to vote for Rach as soon as she threw a vote down on him.

That would be the foundation of my Rach vote at the very beginning of the day btw, just blatant bandwagoning. I find it to be the best way out of RVS cause it's the most likely thing to be reacted to when you're in a complete void of things to discuss.

A few questions for Robo here:

Was your vote for Rach intended to spark discussion? Based on interactions I'm seeing, you are apparently interested in Venmar's reaction but not interested in voting for him over his actions.

So... do you actually find Venmar scummy? I'm seeing you being critical of him, and seeing indications that your vote on Rach was mostly to get things going, so if you find him suspicious and don't have any other underlying reason to vote for Rach, why is your vote still there?

[FuDuzn]

My participation has been minimal here, I will step it up today when I get a chance. Thankfully there is not too much for me to read.

[Robocopter87]

Was your vote for Rach intended to spark discussion?

Good question. Yes.

So... do you actually find Venmar scummy? I'm seeing you being critical of him, and seeing indications that your vote on Rach was mostly to get things going, so if you find him suspicious and don't have any other underlying reason to vote for Rach, why is your vote still there?

Venmar for me is still nullish. His reactions aren't really indicative of alignment because I could see both town and scum doing the same exact thing. It isn't like this is the first game where a bunch of people randomly wagoned in the beginning.

It was however a nice place to start discussion.

On the placing of my vote. I simply forgot to remove it. We are kinda walking out of RVS. Not much has happened and my vote wasn't even close to serious.

I don't really have any other place to put my vote at this moment but I don't think Rach deserves it. Especially now we are getting into some actual discussion.

UNVOTE: Rach

[FuDuzn]

Eh, my vote will stay on Zach for now. It appears that he is attempting to stear conversation in the directions he wants it to go, could be the beginnings of manipulation. I know it isn't much to go on as of now, but just something that sticks out a bit at me in the midst of the robo/rach wagon discussion.

[Venmar]

I don't really have any other place to put my vote at this moment but I don't think Rach deserves it.

- Who does deserve it than?

[Robocopter87]

/facepalm

Did you even read the quote that you quoted?

[Zachrulez]

Holy RVS Batman.

VOTE: mortonfrh

For starting this mess, and starting what amounts to a PL wagon on Rach

Unvote: Vote Jackal711

Is this a serious vote?

Either it is and you're voting someone over their first post of the game and trying to attach serious reasons that it's scummy, which is ridiculous, or you're trying to extend RVS. Neither reason does anything substantial to advance the game toward actually lynching scum.

Eh, my vote will stay on Zach for now. It appears that he is attempting to stear conversation in the directions he wants it to go, could be the beginnings of manipulation. I know it isn't much to go on as of now, but just something that sticks out a bit at me in the midst of the robo/rach wagon discussion.

Your suspicion of me is vague, and you avoided taking a position on robo/rach.

/facepalm

Did you even read the quote that you quoted?

Having an active vote is far more productive than sitting around and not having one generally. If we tend to pressure those who don't really have a position on anything, it pressures them to take one on something, and scum have a harder time faking this.

[FuDuzn]

Zach, I stated my suspicion of you is somewhat vague and minor already. But as I also said it is what stood out the most with the Robo/Rach thing. You are accusing Jackal of extending RVS but I believe you are doing the same thing, since this robo/rach thing seems to be an argument based in RVS voting and just reads like a he said she said pointless argument.

[izakthegoomba]

Votecount 1.02

Robocopter87 (2) - RachMarie, Venmar
RachMarie (1) - Mortontfrh
Time Traveling Scumhunter (1) - FightingShadow
Zachrulez (1) - FuDuzn
Mortontfrh (1) - Jackal711
Jackal711 (1) - Zachrulez
FuDuzn (0) -

none

FightingShadow (0) -

none

Venmar (0) -

none

No Lynch (0) -

none

Not voting (2) - Time Traveling Scumhunter, Robocopter87

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch. The deadline is in (expired on 2012-07-19 04:21:01).

[Zachrulez]

Zach, I stated my suspicion of you is somewhat vague and minor already. But as I also said it is what stood out the most with the Robo/Rach thing. You are accusing Jackal of extending RVS but I believe you are doing the same thing, since this robo/rach thing seems to be an argument based in RVS voting and just reads like a he said she said pointless argument.

Extending RVS means you're not doing anything to advance the game toward serious discussion. My vote on Robo was clearly an attempt to advance the game toward serious discussion. Jackal's vote is either in the RVS vein of reasoning, or his foundation is terrible. Either way it's scummy.

Maybe you don't like where I'm "steering" that discussion or you feel like I'm trying to setup the game state for manipulation. That's one thing, but you can't say my posting since the Robo vote has been in attempting the keep the game in a non discussion state.

[Robocopter87]

I said I didn't really have any other place to put it at the moment. When someone does something scummy and I find a valid reason to vote someone then I will. Otherwise it would be another random vote.

I'll vote when I find something voteworthy.

[Jackal711]

UNVOTE: mortonfrh

That was mostly RVS, as I didn't realize we'd moved past it that fast.

Nobody seriously looks suspicious yet, so I'll hold my vote for now.

[FuDuzn]

No one looks even remotely suspicious to you Jackal? Nothing that would cause you to at least place a tentative on someone?

Serious question, have you read this thread?

[FuDuzn]

*tentative vote

[Robocopter87]

Why did you ask Jackal why no one looked suspicious? Why not me?

[FuDuzn]

Because I know you have been following the thread, but I don't believe Jackal has been.

And when Jackal says no one looks suspicious, it seems fake.......since how would know if people look fake if he hasn't been following the game?