Skruffs: 2 (petroleumjelly foobardog)
remussaidow: 1 (Skruffs)
EmpTyger: 1 (Thok)
Thok: 1 (Machiavellian-Mafia)
foobardog: 1 (ubertimmy)
PBuG: 1 (milkman)
VitaminR
It will take 6 votes to lynch!
It's quasi-random, because yes, I had a reason (well, two reasons), but it wasn't a clincher, so I just figured to go with it.Skruffs wrote:foobardog - Why would a vote be quasi-random before I had even said hello in the game??? It's either random or it's with intention at this point in the game.
Oh? Do you disagree with my "analysis"? Do you think I should have just not said anything? Is there a time and a place I should be saving for such discussion?Thok wrote:AlsoFOS PJfor feeling the need to provide an immediate analysis of the King of Mud's death.
Aw, I forgot that one. Though, it neverSkruffs wrote:I'm pretty sure we can post image files, ourselves, right?
I have pictures of myself in action.
No, not that kind of action. This is a comic strip.
Earlier, I wrote:Really, you wouldn't put AniX on that list?petroleumjelly wrote: There's a difference betweenhavingexperience and beingperceivedas having experience - and there's a further difference between being perceived as having experience, and being perceived as being somebody to be 'reckoned with'. People (myself included) tend to categorize other players into groups -if I were a third party looking into this playlist, the people I would be most 'afraid' of would be myself, Thok, and EmpTyger being part of an opposite faction.
petroleumjelly wrote:From the reading of the flavor <snip>,anycharacter or item in this game could be a Monster-scum. As such, I personally doubt role-names are in any way indicative of whether or not somebody is scum.
Thok wrote:For what it's worth, I don't actually think that we'll be able to use names to determine who is scum. This is specifically a Stoofer-mod meta; given his reaction to how Space Monkey turned out (with town relying mostly on cops and flavor issues and generally lurking), I think Stoofer wants us to spend more time hunting for scummy behavior.
:goodposting:foobardog wrote:But yes, I don't think names are going to be the way to go here, especially since we've been told there may be imposters. Someone's name might as well be Horrible Gelatinous Beast, but we just currently know them as the Transmogorfier.
Bah, Freudian slip. Yeah, I meant milkman- intending to follow-up by asking why you weren’t asking about whether ubertimmy’s vote was random.PBuG [36] wrote:You mean milkman? Because his vote didn't appear random when I looked at it.EmpTyger wrote:PBuG:
Why did you ask whether ubertimmy’s initial vote was random?
My point is that you’ve assumed that *anyone* is wanting to put things under Calvin’s bed. This doesn’t seem a reasonable conclusion to be drawn solely from what has been seen. It seems rather that you know something else about the flavor behind the monsters.Skruffs [26] wrote:Other people with access to Calvin's bed:
His mother
His Father
Hobbes
His imaginary friends
Of those four, only his imaginary friends would *Want* to put broccolli under Calvin's bed. So what's your point?
When I looked at the opening posts before my first post I had already noticed the deadline rule there. It was when I looked at the OP again after taking PJ's advice that I noticed the no claiming rule.EmpTyger wrote:M-M:There are *2* new rules: (5) about claims and (16) about deadlines. Why did you only refer to 1 of them?Machiavellian-Mafia [13] wrote:Definitely good advice, I just noticed the new no claiming rule.<snip>
That clears it up for me PJpetroleumjelly wrote:Fie, I can already see whereM-M wrote:Also PJ isn't everyone here pretty experienced except foo?thisis headed - so I will preempt that by saying this is not meant to sound elitist. In any case:
There's a difference betweenhavingexperience and beingperceivedas having experience - and there's a further difference between being perceived as having experience, and being perceived as being somebody to be 'reckoned with'. People (myself included) tend to categorize other players into groups - if I were a third party looking into this playlist, the people I would be most 'afraid' of would be myself, Thok, and EmpTyger being part of an opposite faction.
The fact that none of the three of us died slightly suggests that it may be because one (or more) of that grouping (from my perspective, EmpTyger and/or Thok) are scum, who did not want to dispose of another in that grouptooearly since it would necessarily draw attention to those in that group still alive.
Do you think it's right to let what happened in one game have a large effect on how you play with another person in another game? I personally think it's not because the negative possibilities of that kind of play far outweigh the positives. (e.g. townie wanting to lynch another townie, scum taking advantage of going after townie)Thok wrote:I didn't notice ubertimmy was in the game. unvote, vote ubertimmy as per my comments at the end of Evolution Mafia.
It was a weak vote to begin with. I feel like I had said so in the first post, just not in very many words, and perhaps unclearly. It was a pressure vote for bad reasons. Were this a smaller game, I wouldn't have voted, but with 6 to lynch I thought that it would be a reasonable amount of pressure.VitaminR votes me and wrote:For casting a vote and then weakening it to the point of uselessness.
To be fair, I used flavor speculation to attack him, mainly, that I didn't remember the reference his role name was making. His response was to explain the reference, and then say why his reference was not a likely monster-scum candidate.Machiavellian-Mafia wrote:On another note, I don't think flavor speculation this early in the game will help us at all, so Skruffs why did you use flavor speculation to defend yourself?
On one hand, we know that the baddies are under the bed, so saying why you're not under the bed would make flavor sense. However, with impostors likely, defending yourself as not being under the bed is perhaps not worth the time, since you could just be lying anyway.EmpTyger wrote:My point is that you’ve assumed that *anyone* is wanting to put things under Calvin’s bed. This doesn’t seem a reasonable conclusion to be drawn solely from what has been seen.
Oh, I know you said it in the first post. That doesn't make it any better. I'm voting you for going:foobardog wrote:It was a weak vote to begin with. I feel like I had said so in the first post, just not in very many words, and perhaps unclearly. It was a pressure vote for bad reasons. Were this a smaller game, I wouldn't have voted, but with 6 to lynch I thought that it would be a reasonable amount of pressure.VitaminR votes me and wrote:For casting a vote and then weakening it to the point of uselessness.