Mafiascum.net

Didn't he just say that?

Grimmy wrote: because there are so many options to place a random vote, it seems suspicios that people would pile them on to one person so early in the game.

Declaring suspicion of a bandwagon in the random phase is as impotent as declaring suspicion of a single vote in the random phase. What difference does it make whether a bunch of non-serious votes with no explicit justification are placed on various people, or a single person?

Hey, maybe now it's suspicious if one person switches their vote several times in the random phase, or when two people vote for each other in the random phase.

Sorry, I don't buy this. It's a pretty lame argument and I'm suspicious of those making it, for aforementioned reasons.

Spolium wrote:Declaring suspicion of a bandwagon in the random phase is as impotent as declaring suspicion of a single vote in the random phase. What difference does it make whether a bunch of non-serious votes with no explicit justification are placed on various people, or a single person?

Whose to say they weren't / aren't serious?

Spolium wrote:Hey, maybe now it's suspicious if one person switches their vote several times in the random phase, or when two people vote for each other in the random phase.

Yeah... because that's the same thing...

Spolium wrote:Sorry, I don't buy this. It's a pretty lame argument and I'm suspicious of those making it, for aforementioned reasons.

Well good for you. We've established now that we disagree...

Why are we debating this again and letting people get away with lurking?

I still want to hear from him.

Nightfall wrote:Whose to say they weren't / aren't serious?

I've already explained why they were indistinguishable from other jokevotes.

Being unsure about it at the time is one thing, but continuing to push them as suspicious is... well, suspicious.

Nightfall wrote:Yeah... because that's the same thing...

In terms of the kind of picture you're trying to paint of them, yes.

Nightfall wrote:Well good for you. We've established now that we disagree...

I was just making my opinion on the matter clear to all, as opposed to addressing you directly.

Nightfall wrote:Why are we debating this again and letting people get away with lurking?

CHANGE SUBJECT GUYS LURKER HUUUNNNNT

Jebus wrote:Zilla - nice avvy. Also, waiting for your response...

Grimmy wrote:

Alabaska J wrote:

Jebus wrote:Nightfall, why is a 3 man wagon (putting whoever it was at L-4) in the RVS scummy?

to spur some conversations, I shall put my opinion into this question.

Its has always seemed suspicious when a number of votes get tacked on to one person in the RVS, because there are so many options to place a random vote, it seems suspicious that people would pile them on to one person so early in the game.

Grimmy
yes I am insane, thanks for asking. And yes, I would like fries with that!

Why is it suspicious for a random wagon on one person in the RVS?

what made it look suspicious was that one after another, despite the number of other players in this game, the votes piled up on one player.

Ive seen suspicions placed on people who simply put a SECOND vote on someone in the RVS, but we had THREE.

Like I said, I was giving a reason why it would be suspicious. Personally, I dont take ANYTHING in the RVS stage seriously, with the exception being when someone keeps their random vote and decalres it a serious one.

Grimmy

Whoever put suspicion on someone who placed a second vote on someone else in the RVS is too paranoid.

Either way, I feel no point in debating this further :/

Still waiting for Zilla.

Imo, in RVS:
One man wagons: THAT'S NOT A WAGON
Two men wagon: THAT'S NOT A WAGON
Three men wagon: Calm down!
Four men wagon: I smell scum quicklynch here...
Five Men Wagon: Vote: wagoner ur scum.

Spolium wrote:

Nightfall wrote:Why are we debating this again and letting people get away with lurking?

CHANGE SUBJECT GUYS LURKER HUUUNNNNT

IMO, Nightfall is trying to stop a discussion that has very minimal in-game effect. Yes, he changing the subject, but that just happens to be the pro-town thing to do. Stop wasting your time debating a silly point. Honestly, if nobody had suspicions because of a random wagon, most games would never get out of the random vote stage.

I'm surprised Charter flipped town.

I'm debating on whether we should examine his wagon, or examine the people calling to examine his wagon. I'm leaning more toward the latter, I think Charter's lynch was mostly town led and scum are trying to capitalize on that.

If we're going the other route and examining the wagon, I'm suspicious how how Megatheory's vote carried all the way from RVS to lynch, even though his vote wasn't all that random.

whoa
this activity is horrible
I call this: STALLED

that should spur things a bit i think

*groan*
I'm keeping my Vote on ooba for now.

Nightfall wrote:*groan*
I'm keeping my Vote on ooba for now.

I really dislike how you've switched to a lurker lynch all of a sudden.

Ooba is Gamma's replacement.
That's why I am voting him.
I thought Gamma was scum day one,
and I want to hear from his replacement.

Nightfall wrote:Ooba is Gamma's replacement.
That's why I am voting him.
I thought Gamma was scum day one,
and I want to hear from his replacement.

well then i dislike how you ended the argument with spolium. either way you are giving me bad vibes.

Would you like me to continue debating the issue?
I stand by my posts, and I'll continue debating if you'd like but I thought it best that we hear more from other players as Spol and I have been pretty much dominating the thread in the last while.

I don't like how AJ just switched his reasons for voting Nightfall...

I think I may have to read over this game one more time. I also don't like the latest turns discussion has taken.

Alabaska J wrote:

ac1983fan wrote:

Alabaska J wrote:so did you not see his post earlier ac? or were you just trying to pressure him into more analysis?

Again, he had only made one large, non-joke post at the time of my voting him, which was mostly a list of possible role names. So kinda, although I'm willing to go back to voting him if he starts posting non-contribution posts again.
Also, why don't you post some analysis, Alabaska?

speaking of not posting a lot of analysis, you've posted shockingly little yourself. one post on how you thought grimmy was scummy and then you take it back immediately after one post defending himself. grimmy was hardly the biggest offender. if you were gonna go after people for not contributing, we have people who don't even seem to post anymore. i'm finding you fairly hypocritical right now.

Irony. AJ hasn't posted analysis himself, very little at all. Almost all his posts are one-line peanut-gallery comments.



I'd like you to post some analysis' of your own, and perhaps a summary of your stance on players.

I really don't have that much to say at the moment, but I've been reading.

Zilla, what did you think of my analysis of Alabaska?

Zilla wrote:I don't like how AJ just switched his reasons for voting Nightfall...

I think I may have to read over this game one more time. I also don't like the latest turns discussion has taken.

i can't have multiple reasons i dislike the guy?

grrr... my f****ng internet mobile device failed again, so I'm V/la for indefinite time. Sorry.