Mafiascum.net

you didn't do that--- you didn't unvote to free up your vote to place elsewhere. you just unvoted to get off the wagon.

you say you are just 'interpreting my actions'. but you are interpreting them wrongly, and i have already told you you are interpreting them wrongly.

i did not just 'unvote to get off the wagon'. i unvoted so that i could free my vote to place it somewhere else, and to make it obvious i no longer supported a pretentious wagon. the issue is that i did not immediately follow my unvote tags with vote tags, which is stupid.

↑ Quilford wrote:

you didn't do that--- you didn't unvote to free up your vote to place elsewhere. you just unvoted to get off the wagon.

you say you are just 'interpreting my actions'. but you are interpreting them wrongly, and i have already told you you are interpreting them wrongly.

i did not just 'unvote to get off the wagon'. i unvoted so that i could free my vote to place it somewhere else, and to make it obvious i no longer supported a pretentious wagon. the issue is that i did not immediately follow my unvote tags with vote tags, which is stupid.

How on earth does it "free" your vote? You can move your vote at any time. It's no more difficult to go "Unvote: X, Vote: Y" than it is to go "Vote: Y".

↑ Quilford wrote:i unvoted so that i could free my vote to place it somewhere else,

exactly!


EXACTLY


BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T PLACE IT ANYWHERE ELSE

↑ vollkan wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:vollkan: i didn't want a three player hydra in the game. that changed because they started being town and i had to consider whether i wanted no three player hydra more than i wanted to not lynch town

and wanting to not lynch town won

Quilford+3

The wagon was early game fluff/content-generating-RVS and in no way likely to lead to a lynch. So, you didn't need to balance those factors at all - the risk of lynching town simply didn't arise.

yes it did? the guy was at 8 votes at the peak of his wagon. that's a lot for a wagon that i started based purely on the fact that i didn't want a three headed hydra. try again please.

Quilford wrote:
hey vollkan, why did you choose to respond to what you chose to respond to in your first post this game?

I responded to those posts that I thought actually had game relevance.

↑ vollkan wrote:

↑ Om of the Nom wrote:

↑ DeltaWave wrote:

↑ Om of the Nom wrote:DGB attacked Gammagooey.

Gammagooey activates his trap card.

DGB's move is next.

This battle is intense.

this post hnnnggggggg

VOTE: Om

Where in the rules does it specify I have to have good humour?

Here:

Mod wrote: remember, it's a game - keep it classy

oh, the relevance! everyone was just dying to know where in the rules it specified om had to have good humour. good job, you.

↑ vollkan wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:vollkan: i didn't want a three player hydra in the game. that changed because they started being town and i had to consider whether i wanted no three player hydra more than i wanted to not lynch town

and wanting to not lynch town won

Quilford+3

The wagon was early game fluff/content-generating-RVS and in no way likely to lead to a lynch. So, you didn't need to balance those factors at all - the risk of lynching town simply didn't arise.

yes it did? the guy was at 8 votes at the peak of his wagon. that's a lot for a wagon that i started based purely on the fact that i didn't want a three headed hydra. try again please.

Quilford wrote:
hey vollkan, why did you choose to respond to what you chose to respond to in your first post this game?

I responded to those posts that I thought actually had game relevance.

↑ vollkan wrote:

↑ Om of the Nom wrote:

↑ DeltaWave wrote:

↑ Om of the Nom wrote:DGB attacked Gammagooey.

Gammagooey activates his trap card.

DGB's move is next.

This battle is intense.

this post hnnnggggggg

VOTE: Om

Where in the rules does it specify I have to have good humour?

Here:

Mod wrote: remember, it's a game - keep it classy

oh, the relevance! everyone was just dying to know where in the rules it specified om had to have good humour. good job, you.

↑ kuribo wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:i unvoted so that i could free my vote to place it somewhere else,

exactly!


EXACTLY


BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T PLACE IT ANYWHERE ELSE

See: my previous post. The more fundamental point is that the very idea that he needed to unvote to "free" your vote is pure BS.

Quilford wrote:
yes it did? the guy was at 8 votes at the peak of his wagon. that's a lot for a wagon that i started based purely on the fact that i didn't want a three headed hydra. try again please.

So he was at L-5. That hardly warrants "better get off this wagon" jitters, especially when the votes were clearly non-serious.

Quilford wrote:
oh, the relevance! everyone was just dying to know where in the rules it specified om had to have good humour. good job, you.

Because clearly I wasn't making a joke.

EBWOP:
"the very idea that he needed to unvote to "free" your vote" should be

"the very idea that he needed to unvote to "free" his vote"

↑ kuribo wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:i unvoted so that i could free my vote to place it somewhere else,

exactly!


EXACTLY


BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T PLACE IT ANYWHERE ELSE

i'm getting round to doing that, though. it's like people who have not yet finished typing their next vote after unvoting have not yet placed it anywhere.

moreover, i keep saying i unvoted in part

↑ Quilford wrote:to make it obvious i no longer supported a pretentious wagon.

please stop ignoring that.

not to mention, quilford, you say you hopped off the wagon because you no longer supported it. fine, whatever, but you didn't explain WHY you no longer supported it

↑ vollkan wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:

you didn't do that--- you didn't unvote to free up your vote to place elsewhere. you just unvoted to get off the wagon.

you say you are just 'interpreting my actions'. but you are interpreting them wrongly, and i have already told you you are interpreting them wrongly.

i did not just 'unvote to get off the wagon'. i unvoted so that i could free my vote to place it somewhere else, and to make it obvious i no longer supported a pretentious wagon. the issue is that i did not immediately follow my unvote tags with vote tags, which is stupid.

How on earth does it "free" your vote? You can move your vote at any time. It's no more difficult to go "Unvote: X, Vote: Y" than it is to go "Vote: Y".

are you going to be absurdly technical about this? i only have one vote. therefore, i need to unvote to replace it. even by typing 'vote: y' i am still unvoting.

↑ kuribo wrote:not to mention, quilford, you say you hopped off the wagon because you no longer supported it. fine, whatever, but you didn't explain WHY you no longer supported it

because

Quilford wrote:they started being town and i had to consider whether i wanted no three player hydra more than i wanted to not lynch town

and wanting to not lynch town won

↑ Quilford wrote:

↑ vollkan wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:

you didn't do that--- you didn't unvote to free up your vote to place elsewhere. you just unvoted to get off the wagon.

you say you are just 'interpreting my actions'. but you are interpreting them wrongly, and i have already told you you are interpreting them wrongly.

i did not just 'unvote to get off the wagon'. i unvoted so that i could free my vote to place it somewhere else, and to make it obvious i no longer supported a pretentious wagon. the issue is that i did not immediately follow my unvote tags with vote tags, which is stupid.

How on earth does it "free" your vote? You can move your vote at any time. It's no more difficult to go "Unvote: X, Vote: Y" than it is to go "Vote: Y".

are you going to be absurdly technical about this? i only have one vote. therefore, i need to unvote to replace it. even by typing 'vote: y' i am still unvoting.

How is this being technical?

You said that one of your motivations for unvoting was to "free" your vote.

That HAS TO imply that voting somehow restricts your ability to change your vote.

The fact is, voting doesn't do that. Because, at ANY time, you can just unvote, vote somebody else.

So, the idea that you would ever need to "free" your vote by unvoting just makes no sense.

↑ Quilford wrote:are you going to be absurdly technical about this? i only have one vote. therefore, i need to unvote to replace it. even by typing 'vote: y' i am still unvoting.

my point is, what harm was your vote doing on pretentious if you wanted to replace it? if you no longer supported the wagon, why didn't you explain your reason for that at the time? don't you think the town should know why you felt pretentious was town?

kuribo wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:are you going to be absurdly technical about this? i only have one vote. therefore, i need to unvote to replace it. even by typing 'vote: y' i am still unvoting.

my point is, what harm was your vote doing on pretentious if you wanted to replace it? if you no longer supported the wagon, why didn't you explain your reason for that at the time? don't you think the town should know why you felt pretentious was town?

sure, but unexplained votes and unvotes are common. the town should know why i felt pretentious was town but in my opinion the reasons weren't compelling enough to be explained.

(it was their drench read in post 223, fwiw)

↑ Quilford wrote:

kuribo wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:are you going to be absurdly technical about this? i only have one vote. therefore, i need to unvote to replace it. even by typing 'vote: y' i am still unvoting.

my point is, what harm was your vote doing on pretentious if you wanted to replace it? if you no longer supported the wagon, why didn't you explain your reason for that at the time? don't you think the town should know why you felt pretentious was town?

sure, but unexplained votes and unvotes are common. the town should know why i felt pretentious was town but in my opinion the reasons weren't compelling enough to be explained.

Why did the drench read make you think they were town?

↑ vollkan wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:

↑ vollkan wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:

you didn't do that--- you didn't unvote to free up your vote to place elsewhere. you just unvoted to get off the wagon.

you say you are just 'interpreting my actions'. but you are interpreting them wrongly, and i have already told you you are interpreting them wrongly.

i did not just 'unvote to get off the wagon'. i unvoted so that i could free my vote to place it somewhere else, and to make it obvious i no longer supported a pretentious wagon. the issue is that i did not immediately follow my unvote tags with vote tags, which is stupid.

How on earth does it "free" your vote? You can move your vote at any time. It's no more difficult to go "Unvote: X, Vote: Y" than it is to go "Vote: Y".

are you going to be absurdly technical about this? i only have one vote. therefore, i need to unvote to replace it. even by typing 'vote: y' i am still unvoting.

How is this being technical?

You said that one of your motivations for unvoting was to "free" your vote.

That HAS TO imply that voting somehow restricts your ability to change your vote.

The fact is, voting doesn't do that. Because, at ANY time, you can just unvote, vote somebody else.

this is what i am in the process of doing?

vollkan wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:

kuribo wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:are you going to be absurdly technical about this? i only have one vote. therefore, i need to unvote to replace it. even by typing 'vote: y' i am still unvoting.

my point is, what harm was your vote doing on pretentious if you wanted to replace it? if you no longer supported the wagon, why didn't you explain your reason for that at the time? don't you think the town should know why you felt pretentious was town?

sure, but unexplained votes and unvotes are common. the town should know why i felt pretentious was town but in my opinion the reasons weren't compelling enough to be explained.

Why did the drench read make you think they were town?

because it was a good point expressed with townie conviction

if you like the drench read so much, does that mean you think Drench is scum?

yep

to answer your utterly predictable next question: i did not vote drench in the same post that i unvoted because i was, like i have said, compiling a reads list that would determine whether i had a stronger scum read than drench

vollkan wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:

kuribo wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:are you going to be absurdly technical about this? i only have one vote. therefore, i need to unvote to replace it. even by typing 'vote: y' i am still unvoting.

my point is, what harm was your vote doing on pretentious if you wanted to replace it? if you no longer supported the wagon, why didn't you explain your reason for that at the time? don't you think the town should know why you felt pretentious was town?

sure, but unexplained votes and unvotes are common. the town should know why i felt pretentious was town but in my opinion the reasons weren't compelling enough to be explained.

Why did the drench read make you think they were town?

because it was a good point expressed with townie conviction

What is "townie conviction"?

to answer your utterly predictable next question: i did not vote drench in the same post that i unvoted because i was, like i have said, compiling a reads list that would determine whether i had a stronger scum read than drench

Okay, this makes sense now.

The "freeing" point is still false, since you could still have unvoted, but I hadn't connected it to you actually saying you were compiling a list, so it's false but now a non-issue for me.

↑ Quilford wrote:

↑ vollkan wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:vollkan: i didn't want a three player hydra in the game. that changed because they started being town and i had to consider whether i wanted no three player hydra more than i wanted to not lynch town

and wanting to not lynch town won

Quilford+3

The wagon was early game fluff/content-generating-RVS and in no way likely to lead to a lynch. So, you didn't need to balance those factors at all - the risk of lynching town simply didn't arise.

yes it did? the guy was at 8 votes at the peak of his wagon. that's a lot for a wagon that i started based purely on the fact that i didn't want a three headed hydra. try again please.

↑ vollkan wrote:

Quilford wrote:yes it did? the guy was at 8 votes at the peak of his wagon. that's a lot for a wagon that i started based purely on the fact that i didn't want a three headed hydra. try again please.

So he was at L-5. That hardly warrants "better get off this wagon" jitters, especially when the votes were clearly non-serious.

maybe i am more prone to the jitters than you

↑ vollkan wrote:

vollkan wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:

kuribo wrote:

↑ Quilford wrote:are you going to be absurdly technical about this? i only have one vote. therefore, i need to unvote to replace it. even by typing 'vote: y' i am still unvoting.

my point is, what harm was your vote doing on pretentious if you wanted to replace it? if you no longer supported the wagon, why didn't you explain your reason for that at the time? don't you think the town should know why you felt pretentious was town?

sure, but unexplained votes and unvotes are common. the town should know why i felt pretentious was town but in my opinion the reasons weren't compelling enough to be explained.

Why did the drench read make you think they were town?

because it was a good point expressed with townie conviction

What is "townie conviction"?

a tone of conviction that comes off as very sincere and therefore probably comes from town

VOTE: Drench
sorry babe :'( xx

what i got out of the past two pages:

no read on vollkan or kuribo

vague wonder what vollkan looks like