My Milked Eek wrote:
It's L-3...
-
3
Not 1.
Why are you freaking out over a second vote?
Protip; you'll be getting more votes during the course of the game.
I really emphasized the L-3 bit too much, it convoluted what i meant to say. The reason i used the word L-3, was to refute an anticipated argument from Young Eric, that voting for me was the same as any other random toss around vote.
I've admitted to an OMGUS component of my vote, but i did really have a reason:
The point i was trying to make, and it's logic based off the first few pages of a game i had read recently, is that scum try to cause innocents to get lynched without appearing responsible for the lynching. So i thought it was slightly scummy. And the vote itself might not lynch me, but the pressure might make me give a false scum tell (or some other person in the ensuing controversy), and he could leave that vote on me and say little, and it totally doesn't look like he was in charge of the innocent-lynch.
My Milked Eek wrote:
Also, it's quite hypocrite of you to put an L-3 (lol) on UNI during the "random" stage.
As i think Guy0 mentioned, YOUNG ERIC made an unvote -> vote. Like i said, i over-emphasized L-3. That wasn't the point, i was anticipating an argument (mentioned above) which probably never would've come.
My Milked Eek wrote:
Why do you care so much about the random stage? If you had switched your vote to eg me instead of UNI, no one would have known. You make such a formality of it, I fear that you will be using it as an apology-blanket later up in the game.
Prior to this game i was under the impression that the random stage is standard, and important. And to be honest.. i have this thing about cheating at a random generation method. I always decide what each outcome means, and bind myself to the outcome. Hm, actually i guess there's a reason behind that. I'm one of those people who has trouble choosing between two or three that are somewhere near equal. Sometimes i use coins to decide things. I've found if i cheat on my own coin toss, i get stuck in the same indecisive rut i was in (like if the coin says chocolate ice cream, and i disregard it i just wind up stuck between the two again.)
My point is... cheating on the number generator was definitely and totally out of the question. I hope you don't think i'm being overly defensive about the number generator, but i want to hammer it under the ground for good, because i think some of the misunderstanding of it comes from a fundamental difference between your personality and that of mine, not a question of strategic play.
My Milked Eek wrote:
pops wrote:@post 41: we shouldn't move out of the random phase before martin 413 checks in.
Why? To cover your ass?
I don't see why we need a 3 pages + random phase. It's not obligatory to have a random phase. In fact, my first game didn't have one (except for the very first post).
Stop holding on to the random phase, it makes you suspicious imo.
No, not to cover my ***. For a reason i'll explain more fully later on.
In answer to you command, if it makes me seem suspicious i'll drop it.
Unvote
My Milked Eek wrote:
pops wrote:Hey! i still think we should hold the nonrandom voting until after martin34 checks in. YOUNG ERIC's unvote sparked everything kind of early. but can we find out what martin34 or his replacement thinks of everything?
Why should we hold the nonrandom votes? Any logical reason behind it? A replacement can read 3-4 pages and reply afterwards. It's not that hard. In fact waiting now, just stalls the game. Is that what you want? To stall an active game?
Why i think everyone should show up before nonrandom voting:
Whenever someone talks, they increase their chances of giving off tells. Mafia greatly increase their chance of giving off real tells, while townies slightly increase their chances of giving off false tells.
If we start the nonrandom phase
after
everyone gets here, the scums are 2/9. If we get everyone to talk evenly, we have a pretty good chance, say 4/9, of scum tell showing before false scum tell.
But if not everyone participates the odds are worse. What if the absentee is scum? We can't accuse him later of being scum just because he wasn't here. Yet, when we all talk and try to find scum tells, our odds of finding scum has dropped. Only 1/8 people is scum. If i use the same ratio as the former example, that would give us a 1/4 chance of getting scum.
^^^That much is what was behind my actions. Now that i look at it, pretty much totally disregarded the other case, that the absentee isn't scum. That is indeed more likely, and indeed slightly increases our chance of getting scum. Now that i see that... i feel better about not waiting around.
Just to superglue my feet to the soapbox though... in the case that the absentee is not scum, advancing to voting without everyone present is still disadvantageous, because that absentee can't help you find scum.
My Milked Eek wrote:
pops wrote:I still think his original vote was a weee bit scummy, but i find his follow ups towny. I don't think you can vote him yet Barros
Wait, what? "wee bit"? "towny"? "can't vote for him yet"?
Did you find the heat on your scumpartner to be a bit too hot?
His actions weren't protown at all. Unfossing and unvoting after he got some attention. He's afraid to stick his neck out.
I encourage everyone to read this quote of me defending ERIC in context. It's a kneejerked reaction to Barros aggressive vote on ERIC, in a tone that sounds pretty much ready to drop a hammer.
To be honest, I didn't think his follow up was as suspicious as Barros makes out partly because i felt like i made a good argument for why he should take it back. I'm kind of seeing now that no one but me thought i had come up with a jewel of logic, and ERIC's withdrawal is pretty scummy. I alone criticized his vote, and his vote was for me.. a single critic who isn't a neutral party does indeed seem like too little pressure to cause the withdrawal. The post to the effect of "man, finally people are talking now" sees a bit contrived (if i know what that word means.). It's like a reasoning for his withdrawal that should've gone along with the brief post that included his withdrawal. At this point, it looks like distancing for me to vote ERIC, but i feel like i oughtta stand somewhere for now.
Vote: YOUNG ERIC (this post contains an unvote)
Anywhoo, if this ERIC + popsofctown thing catches on, recognize lynching either one of us confirms or denies it. I think ERIC is more suspicious than me, he's slower to justify his actions, quieter, less spineful.
My Milked Eek wrote:
Capricious; any reason why to vote for Barros?
I'd like to hear him say why too.