Price is Right... Mod abandoned

[Kinetic]

/confirm

[Kinetic]

I think that the scummiest person here is myself.

Vote:Kinetic

[Kinetic]

I'm the only person I know is town. I know that a large percentage of the group here (40%) are scum. I also know that there are two groups of 3 that can vote for the other one without worring. They also know they have other friends out there who know themselves.

Thus, the only safe play for me is to vote myself. As I decide I find someone less scummy, I might vote them, but I doubt it.

I do like the random idea a little bit though.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic - see post above yours.

If everyone does what you did, then we would never get anything donw.

I loled at this:

Thus, the only safe play for me is to vote myself. As I decide I find someone less scummy, I might vote them, but I doubt it.

You think that there's a possibility you'll find someone less scummy then yourself?

Antivote: Kinetic

Ahh, Simul-post. I was on campus and checking random posts while I was running around.

That part was meant as a joke :p.

Thus, the only safe play for me is to vote myself.

The only "safe" play? There are more optimal plays than that, you know. If we all self-voted, nobody would be in contestant's row.

Ah yes, but if we all self-voted then there would be no scum on contestant row either! As a "random" vote, voting myself until I find someone I would rather vote for is the best I can do.

I meant the part of my post where I'd vote someone else as part joke/part reality. I'm not going to just 'vote' someone based on a page of play and say "I think you're town". I'm going to wait and analyze, and if I feel someone is town, enough so that I'd trust them to win the game, I might vote for them. But I'm having trouble deciding if I'll ever vote for someone besides myself...

Fos me, Antivote me, whatever. This isn't a game where any of that crap matters. People who are voting so freely are greatly disturbing in my picture. In a normal game, a vote doesn't really mean much until people start dying. In this game, your vote is your CONFIDENCE that someone is town. Complete confidence that they will win the game FOR YOU. Scum are the only ones I feel can make such a decision since they KNOW who is on their team. They can vote whoever now, whoever later, as long as they support their own down the line. They can throw 20 red herrings, but when the chips are down, they'll pick their own.

We are eternally in Day 1. We will NEVER know anyone for scum or town until the end of the game. I'm going to continue to play VERY conservatively and no matter of your "suspicions" are going to change that. If you support me, you can vote for me, but I'm not going to campaign for your vote.

[Kinetic]

@Kin: Um, you know that we can change our votes, right?

Wait, we can, right?

The part I voted could be a joke, so

unantivote: Kinetic

Kin is right that this is a no reveal game.

Of course we can change our votes (I think)... but even so, this is the best way to say how I stand. I vote for myself. That's it. If I feel I trust someone else enough (which, I don't know if I could) I'll change it.

[Kinetic]

Voting for yourself is almost like not voting at all.

And that's not a bad thing, per se.

But voting other people randomly is like random voting in any other game, so there's no big deal about "OHMYGOD HE VOTED PLAYER A! HE'S POSITIVE PLAYER A IS TOWN!"

Almost like not voting at all, but it isn't the same. No, there is a difference. And that difference is very large. You don't see Obama voting for McCain and vice-versa. I'm voting for who I feel is best qualified, and on my limited knowledge right now, that person is me.

But voting other people randomly isn't like random voting in any other game. I'm not exaggerating it to that level, but there is a distinct difference. One that you must be aware of at all times. This isn't a normal game. The normal rules don't apply here. Bandwagoning has a VERY different connotation. And with there being no reveal, we never truly can determine where someone stands and possibly determine their true motives.

We must be careful and observant, and we must be vigilant against falling into the status quo.

[Kinetic]

There is no mechanical difference. Your thoughts behind it make sense, but mechanically, you could be voting for no one - it's not affecting the game.

No. Because I'm one vote closer to being on the stage. Mechanically its quite different...

Just because the mechanics are backwards, doesn't mean that random voting isn't still random voting.

As long as we can retract our votes, random voting is still random voting.

I don't quite see it that way. Random voting in the random stage of Day 1 is sort of just fun and w/e before the game starts and before we gain information. The problem is that this game is eternally Day 1. We will never gain any more information from the mod, so EVERYTHING someone does needs to be under a microscope.

It doesn't matter that we must be careful and observant, because we have to be careful and observant in any game.

And this really bothers me. Don't be careful, because you're normally careful?

[Kinetic]

*shrug* I'm finding it difficult to find someone more town than me. I understand the logic that if everyone votes for themselves the game will go nowhere, but I don't know what to say...

Anyway, I'm reminded of Dan Brown's book Angels and Demons. When they were voting for the new Pope since none of the candidates that were high on the list arrived yet all of the cardinals voted themselves. They called it a stall tactic until something happened that would help firm their decision for who would represent them.

I guess I'm sort of thinking that way. I am stalling until I'm more sure of who I want to vote, but I'm very comfortable with the idea if other people want to vote me, they can. Until I'm ready to vote for someone else, I will keep my vote where it still could do something and that I'm comfortable with. Hell, everyone should vote themselves unless they feel they want someone to represent them. Until then, I represent myself and only myself.

But I'm having trouble deciding if I'll ever vote for someone besides myself...

That's incorrect, Kin.

You will need to vote for someone other than yourself.

I don't need to do anything. I don't need to vote at all.

[Kinetic]

It's hard to say with confidence in a game such as this which strategy is correct. We have no idea how to play this game. We're gonna find out through the process whether it would have been wiser to play like Kinetic or to play like iLord, but I don't think any of us can say definately which one is right. That's why I don't find either of these two outlooks, vote self vs. vote others, particularly scummy or townie. We're gonna have to go on more than that.

True enough I suppose... What part of Jersey?

One thing I thought of doing when I originally started playing this game was act real scummy, and try and fool both mafia parties into making them think I was in the other one and get them to vote for me.

Then I thought of telling someone else to do that and winning points with the town by coming up with said strategy.

Then I sat down and said, well there are millions of holes in both those plans, let's just vote myself and be stubborn about it and see what comes out of it.

lol

[Kinetic]

I'm from Ridgewood, Bergan County....Born and raised Dirty Jerz but I'm in college in Jacksonville, Florida now.

This game reminds me of the original Survivor, when none of them really knew how to play and kind of just cobbled it together. I'm curious how it will play out, I think we'll have to throw out some of our preset mentalities.

Wow, that's fucking crazy. I grew up half my life in Lyndhurst then I moved to Palm Coast FL and now I'm in Orlando at college.

[Kinetic]

I think, at least in the beginning, almost everything is going to be a null tell.

I politely disagree.

Kinetic, the only reason I don't like the way you're approaching this is because it's going to make the game really suck if a lot of people do it.

I can be an eerily patient person. If it takes patience and persistence to win this game, then that's what it takes. I think I can make the best analogy to World of Warcraft if you play the game you'll understand. In Alterac Valley, one of the games Player-vs-Player battlegrounds, it is a large scale battle vs the Alliance and the Horde. Now, most players just want to get the most honor, and to do that, the game has to be quick. Now, as the horde, we are at a disadvantage at a quick game for many reasons, and when we play the quick game mentality we 99% of the time lose. In order for horde to win, we need to use our advantages, which are defensive bottlenecks, in order to defeat the alliance.

However, using these defensive bottlenecks forces the game to last a LOT longer. However, when horde do them correctly, they're more likely to win. Thus there is a tradeoff, you get less honor per minute of playing the game, but you win the game.

I'm ready to use a defensive strategy in this game, because I feel a rush strategy, while it might be faster, will in the end provide the mafia, who have the advantage in a rush strategy mentality, and unfair advantage in the game. On the other hand, a defensive, turtle strategy, will blunt the mafia's advantage and give us a better chance of winning the game.

We have to get through 18 rounds of a majority agreeing on votes, and it's going to be very painful if nobody is willing to trust anybody else. I'm not saying you've got to trust completely that someone else is town, but at least get that "I'm not sure if I'll ever vote for someone else" mentality out....please?

Some people do trust other people. They are mafia. My mentality is going to stay the same, and I'm going to choose when I change it, if I change it, and your pushing me to abandon my philosophy will not bear any fruit. So I'm asking you, please stop trying. It is only going to frustrate you and it will have no effect on me.

This game could take years if enough people played like that.

I can be very patient.

Besides, it's not like voting for someone is going to instantly send them to the top. All it will do is send them to the next round. If it turns out they're scum, they've got plenty of time for their tells to show.

O yea, let's be careless. I love this idea. Or how about we constantly be vigilant and not let any scum get any free rides.

[Kinetic]

Hmm, I just got a fun little idea... It'll have to wait until the game begins though...

[Kinetic]

Its a slightly new strategy on playing, one I think I like.

[Kinetic]

Wow, can we slow the voting down... Jeez someone already has three votes...

Anyway, I'm extremely tired right now, and I needs my sleep, but I have an idea that was brewing in my head and had time to simmer and I think it might help us control the scum. Not positive just yet, but I think I gots it.

But I can't write it all down now. I know I'll forget stuff and.. yea, just tomorrow, don't vote anyone to the stage until I get it out tomorrow.

[Kinetic]

Ok, basically my plan is this. Using Anti-Votes or whatever, everyone choose who you think are the 6 scummiest people. Anyone who gets 7 votes in total, we won't move on to the next round, no matter what.

[Kinetic]

Ninjas

[Kinetic]

No, 7 so they can't advance, since there are 6 scum, a vote of 7 is confirmed that at least one townie is on the Antivote wagon. Each person should have up to 6 votes though. There is math involved. And tacos. I'm not sure which came first, but all I know is that no I have ... ugh ... to goto the bathroom.

[Kinetic]

And then we'll send it to committee where they'll approve whether we should pass the legislation blah blah blah blah. Sure, let's make sure the SIX SCUM also agree with this idea, and if one of them thinks is a bad idea, WE DON'T DO IT.

Antivote:ribwich

Why don't we bog the whole thing down for ten years until everyone decides they'd rather just not argue with you over semantics. 7 is the perfect number, 6 anti-votes per person is fine, the numbers are sound. If you don't like it, then don't participate, but don't say I can't do it because YOU don't approve. Scum.

[Kinetic]

You might want to reread my post. I never said that I don't like it or that I don't want to participate in it. I said quite the opposite actually. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't just expect everyone to act that way without them first agreeing to it. Maybe all 15 is a bit much, but I think it clearly won't work unless 8 people say they're okay with it. Otherwise you have this scenario that could happen.

Person A,B,C,D,E,F, and G all put an antivote on person H
Person H,I,J,K,L,M,N, and O don't care, and vote for H anyway
Person A-G: "What the hell? 6 people anitivoted H!"
Person H-O: "So? We never agreed that that means we can't vote H."

Also, I hate the CPU quota error.

Me too.

And in that very very unlikely event we'll have to conclude that H as well as 5 of the others are scum. Congrats, you found nearly the whole scum group.

Also I didn't misread anything.

Now, I would support this if everyone else does, but I think it should require all 15 people to agree with it and agree on a number.

Translation: I don't support this, but if everyone else does I'll agree to it. But it must be all 14 other people.

If you wanted to convey what you are now trying to say you said, then your message should have said this:

"I support this idea, but I also believe we need a consensus from the rest of the group."

Not at all what you said. I really really don't like your attitude of everyone should follow your rules or they're wrong. You keep trying to push your philosophy on me and I'm not buying it. Stop shoving it down my throat.

[Kinetic]

"I don't support this, but if everyone else does I'll agree to it. But it must be all 14 other people."

That's not at all what I was saying. First off, that's not my attitude towards playstyle. If I don't support something, I don't care if everyone else does.

... but that's going to have to change if any progress is going to be made.

Hammer

That post to me looks like there's a very good chance he plans on maintaining that state all game.

Hammer

I think, at least in the beginning, almost everything is going to be a null tell.

Kinetic, the only reason I don't like the way you're approaching this is because it's going to make the game really suck if a lot of people do it.

...I'm not saying you've got to trust completely that someone else is town, but at least get that "I'm not sure if I'll ever vote for someone else" mentality out....please?

Hammer Hammer

Although from his last post it seems like Kinetic is more willing to cooperate and vote for other people when given more information, I will say that if anyone else takes on the approach Kinetic originally had they will not receive any votes from me.

Hammer Hammer

You keep hammering away here, yet you don't care? You're the only one who keeps taking it to this extreme. Other people have not liked my idea, and for the most part have kept to themselves. Yet you continually berate my idea, then claim not to. That's why I'm annoyed at you. That's why I think you're scummy. That's why I'm anti-voting you and not anyone else who didn't agree with me. Don't agree with me, that's fine. Don't shove it down my throat over and over and over and over and then claim you didn't.

I'm not going to agree to something just because everyone else does. That's how bad bandwagons get started.

I never said to. You're the one trying to buck me to go with the crowd, not the other way around.

Second, what I was actually saying would be closer to "I agree to this, but I think everyone else should too before we actually implement it." Now like I said earlier, I've changed my opinion to only 8 people needing to agree to it for it to work, but the general idea is still there.

That might be what you meant, but it isn't what you said. Either way, I'll drop it.

I really really don't like your attitude of everyone should follow your rules or they're wrong. You keep trying to push your philosophy on me and I'm not buying it. Stop shoving it down my throat.

And I really really don't like your attitude of everyone should follow your rules or they're scum. I'm not trying to push my philosophy on you. I've already said that you can play this game however the hell you feel like. I'm just stating that I disagree with you.

You're more than disagreeing with me. You're actively campaigning that my ideas are not townie behavior. Despite what you say otherwise, your conduct says that outright. Instead of giving me a chance to figure out exactly what works and what doesn't (because in a game like this, I feel like experimenting with different play styles because I don't know what the strongest way to play in a game like this), you constantly say I shouldn't and roadblock any ideas I've had.

And like I said before, other people have not agreed with me, that's great, you've taken in to the next level, that's why I'm annoyed at you and think you're acting scummy.

[Kinetic]

I'm glad I provoked such interesting reactions.

I kind of feel like that the anti-votes are anti-town. It seems like it would be much easier to get 6 mafia and 1 town on a person than 7 town on a person.

And that would be a bad thing?

[Kinetic]

No, 7 so they can't advance, since there are 6 scum, a vote of 7 is confirmed that at least one townie is on the Antivote wagon. Each person should have up to 6 votes though. There is math involved. And tacos. I'm not sure which came first, but all I know is that no I have ... ugh ... to goto the bathroom.

So what if there's at least one townie?

If we followed your logic, we'd lynch at 4 in a Mini...

Actually you're missing the whole point of the 6 antivotes. Its not to rule out scummy people, but to catch scum and force everyone to make a lot of connections that would not otherwise be seen in this game. We can't be sure who scum are, but we can use a lot more information to see where connections lie. Especially if those people are actively campaigning against each other.

For instance, if you suddenly looked at the antivotes and Ribwich and I we anti voting the same 5 out of 6 people...

[Kinetic]

I'm glad I provoked such interesting reactions.

I kind of feel like that the anti-votes are anti-town. It seems like it would be much easier to get 6 mafia and 1 town on a person than 7 town on a person.

And that would be a bad thing?

Antivote: Kinetic

You just admitted that your own system would be a good way for scum to get themselves through the game, and then implied that it wouldn't be a bad thing.

No, I just admitted that it would be a great way to catch scum. For someone crying that I'm twisting your words around, you sure are quite adept at it yourself.

[Kinetic]

Antivote Count!

Max (1): Empking
Empking (3): iLord, ribwich, Max
Stark (1): Populartajo
Qwints (3): ribwich, iLord, strangercoug
ribwich (1): Kinetic
Kinetic (2): iLord, ribwich
Strangercoug (1): Max

----------------------------------------------

I'm glad I provoked such interesting reactions.

I kind of feel like that the anti-votes are anti-town. It seems like it would be much easier to get 6 mafia and 1 town on a person than 7 town on a person.

That's horrible logic - antivotes are the exact same thing as votes in a normal game.

Actually you're missing the whole point of the 6 antivotes. Its not to rule out scummy people, but to catch scum and force everyone to make a lot of connections that would not otherwise be seen in this game. We can't be sure who scum are, but we can use a lot more information to see where connections lie. Especially if those people are actively campaigning against each other.

For instance, if you suddenly looked at the antivotes and Ribwich and I we anti voting the same 5 out of 6 people...

So what would be the pitfall of a majority, as opposed to just 6?

I really don't understand why Kin is being so illogical...

What? What 6 are YOU talking about?

[Kinetic]

What? What 6 are YOU talking about?

The 6 antivotes needed to stop a payer from advancing.

You mean 7?

[Kinetic]

You mean 7?

Yes, my mistake, I mean 7.

For some reason I thought it was 6, but my point stands.

7 is one more than the total scum, but one less than majority, but the reason for 6 votes and 7 stopping someone from moving on is because of the following equation:

15 players x 6 antivotes = 90 votes total.

90/7 = 12.85

It was the closest I could come to 12 that felt simple enough. Thus, if everyone uses their anti-votes to the fullest extant there will be only 3 people who move on.

Stop calling me illogical. My logic fits, even if you don't realize it.

[Kinetic]

7 is one more than the total scum, but one less than majority, but the reason for 6 votes and 7 stopping someone from moving on is because of the following equation:

15 players x 6 antivotes = 90 votes total.

90/7 = 12.85

It was the closest I could come to 12 that felt simple enough. Thus, if everyone uses their anti-votes to the fullest extant there will be only 3 people who move on.

Stop calling me illogical. My logic fits, even if you don't realize it.

I must confess that I'm completely at lost to the method behind your madness - I don't really get what you're saying.

Or why your method is superior to a simple majority, the way most Mafia games are goverened.

Its simple really. Since there are 6 mafia, the number of antivotes to stop someone from moving on must be greater than that. Additionally we want to have a number at the end which will allow 3 people to move on.

If you insist on 8 antivotes stopping someone, then you would have to give everyone 7 antivotes. But with 7 antivotes a piece, 13 people can be complete antivoted, even if it requires 8 votes:

15x8 = 105
105/8 = 13.125

With 6 antivotes and 8 to stop them, then you have

15x6 = 90
90/8 = 11.2

Thus, my method works at both giving us the correct number of people to move on and giving us the most information, without it being too easy for scum to corrupt.

[Kinetic]

Anti-votes are obviously not the same thing as votes. They don't stop someone from voting and you don't learn the alignment of someone who is "lynched."

And? What's your point?

And what I mean by that is: We already knew that, you're saying something we all already knew, but you're obviously trying to say something else besides what you're actually saying, and I'd like to know what your underlying meaning is.

[Kinetic]

-.-

But the math is perfect. What is more logical than math! You can't call me illogical because you can't understand it. I've laid it out. Its only multiplication and division. Its not even calculus or matrix algebra. Come on people!

Seriously, is it that hard to understand...

[Kinetic]

A few questions (Forgive me if they seem obvious, but I'm pretty confused).

Why do we want 3 players to move on?

I'm looking toward The Big Wheel, which seems the best choke point for this game. After the three are on TBW, we can then decide which among those three is the least scummy and send him to the Showcase Showdown.

Then the game transitions into the second half, and we need three more to move on to TBW. We choose three more, then we choose the best from them to go to the SS.

Trying to explain how to choose with Math at the TBW for the SS is, frankly, out of my league. But I'm trying to get the best candidates so that whomever we choose from those three will be the best choice and that we'll have a lot of information from them.

Why is everyone going to use all of their antivotes? I'm thinking that players will advance as soon as they garder enough votes - not everyone will have to use all of their antivotes.

The math needs to be prepared for all out comes, every extreme, and work all the time or it will not work any of the time. So I prepared for if everyone used it to the fullest extent.

That being said, I don't think everyone will, and we'll have to choose between four or five different people, which is fine. We have the first part, the Contestant's Row, where there will be a total of nine different people (4 original, 3 replaced for first BW, 2 more replaced for second BW), So we'll have plenty of time to discuss.

My intent was to hope everyone would use this method to its strongest conclusion, but I was prepared if some people didn't, and the math works either way. It just provides more information the more people participate.

Also, I do want to note, that this math is only good for the first half of the game. I'll need to adjust everything for the second half of the game so everyone can still participate and we get the right number of anti-votes.

Yeah, I'm still trying to get it, but you've got a good point. Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean we should discount it (I don't believe you had explained your reasoning before - I had thought it was something along the lines of "7 is easier to get than 8" ). We're suppose to work on understanding it.

No, this is mostly my own fault. I had the math done pre-game, but I didn't want to post it until the game started. Then I had exams so I sort of tossed out the final outcome without explaining it fully. Then I got angry when no one understood it, and whole mess of crap.

So I apologize for that, and I'll try and answer any questions to help everyone understand.

Who are these 3 people you're referring to? There's going to be 9 people that move on. Also, assuming I understand your math correctly, this only works if two things happen:

1. Everybody lays down 6 antivotes
2. Nobody receives more than 7 antivotes

And I highly doubt that both of those conditions will happen.

Like I said before, if the math breaks down anywhere, even at the extremes, then its useless and shouldn't be used. I needed to prepare for every possibility. We could very well state as soon as someone reaches seven anti-votes, we lock that person and everyone who voted for them until the second half of the game. That really doesn't sound like it would work in my opinion, but I figure I would toss the possibility out there if anyone wants to look into the idea.

Don't think of this system as a catch-all end-all though, but more of a tool. The best thing this can do is help us notice links among the players. I feel this is the best chance we have to notice scum. I encourage everyone to use the system to is fullest extant, and I hope others will join me in encouraging participation from everyone.

[Kinetic]

I won't formally use an FoS. I will simply state if I find somebody scummy. Sorry if it inconveniances anybody but I must do what I must do to keep from getting confused and backwards.

Why not? Can you understand why using FOSes or Antivotes helps the town?

[Kinetic]

FOSes and Antivotes help the town by alerting fellow townies to those who one thinks is scummy. Simply stating somebody is scummy does the same thing. Let's not get in a big debate about this please, it's simply a technical thing and there's no need to get off track from scumhunting

Stop trying to throw the debate off track and down play it. This is an issue, and I'd like it if you would stop trying to just avoid it. I want to deal with it now, so that we don't have to deal with it later.

Now, you admit FOSes/Antivotes help town. That's good, but it isn't exactly the question I meant to ask. What I meant in my original question is this:

Based on the math that I provided, using FOSes and Antivotes as a gauge to help judge scummy players, can you understand why it would help town to participate, and hurt town to not participate?

[Kinetic]

*rolls eyes*

[Kinetic]

hi, forgot about this game

vote zoneace

Who would like an alliance?

Vote: Shadowlurker

It's out of him and Strangercoug atm. I liked SC's 222, but SL is blatantly protown.

BM

Really? I'd love for you to explain why he is blatantly pro-town...

[Kinetic]

FOSes and Antivotes help the town by alerting fellow townies to those who one thinks is scummy. Simply stating somebody is scummy does the same thing. Let's not get in a big debate about this please, it's simply a technical thing and there's no need to get off track from scumhunting

Stop trying to throw the debate off track and down play it. This is an issue, and I'd like it if you would stop trying to just avoid it. I want to deal with it now, so that we don't have to deal with it later.

Now, you admit FOSes/Antivotes help town. That's good, but it isn't exactly the question I meant to ask. What I meant in my original question is this:

Based on the math that I provided, using FOSes and Antivotes as a gauge to help judge scummy players, can you understand why it would help town to participate, and hurt town to not participate?

Kinnie is just bummed that I'm not conforming to his little plot to make himself look pro-town.....smart move if your scum, trying to make yourself into some sort of leader for the town, that's a sure way to get votes. Sucks for you I'm not gonna play along. No antivotes for me. They're silly.

Kinnie? That's... new...

I don't know what plot you're refering to. Antivote me, fos me, whatever. If 7 people think that the idea I generated is scummy, you have your play to stop me. Hell, it would be ironic if the very thing I helped create is what ultimately stops me personally from moving on.

Big deal.

If you haven't noticed I'm almost positive that my "participation" as you and BM have so blatantly pointed out, is being viewed as scummy. Big deal. I don't care.

My intention is to try and give the town AS A WHOLE the ability to win. That means less me, and more we. If you haven't read the rules, no matter what team I'm on, I don't have to be voted for and ascended to win.

As for your conforming or not conforming, I'm asking you a simple question. One you can't seem to answer. Just answer it.

Do you think the method, as a whole, is a bad town play or a good town play. That's all I want to know. Stop dodging the question.

[Kinetic]

wow Kinetic....
Over-defensive much?? 0.o

BM

Over-Defensive? Is that all you got?

-.-

Let's be honest BM. You've played with me in games before. This is how I always am. I want to address every single point that is made against me, until I'm satisfied. Is that over defensive? What is defensive? How can you be over defensive? Its a very vague concept already, and even then... Its like calling something nice, or different. They're the words you use when you don't have anything to add to a situation and are just throwing labels on something.

You're really good at throwing labels on things BM. Maybe you should stop labeling everything you see and start discussing based on the arguments at hand, without trying to overly generalize something.

Either way, the post wasn't directed at you. But I supposed I already know your answer to the question I'm asking Ross. You're all on board with Antivotes or Foses or whatever, and that makes me all giddy inside [/sarcasm]. That's great.

But the way you're jumping into this game so quickly, don't you think you're making yourself a shining example of all the things you've found scummy in other people so far?

Curious, isn't it?

[Kinetic]

wow Kinetic....
Over-defensive much?? 0.o

BM

*rolls eyes* You're hopeless, aren't you.

[Kinetic]

Lol, now you've calmed down...

I am calling you over-defensive, because after i made 1 negative comment about you, you have promptly decided that everything i say about you will be equally negative, and thus you will OMGUS me at every turn.

It's callled OVER defensive, because you are defending yourself to an unnecessary extent. You just look like a paranoid scumbag. You're tying yourself up in knots over something that doesnt warrant it, and making yourself look...how did Ilord put it? Irrational.

You're like the dumbass who points a gun in everyone's face in order to prove his innocence. It's completely unneeded, and will only result in you being strung up in the end.

BM

What? That is a really big misrepresentation of what is going on...

I mean, while I disagree with some of your points, really the only thing I had issue with when you came in the game was how you got so quickly to SL without, really, any participation from him. You explained yourself, and again, while I don't agree, I understood how you could come to that conclusion.

Your first sentence makes no sense because I wasn't even having a conversation with you when you posted the first time... How can you justify calling me over-defensive because of my reaction to you calling me over-defensive. That doesn't work. You don't bait a reaction and then use that reaction to justify your initial bait.

And the personal attacks. Really? Listen, be civil. I've blown up at people on this board for things just like that, I'm not sure, but I bet you were in those games too, and I really don't want to get into a flame war, unless that is your intention.

[Kinetic]

Lol, now you've calmed down...

I am calling you over-defensive, because after i made 1 negative comment about you, you have promptly decided that everything i say about you will be equally negative, and thus you will OMGUS me at every turn.

It's callled OVER defensive, because you are defending yourself to an unnecessary extent. You just look like a paranoid scumbag. You're tying yourself up in knots over something that doesnt warrant it, and making yourself look...how did Ilord put it? Irrational.

You're like the dumbass who points a gun in everyone's face in order to prove his innocence. It's completely unneeded, and will only result in you being strung up in the end.

BM

What? That is a really big misrepresentation of what is going on...

I mean, while I disagree with some of your points, really the only thing I had issue with when you came in the game was how you got so quickly to SL without, really, any participation from him. You explained yourself, and again, while I don't agree, I understood how you could come to that conclusion.

Your first sentence makes no sense because I wasn't even having a conversation with you when you posted the first time... How can you justify calling me over-defensive because of my reaction to you calling me over-defensive. That doesn't work. You don't bait a reaction and then use that reaction to justify your initial bait.

And the personal attacks. Really? Listen, be civil. I've blown up at people on this board for things just like that, I'm not sure, but I bet you were in those games too, and I really don't want to get into a flame war, unless that is your intention.

After i originally posted my anti-vote against you, you jumped on me. I dont really think there's anything else to be gained by discussing this. You don't want an argument, neither do i. Needless to say, my anti-vote stands, but moreso for your desperation to appease me, now.

BM

Of course. By jumping you, you must mean asking you to explain a very vague move on your part, for which, after you explained yourself, I dropped. But please, continue to believe that's OMGUS. You really don't know the meaning of that concept. You did exactly the same thing in Freaktown when I questioned you. Since you were voting me in that game (and subsequently anti-voting me in this one) all my questions MUST be OMGUS. They couldn't possibly be anything else, like, I don't know, fair questions asking you to explain something vague you stated. Couldn't be that. [/sarcasm]

And plus, I could care less about your anti-vote. Desperation? Appease you? You're delusional if you think that's what I'm doing.

[Kinetic]

Alliances seem like an interesting way for mafia players to work publicly with each other without giving away that they are mafia. If they have a public reason for their cooperation, it deflects questions of why there is that cooperation.

[Kinetic]

Alliances seem like an interesting way for mafia players to work publicly with each other without giving away that they are mafia. If they have a public reason for their cooperation, it deflects questions of why there is that cooperation.

True, but i think it is pretty obvious that we'll be watching any interaction-regardless of whether it is under the ruse of an alliance.

BM

True enough. It just occurred to me so I figured I'd throw it out there so I wasn't the only one paying closer attention and not just letting something like that pass.

[Kinetic]

That's actually funny DGB, because I thought of a good way to change this game to make it a little more revealing. You could have a smaller group of people (say 12, or 10) and smaller scum groups (in 10, make it 2 scum groups of 2), and then when you vote to the Guessing games part, where you go after the first voting ends, it is revealed if you're scum or town. The first four are revealed after all four are chosen, and then each next one is revealed as they move on. But after that voting stage, the rest of the game is like actual little games and logic puzzles for those voted ahead.

Just a random thought...

[Kinetic]

Yes, it is. You're saying that Shadow is prob town because why would he do obvious scum plays (lurking and asking for alliance) as scum ? And you're saying that some players are likely scum because they're posting too much to look town. Something like and inverted WIFOM.
If thats your opinion, then /facepalm.

Lol, yeh, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. In this game, we start with SCUM and TOWN. The object of the game is to look TOWN. Therefore SCUM will need to make an effort to look TOWN, whereas TOWN are already TOWN. Furthermore, with more townies than there are scum, there is a greater impetus on each individual scumbag to look town than there is for each individual townie.

Unless Max explains why Shadow is prob town for his relation to a mishmash game, there's no reason to think that Shadow is more town than any other player that looks more town than him.

Lol, you've missed the point completely. THIS IS NOT A MAFIA GAME. Stop trying to make it into one. Shadowlurker looks town, because he is clearly not trying to look town. It's logical in this game to assume that those just acting normally are more likely to be town than those who make an effort to seem like they are participating and contributing. It's not WIFOM, because it's pretty apparent that Shadowlurker isnt deliberately not acting overly protown, in an attempt to conquer a town who can't comprehend that this game is completely different to anything before on MS! *sigh*

BM

BM, I'd like you to consider this:

One member of the scum group comes up with a plan. He will act completely scummy, come up with a plan for scum to be able to coordinate during the day that will be viewed as something a scum wouldn't do, and virtually lurk the entire game...

And then his partner will bring lots of chaos, constantly trying to tell the town not to look at this as a scum tell, but as a town tell, constantly try and trick the town into disbelieving everything they hold as true in a mafia game, and basically throw the whole game on its ear.

I'm sorry, the more you defend SL, and the more you push all your little schemes, the more I think that either one or the both of you are scum.

Anti-Vote: BM, Shadowlurker

[Kinetic]

Kinetic

IF

anyone had taken up the offer it would be suspicious.

BM hasn't? That's a great way to have deniability, never actually 'accept' the the offer, but both act as if it was accepted. BM's going so far as to defend SL and his play.

[Kinetic]

posting here to avoid prod. I'm still here, but vaguely disinterested in the game. I'll try to catch up and post something later.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic, what's your take on iLord vs. ribwich?

Having read absolutely none of it...

I still feel weird about ribwich, and I'm pretty sure he's either scum or town. I've narrowed it down to those two.

As for iLord, I thought he was odd coming out so much like he did, and I did note it before BM pushed his idea, but as I had thought about doing something similar and even other ideas, I wasn't sure how far the WiFoM would go.

Either way, I didn't have a firm grasp on either, but I'd believe rib was scum before iLord, but I wouldn't be surprised if both were either.

[Kinetic]

I am beginning to think that the first three should just be chosen at randomly at this point. At the very least it will narrow the discussion...

[Kinetic]

Actually, maybe... oooo I got an idea I got an idea!!!

[Kinetic]

Ok, this is the idea. We choose three people at random, and from those three people we choose who should move on. We do this until four people move on, and after that we'll have gone through twelve people in the game in total!

Then each time we have to move someone one from the audience we'll choose three more people and vote between them.

[Kinetic]

Actually, maybe... oooo I got an idea I got an idea!!!

An idea you want to tell the rest of the town?

Good job waiting 10 seconds.

[Kinetic]

Good job waiting 10 seconds.

Sorry. I didn't know what type of idea it was, or if you wanted to share it to the town.

Ok, this is the idea. We choose three people at random, and from those three people we choose who should move on. We do this until four people move on, and after that we'll have gone through twelve people in the game in total!

Then each time we have to move someone one from the audience we'll choose three more people and vote between them.

Is this just to move the game along?

Because I'm not seeing the benefits of this over deciding one at a time.

Yes, it is to move the game along. This is taking forever and more than half the town (including myself) is losing interest in the game. This is an attempt to push the game forward a bit and we will talk about nearly everyone still.

[Kinetic]

Yes, it is to move the game along. This is taking forever and more than half the town (including myself) is losing interest in the game. This is an attempt to push the game forward a bit and we will talk about nearly everyone still.

Yeah, the town's losing interest, despite the "patience that certain members are suppose to have.

Why 3?

I'm thinking 4 or 5. Not too many that it stalls the game, but we reduce randomness.

O stop being a nitpicking sod. Congrats, you win the douche bag award for your first inane comment in this post.

For the second, the reason for 3 is because after those three are done we eliminated the two who aren't picked until we go through the list of everyone, which should take 5 moves before we have to reshuffle everyone remaining up. 4 or 5 will be still too many and will eliminate everyone before we even have the first 4 players.

[Kinetic]

Antivote Count!

BattleMage (5): Populartajo, ribwich, DrippingGoofball, qwints, Kinetic

Empking (4): ribwich, Max, strangercoug, qwints

ribwich (3): Kinetic, BattleMag, iLord

Qwints (2): ribwich, BattleMage
ShadowLurker (2): ribwich, Kinetic
Strangercoug (2): Max, Empking
RossWilliam (2): Empking, iLord

Kinetic (1): BattleMage
iLord (1): BattleMage
Max (1): Empking

I agree with Kin's idea....I feel like this game is drying up and if a scum slips into the first tier it's not gonna cripple us immensly.

That's not what we're saying.

Antivote: RossWilliams

NICE JOB iLORD! Kill all discussion because the first person who supports the idea you just immediately anti-vote. We obviously see you have association problems.

You're such a good townie.[/sarcasm]

[Kinetic]

O stop being a nitpicking sod. Congrats, you win the douche bag award for your first inane comment in this post.

For the second, the reason for 3 is because after those three are done we eliminated the two who aren't picked until we go through the list of everyone, which should take 5 moves before we have to reshuffle everyone remaining up. 4 or 5 will be still too many and will eliminate everyone before we even have the first 4 players.

I'm just demonstrating how ridiculous your patience argument was.

Why can't we reshuffle after we've elected three players to advance?

Because then that's just being random for random sakes. Which do you want, discussing everyone and picking the best or just randomly choosing who moves on?

And I know what you were doing, you were being a jerk and bringing up irrelevant information to try and call me scummy without saying so. It had absolutely no bearing on the proposal at hand and it was a cheap shot.

[Kinetic]

It's not relevant

Then drop it and stop taking cheap shots.

Does being patient mean waiting forever? When would YOU think I've waiting long enough? Stop being a jerk.

[Kinetic]

Then drop it and stop taking cheap shots.

Does being patient mean waiting forever? When would YOU think I've waiting long enough? Stop being a jerk.

There should be a question mark there...

There not cheap shots - like ribwich said, you said that you could wait for years.

Could. Didn't mean I would. Also look at the context I said that originally. Ribwich was getting on my nerves and wouldn't drop it, ironically, like you are now. I mainly said that to push his buttons.

Either way, I was willing to be patient until a plan that was effective and useful was developed. I thought I had it originally, but that, while a good idea, is clunky and not really efficient. This way is a lot simpler, and frankly, very elegant. All it does is help fix the bottleneck that we're currently experiencing, nothing more.

[Kinetic]

Could. Didn't mean I would. Also look at the context I said that originally. Ribwich was getting on my nerves and wouldn't drop it, ironically, like you are now. I mainly said that to push his buttons.

Either way, I was willing to be patient until a plan that was effective and useful was developed. I thought I had it originally, but that, while a good idea, is clunky and not really efficient. This way is a lot simpler, and frankly, very elegant. All it does is help fix the bottleneck that we're currently experiencing, nothing more.

So you backed up your self-vote with lies just to annoy another player?

I do agree with your plan, just mystified at your reasoning behind the descrepancy between your previous statement and the current benefit of this plan to you.

Lies!? Good fucking god, you just don't quit.

[Kinetic]

Lies!? Good fucking god, you just don't quit.

How ironic is it that your "patience" argument used to get on ribwich's nerves is now getting on your nerves.

But I'm getting the feeling that you understand the reasoning behind my attack. Although the "patience" thing was clearly antitown, I don't believe it indictive of scum.

Hahahaha

[Kinetic]

And, Touche.

[Kinetic]

You should have seen my face when I realized what you were doing. I was like...

"He can't be this completely stupid... its like he's doing it on purpose...

...


...


That bastard."

[Kinetic]

Kinetic, I'm a little unclear about how part of this system works. It looked perfect to me at first, but I was in a rush and thought we had 12 people playing instead of 15.

So for the first four people that advance, we split everyone into groups of three and pick among them. I'll use letters to designate each person.

1. A B C - A advances
2. D E F - D advances
3. G H I - G advances
4. J K L - J advances

M N and O still haven't had the opportunity to advance. Are we choosing among them next, or just picking a random group of 3? And then what happens after that?

Yes, but remember we don't choose just 4 for that first round, its like 7 or 8, I can't remember. After we move through the whole town, THEN we shuffle and redraw, repeat until we're done.

[Kinetic]

Okay. I just wanted to make sure that's how it is. If I did the math right, it does give some players a few more chances, but I would be fine with it since chance would be unbiased on who those players are.

I also would suggest we have a "none of the above" option if we think all 3 players are scum. If that gets majority, we just move on to the next group of 3.

That's not a bad idea. I support it, however we should be careful to watch for a spiral effect. (i.e. If one group gets thrown out, those three don't just try and throw everyone else out.)

[Kinetic]

Since this idea is getting a very positive reaction so far from everyone, I thought I'd begin the random draw real fast

1. Empking
2. ZONEACE
3. iLord
4. DrippingGoofball
5. ShadowLurker
6. Battle Mage
7. populartajo
8. Kinetic
9. DragonsofSummer
10. RossWilliam
11. StrangerCoug
12. qwintz
13. mikeburnfire
14. Ribwich
15. Max

Original Roll String: 1d15

1 15-Sided Dice: (3) = 3

Original Roll String: 1d14

1 14-Sided Dice: (8) = 8

Original Roll String: 1d13

1 13-Sided Dice: (8) = 8

Original Roll String: 1d12

1 12-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

Original Roll String: 1d11

1 11-Sided Dice: (8) = 8

Original Roll String: 1d10

1 10-Sided Dice: (7) = 7

Original Roll String: 1d9

1 9-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

Original Roll String: 1d8

1 8-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

Original Roll String: 1d7

1 7-Sided Dice: (6) = 6

Original Roll String: 1d6

1 6-Sided Dice: (5) = 5

Original Roll String: 1d5

1 5-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

Original Roll String: 1d4

1 4-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

Original Roll String: 1d3

1 3-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

Original Roll String: 1d2

1 2-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

[Kinetic]

Ok, here are the groups:

First Group:
Kinetic (rofl)
RossWilliam
Populartajo

Second Group:
StrangerCoug
DragonsofSummer
mikeburnfire

Third Group:
DrippingGoofball
Ribwich
Battle Mage

Fourth Group:
ShadowLurker
Zoneace
qwintz

Fifth Group
Empking
iLord
Max

Someone wanna double check that I did that right?

[Kinetic]

Just redid it and I confirm Ribwich's list

[Kinetic]

I haven't voted yet because of what happened last time I voted myself. I wanted some discussion about me before I said anything so that it wasn't, you know, effected by that. Odd way to think about it, but yea.

Vote:Kinetic

So far in the other groups I like:
StrangerCoug
ShadowLurker

I prefer SL, but I don't like the idea of SL and BM both moving on right now. If I vote SL, I will vote against BM and vice-versa. I would like one of the two to move on though. At this time I feel better about BM though, so I'm going to counter the most votes and

Pseudo-Vote: SC

DrippingGoofball
ribwich
DragonsofSummer

I really don't like anyone in this group right now... If I HAD to choose, I think I'd go with Ribwich honestly. He's been around the longest. I'll have to read everyone in this group again before I make a decision.

Pseudo-Vote: Abstain

Battle Mage
ZONEACE

At this point I prefer BM. If SL is voted through in the second group though I'm going to support Zoneace though.

Pseudo-Vote: BM

Empking (1): Empking
iLord (6): iLord, StrangerCoug, populartajo, ribwich, Qwints, DrippingGoofball
Max (2): Max, Battle Mage

I feel the same way about this group as group three. If I had to choose now, I think I'd go iLord, but I want to read them all again before I do so.

Pseudo-Vote: Abstain

[Kinetic]

Er, I meant, "I am taking ZONEACE'S political views into consideration in my selection."

I'm not too thrilled with Kinetic's self-vote and the entire contents of 511. Everything in it seems off and un-Kinetic-like, even.

What? This is a whole different monster guys, not like a normal mafia game.

Let me see if I can try and reconcile this game and my other games. I'm always a very careful player.

Either way, I really don't have a choice in the first group, since I'm in it. I thought my intent for the other groups would help the people making decisions about me.

Yes, he's normally a selfless player, and never normally supports self voting.

In this circumstance I would not allow players from self voting, also Kinetic, we aren't completely voting yet so you've only pseudo voted yourself.

Think about it kinetic, once we go down to 5 we vote 1 of those completely then reallocate groups, until we have 4 in COD

What are you talking about? This isn't a normal mafia game. Effectively the mafia and town are almost switched, and seeing changes in play between players meta could have wildly different reasons. If this was a normal mafia game, you might have a point, but this isn't.

Hell look at the very beginning of THIS game.... Self-voting was all I was willing to do. With the current situation self-voting is a completely valid option. The other twelve players have to choose between the people in group 3.

And I don't think you understand what is going on Max. The first group is up for true votes, then when we pick someone from there for CoD, we move on to the second group. After we do all the groups then we shuffle and re deal. After the first five groups we'll have 5 people in the Come on Down portion of the game.

[Kinetic]

Yea, but Britain was settled by the Romans, and Rome was settled and influenced by the Greeks, and we all originally came from Africa or Asia.

People who were born after the revolution claiming credit for it or claiming injury for something suffered years before their grandparents were even born are beyond the most ignorant, and frankly, should be taken behind the shed and shot.

[Kinetic]

Hey I voted Kinetic!!! How come my vote wasn't counted???

It was, you're up there twice. lol

[Kinetic]

BM, would you rather have a lurker player you feel is town or an active player you feel is town advance?

I would rather have the active player - I would have loads of content to be able to verify my view, but with the lurker, I would have only a little information for which to draw my conclusion.

Note, this doesn't have anything to do with the current group - I get the feeling you don't think either SC or MBF is town.

an active protown player would obviously be better, because theoretically, they'd have a better chance of progressing to the later stages. But this is irrelevant in a game where inactivity is a

null

tell.

BM

Fixed.

[Kinetic]

ITT, BM call democrats ignorant. Therefore, Bush is the Einstein of our time.
Obvscum.

No name dropping please.
I refer specifically to those who succumbed to Obama's campaign this time around. I dislike the fact that the election was reduced to a battle between 'The Black Guy' and 'The White Guy'. Racial issues aren't going to be solved by electing Obama-they will just be brought to the forefront of publicity, and perhaps even become worse. Equally, i dont feel that racism should be as pivotal a question as the economy in the current climate, and from what i am aware, McCain's economic plans were far more potent than his counterpart's.

BM

Umm. what!?

If I remember correctly you're from Britain, not America? Right? If so than your ignorance is understandable. For that case I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Please don't bring issues you obviously have no idea about into this game. Thank you.

[Kinetic]

No, I didn't intend to start a debate, and I'm not going to continue.

Nor am I going to go for BM's bait now.

I'm satisfied that he doesn't know what he's talking about and its not my job to teach him. If he wants to learn more about his ignorance either he can ask me out of game and I'll be happy to talk to him about it or he can do some research of his own.

[Kinetic]

Vote:No Vote

I vote we skip the second group and move onto the third group.

[Kinetic]

I didn't like SC for his comment.

Kinetic, wouldn't skipping this group defy the purpose of your plan? That's why I found someone to vote - I suggest that you choose one as well, even if it's because you think that one is slightly scummier than the other.

Do you think all three are scum?

Nah, we can skip one group and still be pretty much fine as fr as the groups are concerned.

Plus, skipping one group actually works out fine, since we need only 4 for the beginning of the game and we have 5 groups.

I don't think all three in the group are scum, but I don't know which ones are town.

[Kinetic]

I still say skip it entirely and reshuffle when we're done. I don't agree with going back to the group.

Vote:Ribwich

[Kinetic]

So far 5 people have expressed interest in skipping them entirely. I'm sure there are 3 other people ho feel the same.

Fair? Maybe not to them... But in the end only one person will matter and if none of the three of them have a shot at being that one person why are we wasting time with them?

It would be more fair to us if they were around more and gave us a reason to choose one of them. Because they aren't, we are skipping them.

[Kinetic]

Vote: DGB

I'm greatly regretting voting Kinetic through at this point...

BM

Why? Did Kinetic do something recently to make himself look scummy?

umm...yeh.

Care to share what it is?

I lead the move to skip the group his scumbuddy was in.

[Kinetic]

Vote: DGB

I'm greatly regretting voting Kinetic through at this point...

BM

Why? Did Kinetic do something recently to make himself look scummy?

umm...yeh.

Care to share what it is?

Asking to skip SL's group, when the group concept was his, seems rather odd. Then voting for you, is equally nonsensical.

He's not filling me with any sort of confidence in his ability here.

BM

I gave my reasons for wanting to skip SL's group. A third of the town has already agreed with me on this point.

As for my voting ribwich, you have this very very odd notion, that I've noticed in MANY games where if someone doesn't agree with you they = scum.

Like I said before, Agreeing or Not agreeing with BM != scum.

Obviously I'd be town if I voted for SL and DGB in your world BM. But let me ask you this: In every game you've thought I was scum (which, ironically is every game we've played in together), how many times was I scum?

I'll let you look it up before I tell you the answer.

[Kinetic]

If you dont agree with me, why not explain your view. I'm lost as to why you would vote Ribwich...

I... did. I explained exactly what I don't agree with and why I wanted to skip the second group. I've been very clear there.

And don't confuse the issue by bringing two separate arguments and trying to combine them.

As for ribwich, that is another story, and I have my reasons. At this time though I'm not really up to explaining them all.

Obviously I'd be town if I voted for SL and DGB in your world BM. But let me ask you this: In every game you've thought I was scum (which, ironically is every game we've played in together), how many times was I scum?

I can only recall playing 1 or possibly 2 other games with you. In 1 you were a neutral survivor, and in the other i'm not sure. But we dont have an extensive list of shared games...

BM

Really? Seeing as I've never been a neutral survivor in any game I've played in, that would be very difficult.

Freaktown:
I was town (Psychiatrist with Emperor Ability)
You were town

You thought I was scum. I ended up winning that game for town virtually single handed. Your welcome.

I thought for some reason you were also in Mafia 68 and Mafia 64 when I wrote the last post, but when I double checked that wasn't so. I replaced you in Mafia 64 and you weren't in Mafia 68. Either way I was town in both. Ironically the only game I've been scum in so far was the first non-newbie game I played on this site, and you weren't in that.

*Shrug*

[Kinetic]

As for ribwich, that is another story, and I have my reasons. At this time though I'm not really up to explaining them all.

Why not?

[Kinetic]

[Kinetic]

Well I'll say this much. I'm never going to vote for someone who I don't think has a very good chance in my opinion of being town. There are just other reasons to my thinking that are influencing me toward rib rather than DoS or DGB at this moment in time.

[Kinetic]

I'm sorry I haven't dedicated a lot of time to playing this, and I must admit that I'm kind of out of the loop in this game right now. Trying to pick out someone of the uninformed majority is a lot different from trying to pick someone out of the informed minority.

Unvote: StrangerCoug

and I don't really want to vote for the other two people in my group right now.

We skipped your group actually.

[Kinetic]

I almost never agree with BM but ribwich is like one of the top people for being scum; how on Earth could anyone vote him?
This game is not vote the people who are typing the most words, it's vote the people who are town.

Two possibilities.

Either ribwich is town, and the SCUM knows this, and they're pretending to not find him scummy to get later town cred,

or

ribwich is scum, in which case I can't possibly imagine the scum having the gall to vote FOR each other, and thus ribwich's supporters are townies with defective scumdars.

o.O False Dilemma much?

BTW, the scum voting townie ribwich argument is flawed.

We will never know if someone is town or scum, at any point, until the game is over. Thus, why would scum purposely go "against the flow" as you say, in order to "reap the benefits" when ribwich is "confirmed town" unless somehow ribwich will be revealed?

I'm sorry, but your entire argument, in this case, is ludicrous. If this was a normal game your argument might hold water, but you fell into the game trap again and your entire case is full of gaping holes because of it.

[Kinetic]

I can't be voted on for one...

[Kinetic]

A lot of the fallacies in DGB's logic actually make her look more town to me. Particularly how she seemed unaware that scum would only know two of their scummates. Everyone should know that's how the game works, but scum definately would. However, there is obvious WIFOM in that. This is my first game with her though so I'm unaware of her playstyle, would it be likely for DGB to fake ignorance for the sake of looking pro-town?

The mistakes, maybe, but the fallicies, not so much, I get the opposite reaction with something like that.

I've recently finished a game with DGB as scum, so I'm going to have to compare some of her play here with there and see if anything jives.

I'm still undecided on her overall.

[Kinetic]

WTF? Why does DGB and ribwich have more votes than Kinetic, Ilord or me?

scummy scummy scummy post

screams of scum being contributive and wondering why it isn't getting them votes

also shows them not paying attention to the game at all

How old are you? Nine?!
Let me catch up with this game. I sincerely dont like it and has the potential of being treated like traitor, but Ill give it a try.

Despite the way he put it, I agree with the sentiment. Don't ignore it and try to pass it off.

[Kinetic]

Somebody take DrippingGoofball out to the street and shoot her. Kinetic already said in #703 why the scum defending ribwich-town argument is flawed.

LOL, comment added to my WIKI page.

My meta on Kinetic is that he has played scum on a number of occasions, and when he plays scum, he is not trustworthy at all. Just sayin'

I've played scum twice. Once was a newbie game where I was purposely acting extremely odd as an IC scum to try and over play myself and help the newbies. The other time was my very first game on the site where the entirety of my play was "KILL GUARDIAN NOW!" So, yea, lol.

My town play has evolved so fast because I've been playing nothing but vanilla town (with a few exceptions) since then.

[Kinetic]

Just so you guys know, I may be a little LA. See my sig.

[Kinetic]

Vote:DGB

[Kinetic]

Fourth Group:
Battle Mage
ZONEACE
quintz

Vote:Zoneace

[Kinetic]

For the sake of expediency:

unvote, vote: Battle Mage

, holding my nose with a clothespin.

I voted you for sakes of expediency because I kinda still thought you might be town.

I don't feel the same about BM. I won't change to him.

[Kinetic]

The main issue with the game is it ALWAYS needs 8 votes to move on...

Its exhausting.

[Kinetic]

We need to agree a total of 17 times with 8 people... jeebus...

That's it. I say we /random/ and just go for broke on one person. End this game as a win though pure random chance.

[Kinetic]

Lets just forcibly go to end game and vote for someone. If you're town, vote me, town will win, we'll end the game and yay.

[Kinetic]

Its a game? OOO I got an idea!!!

Hey does anyone in here want to replace into my WoT Mafia. If you do I'll vote for you!

[Kinetic]

Town as well. Betting DGB and BM are scum and ribwich is town.

[Kinetic]

Two scum groups DGB, BM might be scum.

So ribwich was on your scum team then?

[Kinetic]

Not ribwich... qwints was on the team. And who else? Aye, I think BM. Yes, BM after all. I think he replaced a lapsed buddy.

...

So far I'm 2-0, could be 3-0 if ribwich isn't scum, is what you're saying DGB, right?