Sorry, you lost me. (English is my 2nd language, may have something to do with it)
It didn’t go unnoticed, but I didn’t feel it needed a response at the time.
For reference, your Post 938:
I was wondering if anyone would comment on that, actually.
I put it there specifically to see if it would generate a reaction. It happens to have been a true statement: at the time, I did stand a pretty good chance of being able to get through the remainder of the Day without "
needing" to change my vote.
Of course, by pointing that out, I pretty much destroyed any chance of that continuing to be the case, because it was almost certain that someone would comment on it (as you did). I had every intention, even at that time, to move my vote off of **Plumpudding **at some point (assuming that it would remain a on-off), but I didn’t feel like doing it just then.
And you’re right, Scum would *totally *say that.
NETA: “on-off” should be “one-off” in that last parenthetical statement
Any particular reason for that dislike? I mean, I’m not saying that this is some huge masterstroke or anything, but it looks to me like this will do a little bit of harm to Scum, and no harm at all to Townies. So, why not? About the only objection I can see is “if someone doesn’t go along that might be held against them”, but “I don’t like it because someone might not like it” doesn’t go very far.
Hoopy Frood
This is the post that pinged me.
The whole thing about pre-explaining that it’s “only” a prod vote, and that it’s weak. Smacks of trying to excuse the vote away for maybe being wrong.
This isn’t the only post from Hoopy that bugged me, but I can’t find the other or others now. It apparently wasn’t two posts close together like I was remembering.
I completely misunderstood Colby’s post and what he meant by fire. I didn’t realize he was talking about the way Dante was killed. I just thought he was talking about how there would be a lot of killings in the game because of the three teams. I read his statement out of context when someone else quoted him and made an ill informed decision to vote for him. When I defended him, I was still defending him based on a misunderstanding of what he said, and really none of my posts about Colby make any sense anymore.
Again, I wasn’t placing much stock in my day one vote and I thought voting for someone at least would be the best thing I would do to get more information from other players. In return I guess I found out how many people would vote for me because of an ill informed vote. I guess that might be useful information and I hope it helps someone.
I share Planktons’s dislike of mass claims, so I’ll answer for him. Short version is mass claiming is not Mafia. Mass claiming says, “I don’t want to think, I just want the answers given to me.” Mass claiming defeats the purpose of even playing the game.
**Sario **has already summed it up pretty well, I think.
If there’s “no harm”, then why not advocate that every player claim “I am Town” in their first post of every game?
As I said in my earlier post, the implication here seems to be “if you don’t claim Town now, that means you have something to hide. And if you have something to hide, you must be Scum (or malicious Third Party), so we really ought to kill you now”. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable inference.
So the question to you now is this: What do you do with a player who refuses to claim Town?
But surely you could say that of any other technique used in the game? I mean, if a mass claim could completely solve the game, then yeah, that’s a poorly-designed game, and wouldn’t be much fun. But in this case, it’s something that gives a little bit of advantage. You have to put it together with a bunch of other things that also give a little bit of advantage, until eventually, you’ve got enough of an advantage to win. Is there a similar objection to any of those other little bits?
I try to figure out why it is that they’re refusing, just like I’m doing now. And if I think that the reason they’re refusing is that they’re Scum, then I vote for them.
My bold, you thought Colby was talking about what, firepower?
What happened to your support of DiggitCamara’s sentiment that defending other players is scummy? I think you forgot to answer that. He said it as a blanket statement, I assumed you meant it as such, too.
I don’t understand, could you elaborate? Wouldn’t interacting with others be a better way of getting information from other players?
True, but it does mean they’re contributing:p
Only speaking for myself, but you insinuating it would be time to start a lynch-mob, your lackluster defense and “I’m persecuted for a joke” is also part of it.
My bold. Don’t you think all (well, some!) that could be of value further into the game? Also remember, there’s a good chance the rate of death will be fairly high in this game, better to voice your opinions while you have the chance, right? You’re up there right underneath Colby, there’s still time to start contributing instead of just limply defending.
I guess the difference its that in this case, people are being “forced” to give information that they may not want to give. Sure, a Townie saying “I am Town” isn’t really giving away a great secret…but I don’t like the idea of being pressured, however gently, into revealing anything that I might not have wanted to reveal.
I’ll ask the question again: How is this situation different from the Total Lost/**septimus **interaction earlier? Total got a great deal of flack for “forcing” septimus to reveal something he did not want to reveal; isn’t everyone in the game currently being “forced” to do the same?
NOTE: I put the word “forced” in quotes purely for emphasis - nobody has actually been forced to claim anything…
Fair enough.
I tells ya, I gets no respect. You here this Mahaloth? This guy. :mad:
I’m so confident I once fake-claimed cop as town.
Or you know, it might actually be a prod vote to get him to actually answer the questions that people have asked of him rather than ducking it.
I must totally be scummy because on a vote that is extremely unlikely to cause any sort of momentum shift this late in the day so as a result I really have not much to worry about said player getting lynched, flipping town, and leaving me having to explain away why I voted that person, I’m couching my vote just in case.
If this was a vote on someone in the running for lynch, you might have a case. But it wasan’t. It was a one off. One off’s typically are done for one of the following:
- To prod.
- Because you really find the person scummy.
- To avoid a close and/or controversial vote by going somewhere safe.
Let’s see. I claimed I did because of 1. I said I wasn’t doing it because of 2. So if you don’t believe 1, you’re left with 3. Of course, seeing as how I reduced the lynch lead margin in a following vote, I got off a safe play before you even called me out specifically for playing it safe.
Well, Total wanted to know if it in fact was a claim of a power of sorts. Maybe Total disagrees with that, but that would have been the outcome had septimus confirmed.
Having re-read the last 1000+ posts, the best case I see is made in Hooker’s post #536. That plus his subsequent absence throughout the day, brings me this vote:
vote ToeJam
I agree with LightFoot that Colby just seems burned out from too many early game deaths.
Lakai’s jumping in on the bandwagon is scummy, but I’ve been known to do it myself as Town. Most of the arguments to and from Lakai seem centered around confusion, which is standard fare.
and Angel may or may not be Scum, but she said she loves me, so I’m not voting her D1. Maybe D2.
And, I hate this post because it excuses you from responsibility if you’re wrong.
Thanks, Prof. It does smack of a trick.
Your interpretation is a bit harsher than mine. I see half of your point. but i did not read quite what you did into it.
more like a data point from those that deem to participate that may or may not yield fruit later in the game.
if we didn’t see things from different angles we wouldn’t notice the flaws.