[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
Really? That was random? Because it reads like an OMGUS vote to me…
[/QUOTE]
I agree, and so does Menocchio’s vote for fluiddruid.
[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
This is the kind of “follower” reasoning that I mentioned in an earlier post that I don’t like. Don’t do what the rest of the town thinks is “productive.” Vote for who you think is scummy, and give reasons why you think so. You followed this quote up by changing your vote to MadtheSwine, saying he was “primary.” What does that mean? I think you need to explain that vote.
On an unrelated note, zuma has checked in with RL excuses for his absence. Nothing much to say about it, except that I have played with zuma before and he’s probably not bullshitting. Also, he said he would ask to be subbed out if he felt unable to play, so I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt:
Unvote zuma
Also, Sitnam has appeared and checked in, and there appear to have been communication issues there. I expect his/her contribution will begin now.
So who does that leave for lurkers? Anyone? I just went through and did a “substantive post count,” i.e. I counted everyone’s posts and weeded out what I thought was fluff/non-game-related. (Obviously, this is somewhat subjective, but I tried to be generous with what I considered game-related). Here’s my count:
- Blaster Master (14)
- bufftabby (2)
- IceCreamMan (8)
- zuma (0)
- pedescribe (8)
- WF Tomba (2)
- Koldanar (10)
- MindWanderer (2)
- Queen of Town (3)
- MadTheSwine (1)
- Nanook of the North Shore (1)
- ShadowFacts (4 - including this one)
- Menocchio (3)
- peekercpa (12)
- Sitnam (0)
- fluiddruid (3)
So, besides telling me that I need to participate more, it shows that a few people are dominating the conversation so far. Time for the rest to step up, myself included. With that in mind, and keeping with my “vote for lurkers” plan:
**Vote Nanook of the North Shore **
[/QUOTE]
What I meant was that I thought MTS voting on a fuck up that I made was more scummy than Tomba’s quote that I originally ascribed to ICM. I still don’t like Tomba’s statement, however. That’s why I did what I did (said what I said).
If I can possibly be more flippin’ bad at this stuff just keep asking questions and I’ll keep digging.
Ok. I didn’t realize that I need to remove the color when quoting someone else.
Bangs head against wall while watching UT kick Memphis’ ass.
Well it seems suspicions and finger pointing are all over the point now, and I guess the game is in full gear now. I don’t really get what peekercpa is up to by putting suspicions on so many different people and voting without any substantial explanation. To me it looks a bit manipulative and scummy.
So, FOS peekercpa.
I think that random voting early can get people talking and changes can be made a bit later in the day if something real suspicious comes up.
[QUOTE=peekercpa]
What I meant was that I thought MTS voting on a fuck up that I made was more scummy than Tomba’s quote that I originally ascribed to ICM. I still don’t like Tomba’s statement, however. That’s why I did what I did (said what I said).
If I can possibly be more flippin’ bad at this stuff just keep asking questions and I’ll keep digging.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, I see. That makes sense.
I missed peekercpa’s post while I was composing mine. When I read through the posts, I don’t really see anything much to damn either Tomba or MTS.
[QUOTE=WF Tomba]
I agree, and so does Menocchio’s vote for fluiddruid.
[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not, that’s what the dice said.
[QUOTE=MindWanderer]
I missed peekercpa’s post while I was composing mine. When I read through the posts, I don’t really see anything much to damn either Tomba or MTS.
[/QUOTE]
Well, heck I gotta agree that neither has come out and said I’m scum. However, I still think that voting for a reason even it’s not necessarily correct is better than voting randomly. At least that way you can get a potential read on someone without them coming back with “random number made me do it”.
[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
(color removed by me)
Really? That was random? Because it reads like an OMGUS vote to me…
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I know, I was just getting into the spirit of the game. I’ve gotten a chance to read the whole thread and for a truly random guess I’m going with:
Unvote Blaster Master
Vote Queen of Town
[QUOTE=peekercpa]
What I meant was that I thought MTS voting on a fuck up that I made was more scummy than Tomba’s quote that I originally ascribed to ICM. I still don’t like Tomba’s statement, however. That’s why I did what I did (said what I said).
[/QUOTE]
My fault for not checking upthread for validation of your statement,three pages in I didn’t think it was necessary. I had already conisidered voting for Ice Cream before with his “mistakes” post and your “fuck up” helped make my decision.
Strange how you fuck up and then vote for me because I believed what you said.
NETA: by not nessarily correct means turns out to not have been necessarily correct.
Can someone explain OMGUS?
[QUOTE=Queen of Town]
Can someone explain OMGUS?
[/QUOTE]
OH MY GOD!!! YOU SUCK!!
It’s a you vote fer me,I vote fer you thing. So there!
[QUOTE=MadTheSwine]
My fault for not checking upthread for validation of your statement,three pages in I didn’t think it was necessary. I had already conisidered voting for Ice Cream before with his “mistakes” post and your “fuck up” helped make my decision.
Strange how you fuck up and then vote for me because I believed what you said.
[/QUOTE]
Skim=scum
Vote stands
A noob earlier had mentioned that a list of Mafia acronyms would be helpful. I looked through Wikipedia and some other sites for some basic online terms, but my Googlefu is pathetic this morning and so have come up with jack. Anybody else have any luck?
I found these commonly used abbreviations in a Mafia wiki, although some may not be in use here and it would obviously omit any SDMB-specific abbreviations, if any.
[Oog]Spurs kick Rockets’ ass. Woot Woot. Memphis killing Texas. Grumble Grumble.[/oog]
[QUOTE=WF Tomba]
That’s four posts per Day, right?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Four posts per game day. That is, four (substantive) posts by Thursday afternoon.
unvote zuma
Now that I’ve got an explanation for that (lurking), I need to find something else suspicious. Lessee…BlaM stopped posting, but I fail to see how that would be a skum tell…peekerca is (very) loud and (slightly) confusing with her many posts and votes, but I can’t see how that would help skum, either…Shadowfax seems really heplful…and most of that help is not particularly analytical, padding, perhaps? Still not enough to indict him.
If you’ve made it to the end of this rambling post, you’ll see that I’m not voting for anyone yet. People are idiosyncratic, but not particulalry skummy. I got nothing. I’ll look it over (again) and try to find something, but it’s the first day, so it’s understandably difficult.
Pretty quiet in here, so I’d like to revisit the role claim discussion that never really got too far off the ground back on page 2. Here’s what I said back there:
[QUOTE=me]
To follow up on the closed game idea, can we have a discussion about role claims? Ordinarily, role claims are generally believed absent a counter-claim so as to avoid lynching a power role. I assume that is different in a closed game given that we have no idea if there even are any roles besides Simpleton and Scum?
[/QUOTE]
It seems to me that we should be viewing role claims with more suspicion than we would in an open game. That seems obvious, but what do we do in the event of a claim? Do we lynch anyway or still give the benefit of the doubt? Both are dangerous. As I type this out, I have a feeling the only answer is “depends on the situation” or “we’ll have to evaluate each claim individually when it happens.”
Not very satisfying. Any other thoughts?