3rd vote Scum tell! I like it
That was Fubbles, not Fluiddruid.
You aren’t limited to that list, you know? You should vote whoever you think is scummiest.
Fair enough, you tried it once(?) before and you ended up being lynched. But you still swept in, picked one post and expressed suspicion of Mahaloth. You didn’t ask for any clarification or attempt to engage him, yet you didn’t vote him and I suspect your reluctance is related to wanting to see what others did first, and then hop onto the bandwagon if it takes off. I can see a townie wanting to be cautious but this was your only contribution to the game so it caught my attention.
But this was the only post worth commenting on?
Maybe this is the reason you didn’t vote?
Fine? Are you not concerned about power roles making slips and giving information to scum?
oh…never mind then
Is this a serious question?
Have we played together before?
Sort of, and yes. I was surprised you didn’t say anything about power roles needing to be careful when speculating about game setup in case they inadvertently gave away information.
Gah!
Look, I’ve tried vote early vote often, I’ve tried pick a bandwagon, now I’m trying to just comment on posts that stick out to me.
I don’t find Mahaloth hugely scummy, especially since his later clarification posts. But I really really didn’t find fubbleskag’s post scummy, so I posted to disagree with him. That’s pretty much it.
It’s either that or just not post at all, and that’s not even anti town or anti scum, it’s anti game.
Oooohhh, I see
Yeah, I guess with such a straight-forward mechanic, I didn’t see it happening, but you’re right with newer players, it might still be an issue.
Hopefully we’ll give you more than one post to work with toMorrow ;).
I’d hardly characterize your post as a disagreement, it looks like an accusation to me:
You could also post your thoughts about the game and the other votes/cases, try to engage with players who you’d like to hear more from, ask questions, and so on.
This is where I tend to fall down. Usually anything I think has already been articulated much better by someone else. So chiming in with a “Hell yeah, me too” does nothing for anyone. Or else I’ll make what I think is a particularly brilliant and scintillating case against someone, which everyone will promptly ignore.
In any case, in the last few games, I spend all of day 1 defending myself for my first or second post. Which gives me plenty to talk about unfortunately :o
Sorry, I swear after this post I will try and look at other people rather than repeatedly defending myself.
[QUOTE=Scathach]
This is where I tend to fall down. Usually anything I think has already been articulated much better by someone else. So chiming in with a “Hell yeah, me too” does nothing for anyone. Or else I’ll make what I think is a particularly brilliant and scintillating case against someone, which everyone will promptly ignore.
[/QUOTE]
Actually I think it is useful for people to chime in with ‘I agree for this and this reason’ every once in a while. Often it seems as though there’s these extensive exchanges between two people about something that one of them said or did, with everybody else (theoretically as many as 18 people) looking on. If all of them chimed in it would turn to cacophony but I think that adding your viewpoint to a discussion can benefit, for two reasons.
For one, when I’m in a discussion (and I think this is true for others as well) I like to be reassured that what I’m on about is really something that is salient, and that I’m not just nitpicking; but I also like to be told that what I’m saying is off-base or that I’m overreacting. Now when I’m in a disagreement with someone, if that person tells me those things, I’m not likely to give that much credit, but if an outside source says so I’ll be more inclined to listen, which would contribute to the sanity of the general debate. Again, although I’m sure others are more sane than me, I’m also sure that I’m not alone in this.
The second reason that chiming in is helpful is that often as I read along with an exchange between posters, I’m not really sure what to think; if somebody else does know what they think about it, but are keeping it to themselves, they are holding out on me and the rest of the town.
Ok, this is a good point. So, of the people with votes:
Svejk: Slight town lean
Fluiddruid: No lean
PCM: Slight scum
wevets: Strong town
Mahaloth: No lean.
Silver Jan: Slight scum. (sorry!, it’s the lack of fluff)
Choie: Slight town
Note that that list of votes was wrong when it was posted and is wronger now that new votes have been cast. I, for one, now have 0 votes.
I don’t think you unvoted Svejk.
What, huh?
Is there a post where you explain any of the reasons for this? Or are you just sharing your conclusions with us?
granted, you might have said stuff, but I’m not scrolling back to see.
No, it’s just impressions.
Svejk: Newbie. Posting a lot, eager, trying to figure out game etc. Just comes across townie to me.
Fluiddruid: Nothing. Hasn’t said enough for me to have an opinion.
PCM:
Vote’s someone for trying to start discussion. (Someone who I think is town, which obviously colours things).
Just don’t like it. Scum lean
..more coming…
Wevets: Newbie. Also contributing a lot. Again, nothing I can point to as town, but to me it just seems really townie.
Mahaloth: I’ve talked about previously. On balance, he comes across town, if anything just because he reacted to my post. (in my experience) Scum try to ignore accusations unless a few pile up.
Silver Jan: Just usually posts more fluff. Like, it almost seems as if she’s deliberately not trying to do anything to garner suspicion.
Choie: Honestly, I dunno. Mainly because I played with her before in a game where she was town and she seems to be playing similarly. And I guess after that game I just associate her name with town.
Those are my reasons, terrible as most of them are.
#193 Astral: “Vote Precambrianmollusc. The “so he claims” doesn’t sit right with me. Švejk is a new player, and that early vote doesn’t strike me as disingenuous in any way. Precambrian seems to be tossing in an extra tiny little jab that isn’t truly warranted.”
#214 Septimus: “Švejk’s random vote may be odd, but the votes against him seem opportunistic. […] I’m not sure how much weight that unnecessary “tiny little jab” really warrants, but it seems enough for an early Day 1 vote. Vote: Precambrianmollusc”
#261 Septimus: “I’m happy with my vote on Precambrianmollusc who seems to exaggerate his case slightly.”
The way I originally parsed the vote was that Precambrian voted Svejk for the random vote and put the “so he claims” in response to Svejk’s #132 about making false accusations, do you read it differently? Precambrian and Svejk posted several times between Svejk’s vote and the comment. Special Ed’s question in #134 and Svejk’s explanation of his comment in #135 were simulposts or almost simulposts to Precambrian’s vote.
#119 Svejk: “From what I’ve seen, randomly generated votes tend to get discussion going, so without further ado, to the randomator!! Vote SilverJan”
#132 Svejk: “So how come there’s only two votes in? Come on people, make with the false accusations!”
#136 Precambrianmollusc, quote Svejk’s #132: “Vote Svejk. for voting randomly (so he claims) for Silverjan”