[QUOTE=Mtgman]
I had actually completely forgotten NAF had voted for you. I gave my reasons for voting for you and neither had anything to do with the time periods involved in your votes or suspicions. The reasons you gave for your suspicions, and the lack of backing them up when questioned were far bigger reasons. I think if you make a vote you should have a good, defensible, reason for it. The reason I can think of for why you would make a vote and then back away from it upon the first hint of a challenge would be because you can’t openly admit “I voted for him because he wasn’t on the list of fellow Cultists I got in my PM.”
[/QUOTE]
Let’s look at the train of thought here that you are claiming exists. Forgive the length of this post. Here’s my original question to you:
So there I was talking about your plan and asking you to clarify it. What reasons do you disagree with? You eventually said you didn’t advocate a random vote, and in post 489 you discussed each point. I still haven’t voted or FOSed you at all - we were talking about the PLAN. Post 501, I respond with:
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
I’ll answer this specifically, since it was a question directed to me. With a purely random vote with no opportunity to role-claim, there is a chance a power role will die. With a “normal” vote, that chance is greatly reduced, both because of role-claims and because some power roles know each others’ identity and would not vote for that person (most likely). And you are absolutely wrong about the second part of what you said. Ask anyone who played in M4 - a Day Two role claim actually PROTECTED the claimers. I AM NOT ADVOCATING MAKING ROLE-CLAIMS. In M4 it was relatively forced. I’m just saying that they can be valuable, valuable tools and a random forced vote might take one of them out. And if I’m understanding some other stuff being said here, people are suggesting casual role-claims be done on Day Two? What the heck is THAT about?
As for the rest of your post, yes, sure, publically using a randomizer to cast votes would eliminate the possibility of a scum fix. Conceded. Point Two we still disagree on, but fine, and point three, I think we’re right in the middle on. But if you’re not going to push for random votes, I’m not gonna force the issue at all. I still think it’s a hideous idea that hurts the town, but if you’re not gonna die on this hill, I don’t wanna either, and I’m about as sick as discussing random votes as others are about Oracle/Apprentice.
But I will say “it’s what they do on mafia.net” has never been real popular and messing with peoples’ heads…totally NOT cool.
[/quote]
I will point out, in direct response to this line of yours: “The reasons you gave for your suspicions, and the lack of backing them up when questioned were far bigger reasons.” that the one and only question you asked me, why I thought power roles were in danger of a random vote, I answered there. So I need you to explain to me what was wrong with my suspicions about your straategy, WHICH YOU YOURSELF ENDED UP SAYING WAS A BAD IDEA, and what statements of mine I was meant to be backing up that you felt weren’t being addressed.
I never accused you of anything, but you’re saying I did. I never backed down from anything, because I hadn’t any position other than I thought your plan was bad, but you’re saying I did. You’re saying I threw stones at you, but I never did. Show me where I did. The whole conversation was about the random vote plan, and since we both ended up agreeing that it wasn’t gonna happen, end of discussion.
Now, I have explained the zeuriel vote. I thought he meant something in his statement. He explained it. The guy I thought he was smearing didn’t make an issue of it. So why should I not retract my vote? That’s more of a reason half a dozen other people have given for their vote changes. People have been voting and unvoting for no stated reason, and I stated a reason, and that’s apparently not good enough. And now people who have votes on them are turning to me. I just find that discomforting.