Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grujah]

Jorbles, can you Chicken Unvote even if your vote in not on anybody?

[shraeye]

Voting people solely based on post counts has got to be more anti-town than PPS's claim was in wafflegame.

But announcing "pressure votes" is ok, right Eevee?

Yeah, Eevee tends to announce pressure votes frequently.  As I recall he may have done this in other games as well.  That really takes the pressure out of them.  I don't like that tactic of his.

[Eevee]

Voting people solely based on post counts has got to be more anti-town than PPS's claim was in wafflegame.

But announcing "pressure votes" is ok, right Eevee?

I already said it isn't. If my vote came off like that, it was bad play on my part. Although we were voting him for not being around yet, so it's not like it wasn't obvious to him what he needs to do to get people off his back.

I do not understand Frisk's jihad against PPS's claim. What he did wasn't intentionally antitown, he played to his wincon, just made a mistake / stupid play. We should policylynch everyone who plays bad? Like ashersky in mafia X for forgetting the setup for a while?

For me personally O's derphammer day1 was much much more annoying.

[Insomniac]

Voting people solely based on post counts has got to be more anti-town than PPS's claim was in wafflegame.

But announcing "pressure votes" is ok, right Eevee?

Yeah, Eevee tends to announce pressure votes frequently.  As I recall he may have done this in other games as well.  That really takes the pressure out of them.  I don't like that tactic of his.

I don't mind him announcing pressure except when it comes with (thats enough pressure for now!)

[Eevee]

Voting people solely based on post counts has got to be more anti-town than PPS's claim was in wafflegame.

But announcing "pressure votes" is ok, right Eevee?

Yeah, Eevee tends to announce pressure votes frequently.  As I recall he may have done this in other games as well.  That really takes the pressure out of them.  I don't like that tactic of his.

I commented on this earlier, admitted it's not good. I just feel dirty voting without offering any explanation, and in my head I'm thinking "I want to see how he reacts to pressure". Shouldn't say it out loud, lesson learned! Hope I don't become the day1 lynch now because people who make mistakes are obviously scum and if not, they should be policylynched for making a mistake regardless..apparently.

[Captain_Frisk]

My jihad (nice word btw) against the PPS claim is that he's too good to do such stupid crap.  Ash was a new player, who didn't quite grasp the situation with ~30 minutes to deadline.  Ash gets a n00b pass.  After PPS SCHOOLED ME in M7 - he does not.

[Eevee]

Voting people solely based on post counts has got to be more anti-town than PPS's claim was in wafflegame.

But announcing "pressure votes" is ok, right Eevee?

Yeah, Eevee tends to announce pressure votes frequently.  As I recall he may have done this in other games as well.  That really takes the pressure out of them.  I don't like that tactic of his.

I don't mind him announcing pressure except when it comes with (thats enough pressure for now!)

Yeah.. especially because it wasn't, I think there would have been no harm in letting it to go to L-1 even. Hopefully I learned from this, I honestly didn't give that post a whole lot of thought. No permanent harm done hopefully.

[Eevee]

My jihad (nice word btw) against the PPS claim is that he's too good to do such stupid crap.  Ash was a new player, who didn't quite grasp the situation with ~30 minutes to deadline.  Ash gets a n00b pass.  After PPS SCHOOLED ME in M7 - he does not.

So you think PPS was secretly working with the mafia or what?

Oh and you seem to be forgetting what PPS did in Joth's bastard mafia. I think the thing you are accusing him of is not worth policylynching, and also that the accusations are pretty baseless. Should be obvious after joth's game and seeing his flip in wafflegame.

[Robz888]

Hey scums, why so quiet?

[Captain_Frisk]

Kickball.

[Voltgloss]

Quick post before baby comes soon.

Ash hasn't been on the forum since immediately after his last post.  Not sure that's the kind of lurking that's most scummy.  Most scummy lurking is hanging around, reading thread, and yet not contributing. 

Am concerned at least one scum has decided to follow an unwavering lynch all lurkers policy to avoid responsibility for his vote.  Not sure who yet.

Unvote.  Hate Eevee's pressure vote comment but it and his response are consistent with his town behavior.  He'd do it as scum too.  Nullread.

Query to those voting ashersky:  would you be just as comfortable voting Archetype?

[Robz888]

Am concerned at least one scum has decided to follow an unwavering lynch all lurkers policy to avoid responsibility for his vote.  Not sure who yet.

I am more concerned that some clever scum decided to pursue a "it's scummy to militantly hate on lurkers" policy.

[Jorbles]

Jorbles, can you Chicken Unvote even if your vote in not on anybody?

Yes.

[Cuzz]

Jorbles, can you Chicken Unvote even if your vote in not on anybody?

Yes.

I think this solves the "how to talk about people who are at L-1," no?

@Volt, I'd probably be just as happy with my vote on Archetype. For some reason he's seemed a bit more visible to me than ashersky, but I just rechecked Insomniac's count and he really only has one more post than ashersky.

[Cuzz]

And congrats!

[shraeye]

Query to those voting ashersky:  would you be just as comfortable voting Archetype?

No, it's not about postcount.  That's silliness.  Look at their actual posts.  Ashersky's were mostly one-liners and fluff.  Archetype has put thought into his posts and engaged me.  He's contributed much more than ashersky, regardless of the number of posts either has had.

[Voltgloss]

Am concerned at least one scum has decided to follow an unwavering lynch all lurkers policy to avoid responsibility for his vote.  Not sure who yet.

I am more concerned that some clever scum decided to pursue a "it's scummy to militantly hate on lurkers" policy.

With three scum, I wouldn't be surprised if BOTH you and I are correct.

[Cuzz]

Query to those voting ashersky:  would you be just as comfortable voting Archetype?

No, it's not about postcount.  That's silliness.  Look at their actual posts.  Ashersky's were mostly one-liners and fluff.  Archetype has put thought into his posts and engaged me.  He's contributed much more than ashersky, regardless of the number of posts either has had.

Yeah I went back and reread, and I mostly agree with this.

[ashersky]

Query to those voting ashersky:  would you be just as comfortable voting Archetype?

No, it's not about postcount.  That's silliness.  Look at their actual posts.  Ashersky's were mostly one-liners and fluff.  Archetype has put thought into his posts and engaged me.  He's contributed much more than ashersky, regardless of the number of posts either has had.

Yeah I went back and reread, and I mostly agree with this.

I disagree.  I commented on the "how do we talk as chickens" issue, which I think was important.

Also, my time zone is way off from the rest, and as Volt pointed out, I wasn't lurking, I was sleeping.  For everyone's info, if you don't know, I'm in Australia.  So I'm a gazillion hours ahead of the U.S., where forum time is, and a million hours ahead of Europe, where the rest of you are.  So I'll state my belief that "lurking" means reading/following without posting, where as not being online can't be "lurking" since you aren't around to lurk.

With that out there, I will say I agree that number of posts aren't as indiciative as info within posts.  I'm also intrigued with the idea of self-imposing three-day deadlines so we don't have to deal with chickens, but it seems to go against the spirit of the Mod's game, and possibly anti-town by shutting down our ability to discuss.  I'd lean toward no deadlines like that, I think.

[Voltgloss]

Query to those voting ashersky:  would you be just as comfortable voting Archetype?

No, it's not about postcount.  That's silliness.  Look at their actual posts.  Ashersky's were mostly one-liners and fluff.  Archetype has put thought into his posts and engaged me.  He's contributed much more than ashersky, regardless of the number of posts either has had.

Now this; this is a more compelling argument than just voting for the lowest postcount.  And on reread, I think shraeye's correct.

vote: ashersky
FoS: those who voted ashersky based SOLELY on post count.

PPE:  and now ash posted. Haven't read his post yet.

[yuma]

About to do a complete reread--I like that I can still do that in this game compared to another behemoth sized game that I won't mentioned aside from calling it behemoth--but one thing I will say about ending this day early to avoid chickens...

I am not necessarily in favor of ending the day early, but not because I think we can get a lot of data from who is cursed, I think we will get some, but probably not enough to make a significant difference. However, if we do end early that is extra time that provides an opportunity for further discussion from town members and further opportunities for scum to slip or contradict or something... Ending the day early just for the sake of ending it early cuts the amount of content we have to analyze the next day.  Now I am not suggesting we purposefully extend the day. No, if we have a good lynch opportunity we should take it. Ideally for me, in a, what is this, a six day game would be to have the lynch occur somewhere in day 4 or so. Early enough that we aren't up against a deadline, but not so soon that we are rushing into things.

I'll be back later with more comments

[Voltgloss]

Baby arrived, woo!

Will likely be posting next rather later this evening.  I've got a son to hug.

[Galzria]

Baby arrived, woo!

Will likely be posting next rather later this evening.  I've got a son to hug.

Whoo! Congrats!

[Archetype]

To answer Insom's FoS: Not trying to buddy up, just complimenting you on your ability to catch scum. I never really did in ZM2 and thought I'd do it.

In every game I've played (well, 3) I've thought lynching lurkers was a bad idea. A lurker isn't mafia as much as a frequent poster could be. Now if someone just posts jokes or never posts anything that could help the town, then yeah, it's usually a good idea to lynch them.

Still think the ChickenVote Scum read system with: Chicken once for yes scum, twice for no scum, thrice (love that word) for null is going to be the best way to communicate.

I think any other 'Chickens' people post in front of their words would overly confuse things.

PPE: Seems like yuma just posted.
ooo Voltgloss too!
ugh and Galz, gotta hurry and post this

[Archetype]

Baby arrived, woo!

Will likely be posting next rather later this evening.  I've got a son to hug.

Congratulations!