[Grasp]

I hate to reiterate past experiences people, but scummy behavior is not as sensitive in picking up scum as is pure townie behavior, especially when it is proudly displayed.

[Path-Shaper]

Togg has been modkilled due to inactivity.


It is Day 2. 4 hours and 55 minutes remaining.


9 players alive: Cast, Fanderay, Ghennan, Grasp, Hanas, Jalan, Lock, Trake, Ultama

5 votes to lynch, 5 votes to go to night.

3 votes Fanderay: Ghennan, Ultama, Grasp
1 vote Ultama: Fanderay

Players not voted: Cast, Hanas, Jalan, Lock, Trake

This post has been edited by Path-Shaper: 24 October 2013 - 12:47 PM

[Trake]

Ultama, on 24 October 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

Trake, on 24 October 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Ultama, on 24 October 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Well, look, your reasons are sound but you could actually have waited a while to see what players jump onto the "easy" train. I don't think any train is "easy" but I can see what you mean by an "easy" vote, those people have to be called into question, but now what you have done is made voting harder for the people who don't know much of what is going on, or are unsure about certain players but just want to lynch for the sake of more information. We are allowed to lynch wrongly. By doing so we are cutting down the suspect pool. There is not going to be a perfect reason for voting someone, is that what you are looking for? A concrete reason, someone to come out and say they are scum? more than likely scum are lay low right now and waiting to be that easy vote. There is no incentive for them to come online and fuck themselves over. We have to goad them into it.

We are allowed to be wrong, but we should still try and make the most of lynching.

Part of that means not letting people away with easy votes if it's avoidable. Sure, it might have been interesting to see who made them, but I don't see that it's a great deal of information there, because they'd just be voting to get a lynch.

The easy votes I find interesting are Ghennan's and your own. Ghennan basically just abandons his own suspicions in favour of following someone, while you throw a bunch of justifications on top that I'm not really sure hold up for me.

Should they? So you are going one step further in the self righteous department then? The Super Townie ^ Here he is. You obviously know who is scum. Everyone else is beneath you. You build yourself up as someone who wants to lynch but then you knock everyone's vote down because it doesn't match your ideals of a right vote. People followed your vote on Fanderay because they saw something in your reasoning, your initial vote and you decided to put your neck out there with a vote. So people have chosen to follow you and add their own two cents. You may not like my reasoning for voting Fanderay. You may not like Ghennan's But do you like your own? Or has Hanas convinced you otherwise? At the end of the day, you started this train. Now you are trying to convince us to not vote that way or for the reasons we find? Hail the mighty fucking Trake who knows better hey. This is what I said about your fucking vote being useless. Why would anyone else want to vote along with you in future when you are saying that that vote is a trap and your actually going after the voters over the voted. You voted Fanderay. Then Ghennan. Then me, whoop, we have a fucking train.

Why did I not vote Cast or Jalan. Firstly, Cast was being voted for by Grasp. I do not trust Grasp. I do not want to create a third train so the votes are split and we end up not lynching anyone. So I followed the train started by you, someone whom I had come to trust a little and then you go and be a fucking dick.

Fuck you Trake.

Shit, we're not meant to comment on people's votes now?

Of the two people following my vote, one follows it despite having not mentioned Fanderay as particularly suspicious and just parrots me, the other doesn't seem to have seen much in my initial reasoning having piled on a bunch of weak justification that seems like they're straining to get anything to stick.

You can't see how that might make someone hesitant?

You even say the fact that Grasp, who you don't trust, is voting Cast puts you off it, but I'm not allowed the same feeling when two people pile on? You complain about me building myself up but seem to expect me implicitly to trust you?

In regards to Hanas, I was actually satisfied with his reaction, it's a reasonable explanation, and he didn't over react or anything...

[Grasp]

Whew, at least I didn't vote Togg either. Interesting scum strategy, using the modkill to knock off extra players /humorous thought.

[Trake]

Grasp, on 24 October 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Remove Vote

Vote Fanderay

So, are we going to time out without a lynch again? Removing a vote 5 hours before the end is trouble if you ask me. Trake is kind of hard to miss, the elephant in the room so to speak, and I'm now really starting to wonder if we are giving him a free pass. We assume the most talkative ones are usually town, often called stupid townies at that, but what if we have scum mascarading as themselves, playing as they would in a game where they have a townie role. I'm doing a case, however painful, on Trake tomorrow, and then probably voting him.

Well it's nice that you're making your mind up on your vote before going through the posts and making the case isn't it?

[Trake]

We have hours and I'm going to be around, I'm hardly tempting time out you morons. Fuck sake.

I would vote Ultama except he was stupid fucking townie the last bunch of times we had this argument so why bother.

This post has been edited by Trake: 24 October 2013 - 12:53 PM

[Grasp]

Trake, on 24 October 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Ultama, on 24 October 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

Trake, on 24 October 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Ultama, on 24 October 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Well, look, your reasons are sound but you could actually have waited a while to see what players jump onto the "easy" train. I don't think any train is "easy" but I can see what you mean by an "easy" vote, those people have to be called into question, but now what you have done is made voting harder for the people who don't know much of what is going on, or are unsure about certain players but just want to lynch for the sake of more information. We are allowed to lynch wrongly. By doing so we are cutting down the suspect pool. There is not going to be a perfect reason for voting someone, is that what you are looking for? A concrete reason, someone to come out and say they are scum? more than likely scum are lay low right now and waiting to be that easy vote. There is no incentive for them to come online and fuck themselves over. We have to goad them into it.

We are allowed to be wrong, but we should still try and make the most of lynching.

Part of that means not letting people away with easy votes if it's avoidable. Sure, it might have been interesting to see who made them, but I don't see that it's a great deal of information there, because they'd just be voting to get a lynch.

The easy votes I find interesting are Ghennan's and your own. Ghennan basically just abandons his own suspicions in favour of following someone, while you throw a bunch of justifications on top that I'm not really sure hold up for me.

Should they? So you are going one step further in the self righteous department then? The Super Townie ^ Here he is. You obviously know who is scum. Everyone else is beneath you. You build yourself up as someone who wants to lynch but then you knock everyone's vote down because it doesn't match your ideals of a right vote. People followed your vote on Fanderay because they saw something in your reasoning, your initial vote and you decided to put your neck out there with a vote. So people have chosen to follow you and add their own two cents. You may not like my reasoning for voting Fanderay. You may not like Ghennan's But do you like your own? Or has Hanas convinced you otherwise? At the end of the day, you started this train. Now you are trying to convince us to not vote that way or for the reasons we find? Hail the mighty fucking Trake who knows better hey. This is what I said about your fucking vote being useless. Why would anyone else want to vote along with you in future when you are saying that that vote is a trap and your actually going after the voters over the voted. You voted Fanderay. Then Ghennan. Then me, whoop, we have a fucking train.

Why did I not vote Cast or Jalan. Firstly, Cast was being voted for by Grasp. I do not trust Grasp. I do not want to create a third train so the votes are split and we end up not lynching anyone. So I followed the train started by you, someone whom I had come to trust a little and then you go and be a fucking dick.

Fuck you Trake.

Shit, we're not meant to comment on people's votes now?

Of the two people following my vote, one follows it despite having not mentioned Fanderay as particularly suspicious and just parrots me, the other doesn't seem to have seen much in my initial reasoning having piled on a bunch of weak justification that seems like they're straining to get anything to stick.

You can't see how that might make someone hesitant?

You even say the fact that Grasp, who you don't trust, is voting Cast puts you off it, but I'm not allowed the same feeling when two people pile on? You complain about me building myself up but seem to expect me implicitly to trust you?

In regards to Hanas, I was actually satisfied with his reaction, it's a reasonable explanation, and he didn't over react or anything...

Trake, it's not so much as the vote removal and subsequent reasoning. It's the timing and the danger of yet another lynchless day. Like it or not, information is gathered regardless of whether we hit the nail on the head, scum or townie lynched, we still get information. So taking the wind out of the sails of a lynch for a second day in a row (remember, you said you are always around, but apparently don't always vote to help get a lynch....) makes you suspect and the lynchee with a train growing more so.

[Lock]

Trake, on 24 October 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

In essence, I am don't like the manner in which people are following my vote and the justifications they are giving for doing so. I would like to hear back from Fanderay.

I will also be around to vote.

It is not wishy washy not to want to let people get away with hopping on a train with the excuse of simple momentum, or not to want to create an illusion that we only have one choice when that is not that case. It is common sense.

This accusation of erraticism is getting tiring (and is utterly hypocritical, may I add). I have been playing like this all game. Being wishy washy and simply not being tunnel visioned are different things. Making several different assertions and putting pressure in several different places is one thing. Being middle of the road, non committal and vague on every assertion you make is another.

If everybody has to explain & justify every single vote, it will deter getting the lynch through as I have seen many times the second half of trains be composed of pile-ons, drive-bys & meager attempts at reason.


The problem with aging war on multiple fronts is the weakening of points from which your attention wavers in favor of the new assault. I think that is the downside of your approach. At some point, people will begin to ignore you.

[Grasp]

Trake, on 24 October 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Grasp, on 24 October 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Remove Vote

Vote Fanderay

So, are we going to time out without a lynch again? Removing a vote 5 hours before the end is trouble if you ask me. Trake is kind of hard to miss, the elephant in the room so to speak, and I'm now really starting to wonder if we are giving him a free pass. We assume the most talkative ones are usually town, often called stupid townies at that, but what if we have scum mascarading as themselves, playing as they would in a game where they have a townie role. I'm doing a case, however painful, on Trake tomorrow, and then probably voting him.

Well it's nice that you're making your mind up on your vote before going through the posts and making the case isn't it?

Consider it a replacement vote for someone who can't sit their ass down and stick with a case. You already know I lean toward Cast (and now you), but I won't have another day go by without a lynch because I wanted to make a point.

[Trake]

There are 6 anons on, the chances of us failing to lynch are minimal, and yet everyone gets a lovely excuse not to actually propose any of their suspicions.

Great.

[Trake]

Grasp, on 24 October 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

(remember, you said you are always around, but apparently don't always vote to help get a lynch....)

Now you're just strawmanning...

I would vote to get a lynch.

How much clearer do I need to make this?

[Trake]

Grasp, on 24 October 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

Trake, on 24 October 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Grasp, on 24 October 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Remove Vote

Vote Fanderay

So, are we going to time out without a lynch again? Removing a vote 5 hours before the end is trouble if you ask me. Trake is kind of hard to miss, the elephant in the room so to speak, and I'm now really starting to wonder if we are giving him a free pass. We assume the most talkative ones are usually town, often called stupid townies at that, but what if we have scum mascarading as themselves, playing as they would in a game where they have a townie role. I'm doing a case, however painful, on Trake tomorrow, and then probably voting him.

Well it's nice that you're making your mind up on your vote before going through the posts and making the case isn't it?

Consider it a replacement vote for someone who can't sit their ass down and stick with a case. You already know I lean toward Cast (and now you), but I won't have another day go by without a lynch because I wanted to make a point.

Have you even made a case?

The idea that I am somehow sabotaging a lynch when I stated I would be around and there are 6 people on is just scaremongering melodrama.

[Lock]

I don't expect Fandy to come on and defend at all.

[Trake]

Lock, on 24 October 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Trake, on 24 October 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

In essence, I am don't like the manner in which people are following my vote and the justifications they are giving for doing so. I would like to hear back from Fanderay.

I will also be around to vote.

It is not wishy washy not to want to let people get away with hopping on a train with the excuse of simple momentum, or not to want to create an illusion that we only have one choice when that is not that case. It is common sense.

This accusation of erraticism is getting tiring (and is utterly hypocritical, may I add). I have been playing like this all game. Being wishy washy and simply not being tunnel visioned are different things. Making several different assertions and putting pressure in several different places is one thing. Being middle of the road, non committal and vague on every assertion you make is another.

If everybody has to explain & justify every single vote, it will deter getting the lynch through as I have seen many times the second half of trains be composed of pile-ons, drive-bys & meager attempts at reason.


The problem with aging war on multiple fronts is the weakening of points from which your attention wavers in favor of the new assault. I think that is the downside of your approach. At some point, people will begin to ignore you.

Sure, not everyone has to fully be behind a train. But the more people justify their votes the better. I also feel that people should be called out on suspicious votes, and suspicious votes make me want to reconsider my position on the train.

I'm not claiming my approach is flawless, but personally I favour mentioning the things you find suspicious over letting it slide so you can zealously focus on a single issue. It's a spectrum, and I'm happy enough with where I am on it. The game benefits a variety of different styles (not counting certain ones anyhow )

[Lock]

I'm trying to determine how much of the aggression flying around is fake. Seems like macho time in here, somehow.

[Trake]

Lock, on 24 October 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

I don't expect Fandy to come on and defend at all.

Why?

Looking over his posts, this seems roughly his timezone...

[Hanas]

I am here for the next 90 minutes and can vote.

Basically:
Ultama is probably town for meta-reasons.
I like Ghennan so far.
I am patently unsure about Trake.
It might be very related to the last few hours, but Grasp seems very pushy to get a lynch almost to the point of skipping reasoning entirely.
I can't remember seeing much of Lock.
Cast, meh.
Fanderay: don't see a reason to lynch him. It is basically from rubbing people the wrong way and Ultama fall-out.
Jalan, wtf, 28 posts but can't remember a single one.

I really disliked MO and am sad we didn't get a CF there.

[Grasp]

Lock, on 24 October 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

I'm trying to determine how much of the aggression flying around is fake. Seems like macho time in here, somehow.

With avatars like these, how can the testosterone not flow?

[Hanas]

Grasp, on 24 October 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

Lock, on 24 October 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

I'm trying to determine how much of the aggression flying around is fake. Seems like macho time in here, somehow.

With avatars like these, how can the testosterone not flow?

Aren't half of the Hounds bitches?

* then again, there's plenty of bitching going around.

[Trake]

Hanas, on 24 October 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

It might be very related to the last few hours, but Grasp seems very pushy to get a lynch almost to the point of skipping reasoning entirely.

He's done that all game, randomly mention a suspicion or throw out a vote without actually making a case or anything.

Thought the choice of cast for his vote was pretty convenient given Ghennan mentioning it, though I think he'd mentioned cast a little earlier.