Unvote.TempAcc: You could have at least checked my profile page, and maybe my recent posts. Had you done so, you would have found that I haven't been active today, except maybe in the early morning. The fact that you didn't tells me that you're less interested in finding scum, and more interested in diverting attention.
It's also possible that you were just lazy, of course, but you really should have checked. It's one click to see if I'm online, and another few to see if I've been posting.
Fake-edit: Looking through the recent posts again, I found that you couldn't have been trying to divert any attention—unless roo's your scumbuddy, and I notice that you haven't commented on the L-1 post,
despite being the one at L-1—since the attention wasn't on you in the first place. I guess it's more likely that you were just being lazy, then.
I'm willing to do that.
Unvote
roo
But let's do it in blue since that is the color most typically used.
If faux-voting is a full replacement for regular voting, it should be in
green so we can still FoS. Remember, you only get one vote at a time!
So tl;dr basically I don't believe temps account.
He said that his vote was random and nonsensical but has a "abstract" reason. But it is totally random.
The abstract reason was seeing how reverie would react or act.
Originally I thought the vote was random then it was revealed that it wasn't. I thought oh okay it was a reaction test of sorts. But it was revealed by temp that it wasn't a reaction test and holds to his stance that it was random. It's just a lot of spin.
tempacc
That is -1 btw
This is pretty shady. I mean, pressure voting and all, but you shouldn't put somebody at -1 in a hammer-based game without a really good reason. You were clearly aware that it was -1, too, since you mentioned it in your post.
Roo, by saying "1 more until hammer" but not doing anything to stop someone from hammeing, it makes you look eager to see the lynch happening. Almost like you wanted somebody to do the hammer, but either they weren't around or they thought of the consequences.
Uh, if roo wanted to say "hey, scumbuddy, lynch this dude", wouldn't he have used their scumchat? Unless you're saying that he was trying to tempt a townie into lynching, which is possible, I guess, though I can't see it working.
I find the L-1 comment suspicious because it shows he knew what he was doing, but I'm not sure it means anything beyond that.
I put forward the motion that we discuss organising a hammer once we reach three faux votes on a player. All in favour?
Agreed. I think that the discussion should last at least 24 hours, though, since people are likely going to be more casual with "fake" votes than real ones.
You just put a second vote on someone. 3 votes is to hammer. That means that all it would take is one vote from a scum to end this day prematurely. Assuming tempacc is town, his vengekill would prrobably go on the hammerer, but we would have no way of knowing for sure. Either way, the scum would live on to day 2, and town would not have learned anything. So I was voting you because getting someone close to a hammer is not a town action to do.
I am fully aware of how many people it takes to hammer somebody osg. I said -1. As in it takes one more person to hammer.
My supposedly non-town action is not deferring to forum culture on how a game should be played. What do you wanna talk about osg? Do you disagree with rev and me? If so why? You haven't said anything. Even here you say "Assuming temp is town". Wtf? You are a fucking omnishambles right now and have zero clue about what is going on. And you want to dictate how I play and when I can vote?
Was my vote not optimal? If so why not? Does my vote not achieve discussion pressure and having the hammer be absolutely certain of their choice? Putting someone at -2 pushes the game forward vastly.
Don't talk to me about voting for supposedly attempting to end the day prematurely. Back to this in a bit. That vote was terrible. Now how did you know it would end the day and not the game?
That's a really interesting argument, though I'm not sure I agree; whether it's a good argument is of secondary importance to the argument's honesty, though. I can see this being an honest attempt to stir up activity, especially since the last couple of days have been slow.
Still, the L-1 post could also have been an attempted quickhammer, like OSG suggested.
roo: Do you still think that putting TempAcc at L-1 was worth it? In a similar situation, would you do so [put a player at L-1] again, even knowing that doing so is against Mafia etiquette, and thus likely to disrupt the game?
Author
Topic: Vengeful Mafia 11: its over town won (Read 42911 times)