|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 7, 2004 17:56:15 GMT -5
...I suppose, Yaw. Let's not commit to a no lynch yet, let's just keep that in mind.
Another reason the bandwagon isn't to be considered, is...
what will happen is:
Townie 1: I random vote Yaw Townie 2: I vote Yaw for other strange reasons
after awhile...
Townie 3: I also vote Yaw for reasons.
Scum 1, 2, and 3: (all within a few seconds of each other) we vote Yaw too.
ck: Yaw is lynched
ck: the mafia killed someone during the night.
Townie 4: look, these 3 people al jumped on the Yaw bandwagon late for no reason.
Townies: we vote scum 1
ck: he was scum. night.
Townies: we vote scum 2
ck: he was scum. night.
Townies: we vote scum 3
ck: you win.
so it's not too big a deal that scum will hop on like that.
LEt's use today for whatever we can. But don't eliminate any possibilities yet. Disscusion is good... but limited, not too many people are talking.
-pie
|
|
|
Post by Arutha on Mar 7, 2004 19:38:40 GMT -5
Hm, you have pointed back to previous posts but fail to mention that last game Yaw, and Myself sided against each other the first round and relied on townies to kill, then voted together against griffey, and were the first on that wagon, ...
if i may yaw FOS: Pieisgood - Crap Logic
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 7, 2004 22:14:47 GMT -5
eh, lewuh???
the ck-wagon was going last game, you and yaw FOSed each other without voting.
And anyways, why would I mention a thing like that? How is it relevant to the topic of voting no lynch?
And I thought you weren't accusing people based on crap logic, that's what you said to yaw earlier...
FOS Arutha for it taking longer to sort through the crap logic in that argument then the argument itself.
-pie
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Mar 7, 2004 23:43:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm agreeing with pieisgood here. I don't see anything remotely crappy about his logic. I wasn't going to mention the "three quick vote to lynch" possibility because, well, if our mafia are that stupid I don't want to discourage them. Of course, we have to consider all possibilities in terms of scum behaviour (including the possibility that they aren't here yet)... Even so, I don't get Arutha's argument at all. There's nothing wrong with pieisgood's logic. Arutha isn't even getting the story right from the last game -- he never voted for Griffey. (Which is beside the point.) We do have one advantage today I just remembered -- since there hasn't been a night, the mafia haven't had an opportunity to talk and plan yet. That could prove to help us lynch today. (And it's an advantage we won't have tomorrow.) Anyway, I'm thinking pieisgood is town. Arutha, I'm not so sure about.
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Mar 8, 2004 18:35:20 GMT -5
I just recieved word that muddog will not be joining us ck you might want to kind a replacment.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 8, 2004 22:00:17 GMT -5
uh-oh. Hope this doesn't take too long.
Simply the fact that Yaw is willing to guess at somebody's innocence this early on makes me think that he might be town. If he is scum, it would be pretty pointless to be saying somebody is innocent, since he would want the most lynches possible.
FOI (Finger of Innocence): Yaw
-pie
|
|
Kalena
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 115
|
Post by Kalena on Mar 8, 2004 22:14:15 GMT -5
If he is scum, it would be pretty pointless to be saying somebody is innocent, since he would want the most lynches possible. Hmm, I don't think so. Scum have tried to point out innocents who were really innocent in the past games.
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Mar 9, 2004 1:15:40 GMT -5
Uh this thought just crossed my mind first off how many poeple are still missing? and secondly how do we know they are not mafia? I mean for all we know there could be no mafia present at moment.
|
|
Kalena
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 115
|
Post by Kalena on Mar 9, 2004 4:25:11 GMT -5
Yes, I think we should have everyone here before we start throwing suspicions at each other.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 9, 2004 11:04:36 GMT -5
I think we should still talk, the more we know the better (assuming we're all town.... ). I just don't think we should make a lynch yet. That's too dangerous, and stupid if we don't have all the info yet. Kalena... you do have a valid point. However, if he wants to point out innocents for us, I'll give him some credit because pointing out innocents is only going to hurt the scum. So I figure that's a pretty crappy plan for scum to use, so I'll go right along with it if scum wants to try it. -pie
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Mar 9, 2004 15:00:48 GMT -5
Oh, I agree, there's a good possibility that one or more of the scum aren't here yet. While we should hold off on a lynch, I don't think we should hold off on pressuring people and generating discussion. We can still gather information while waiting for people to show up. Besides, we don't want this game to grind to a halt...
|
|
|
Post by Hilly on Mar 9, 2004 21:06:21 GMT -5
Well I just don`t see any [shadow=black,left,300]scummy[/shadow] type behaviour jumping out at me, it all seems rather innocent at the moment. However I did notice nonbeleiver rallying around Yaw when it appeared there might be a bandwagon forming against him. Therefore I will cast a FOS at nonbeleiver.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 9, 2004 21:46:48 GMT -5
On a re-read of our tiny thread, Hilly, I noticed that too.
If you look at nonbeliever's posts through the game, the only ones of significance to the game were a) to protect Yaw, which turned out not to really matter anyways, and b) to attack my response to dingleberry's vote on me.
WE've all seen what a runaway bandwagon can do, and so I do not wish to start a bandwagon without more discussion.
so I will simply also
Fos: Nonbeliever
-pie
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Mar 10, 2004 0:26:08 GMT -5
OK. where exactly was i defending Yaw, i know that bandwagons are not good, I'm talk bandwagons where you don't exactly see that person as scum but vote anyways because they already have votes therefore the game will move on.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Mar 10, 2004 0:29:07 GMT -5
In reply #43.
nonbeliever
So, you're saying now you don't want us to pressure anyone? Very interesting.
FOS: nonbeliever
|
|