Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

[Golden]

I'm voting marmota because marmot, hellooooooo

Not realising that the one above it is zebra...

[Marmot]

For those wondering, the poll says...

Choose your favorite

• Brown spider monkey
  Domestic cow
  Plains zebra
  Yellow-bellied marmot
  Brown bear

Choose wisely.

Linki: sob...

[Golden]

It's not a polar bear???

[MacDougall]

I disagree that it would be deserved in either case, and either way I still think you would be compensating.

You have literally angered me to the point where I am swearing at you but you're going to just say I am faking it. You are baiting the shit out of me right now and you know it.

I didn't say you were outright faking it, only that you were compensating. A kind of flanderization of yourself; your genuine reaction, yet amplified up to eleven.

linki -

Nah I actually wanted to say fuck off to you and my text doesn't indicate how loud I would have said it if you were sitting next to me.

[Golden]

I'm even happier voting for Brown Bear, tbh.

Brown spider monkey would be the obvious second favourite.

I'm not sucking up to the hosts at all.

I guess "domestic cow" best stands for HamburgerBoy?

[Marmot]

It's not a polar bear???

Nope.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Hey llama, you were almost certainly aware of my beef with you on Night 0 (you acknowledged other posts in the same vicinity), but never even acknowledged my existence. Then on Day 1 I made it as clear as possible under the circumstances that I wanted your attention and you still ignored me. Why?

[MacDougall]

Just so you know, this is what it would have sounded like.

[Marmot]

Hey llama, you were almost certainly aware of my beef with you on Night 0 (you acknowledged other posts in the same vicinity), but never even acknowledged my existence. Then on Day 1 I made it as clear as possible under the circumstances that I wanted your attention and you still ignored me. Why?

I smell an impending vote for Bos Tauros.

[a2thezebra]

I'm voting marmota because marmot, hellooooooo

Not realising that the one above it is zebra...

I realized, simply because I'm the only user that starts with "a". Marmot is an international hero.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Hey llama, you were almost certainly aware of my beef with you on Night 0 (you acknowledged other posts in the same vicinity), but never even acknowledged my existence. Then on Day 1 I made it as clear as possible under the circumstances that I wanted your attention and you still ignored me. Why?

I smell an impending vote for Bos Tauros.

no idea what any of that is. I might vote for the Equus one because Equus is a good ass player on RYM.

[HamburgerBoy]

Creepiest monkey I've ever seen.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... it2%29.jpg

[Marmot]

Being a mafia hero is hard work. Not that I would know.

[Marmot]

Hey llama, you were almost certainly aware of my beef with you on Night 0 (you acknowledged other posts in the same vicinity), but never even acknowledged my existence. Then on Day 1 I made it as clear as possible under the circumstances that I wanted your attention and you still ignored me. Why?

I smell an impending vote for Bos Tauros.

no idea what any of that is. I might vote for the Equus one because Equus is a good ass player on RYM.

Well, two folks have posted the English translations for the poll options. So feel free to educate yourself.

[a2thezebra]

Just so you know, this is what it would have sounded like.

If you think I'm actually going to listen to that with other people in the room then you're kidding yourself. Also...if you think I'm baiting you just because I've somehow angered you enough to start swearing at me, then again...you're kidding yourself. Does that mean every other player in Star Wars was baiting you all the time as well? Here's a crazy thought...maybe you get angered relatively easily.

[MacDougall]

Just so you know, this is what it would have sounded like.

If you think I'm actually going to listen to that with other people in the room then you're kidding yourself. Also...if you think I'm baiting you just because I've somehow angered you enough to start swearing at me, then again...you're kidding yourself. Does that mean every other player in Star Wars was baiting you all the time as well? Here's a crazy thought...maybe you get angered relatively easily.

I thought I was pretending to be angry.

The vocaroo post is tongue in cheek Zebra lol. Also how am I supposed to know you have other people in the room. Lighten up.

[Marmot]

Just so you know, this is what it would have sounded like.

If you think I'm actually going to listen to that with other people in the room then you're kidding yourself. Also...if you think I'm baiting you just because I've somehow angered you enough to start swearing at me, then again...you're kidding yourself. Does that mean every other player in Star Wars was baiting you all the time as well? Here's a crazy thought...maybe you get angered relatively easily.

I thought I was pretending to be angry.

The vocaroo post is tongue in cheek Zebra lol. Also how am I supposed to know you have other people in the room. Lighten up.

You're angry, but you're telling zebra to 'lighten up'?

[MacDougall]

Just so you know, this is what it would have sounded like.

If you think I'm actually going to listen to that with other people in the room then you're kidding yourself. Also...if you think I'm baiting you just because I've somehow angered you enough to start swearing at me, then again...you're kidding yourself. Does that mean every other player in Star Wars was baiting you all the time as well? Here's a crazy thought...maybe you get angered relatively easily.

I thought I was pretending to be angry.

The vocaroo post is tongue in cheek Zebra lol. Also how am I supposed to know you have other people in the room. Lighten up.

You're angry, but you're telling zebra to 'lighten up'?

For fucks sake. Let me spell it out.

Zebra annoyed me with a post. It manifested in a "fuck you" post. On account of not being a psychopath who sits behind their computer screen seething over forums mafia my frustration dissipated pretty well immediately. I made the vocaroo post to be funny and Zebra replied to it with an annoying amount of seriousness.

Ya dig?

I'm out. It's Saturday and I should take my kid to the park or something.

[a2thezebra]

Just so you know, this is what it would have sounded like.

If you think I'm actually going to listen to that with other people in the room then you're kidding yourself. Also...if you think I'm baiting you just because I've somehow angered you enough to start swearing at me, then again...you're kidding yourself. Does that mean every other player in Star Wars was baiting you all the time as well? Here's a crazy thought...maybe you get angered relatively easily.

I thought I was pretending to be angry.

The vocaroo post is tongue in cheek Zebra lol. Also how am I supposed to know you have other people in the room. Lighten up.

You thought that even after I clarified that you weren't? Interesting.

Also, I love it when angry folk tell others to chill. It makes me feel like I'm in a real-life comedy sketch.

[a2thezebra]

On account of not being a psychopath who sits behind their computer screen seething over forums mafia my frustration dissipated pretty well immediately.

Doth protest too much methinks... :P

Also, my response wasn't exactly deathly serious.

[thellama73]

I am annoyed that there is no Latin llama option on the poll. I am also annoyed that we both lost a civilian and still have to put up with Rico's nonsense.

[Golden]

I am annoyed that there is no Latin llama option on the poll. I am also annoyed that we both lost a civilian and still have to put up with Rico's nonsense.

Why would you assume rico would still post nonsense? I guess we have lost a civilian but on the flip side we've gained a useful resource. Rico is, I think, one of the best analysts of the game and from his position he could definitely help the town win. I think that is a good outcome.

[a2thezebra]

Rico has already made it more or less clear in the few post-death posts he has made that he's cutting the crap and is going to put in a solid effort, and I look forward to seeing it.

[thellama73]

I am annoyed that there is no Latin llama option on the poll. I am also annoyed that we both lost a civilian and still have to put up with Rico's nonsense.

Why would you assume rico would still post nonsense? I guess we have lost a civilian but on the flip side we've gained a useful resource. Rico is, I think, one of the best analysts of the game and from his position he could definitely help the town win. I think that is a good outcome.

Past behavior tends to be a predictor of future behavior. I'll admit that I haven't yet read what he has posted after his death, so perhaps I misjudge him. Anyway, not a great lynch result, I would argue.

[DharmaHelper]

I am annoyed that there is no Latin llama option on the poll. I am also annoyed that we both lost a civilian and still have to put up with Rico's nonsense.

Why would you assume rico would still post nonsense? I guess we have lost a civilian but on the flip side we've gained a useful resource. Rico is, I think, one of the best analysts of the game and from his position he could definitely help the town win. I think that is a good outcome.

Past behavior tends to be a predictor of future behavior. I'll admit that I haven't yet read what he has posted after his death, so perhaps I misjudge him. Anyway, not a great lynch result, I would argue.

I would say its not the best outcome, but it is far from a bad one. Now Rico's energy will (hopefully, otherwise I'll just tune him out) be focused on finding baddies rather than getting himself lynched.

[thellama73]

I am annoyed that there is no Latin llama option on the poll. I am also annoyed that we both lost a civilian and still have to put up with Rico's nonsense.

Why would you assume rico would still post nonsense? I guess we have lost a civilian but on the flip side we've gained a useful resource. Rico is, I think, one of the best analysts of the game and from his position he could definitely help the town win. I think that is a good outcome.

Past behavior tends to be a predictor of future behavior. I'll admit that I haven't yet read what he has posted after his death, so perhaps I misjudge him. Anyway, not a great lynch result, I would argue.

I would say its not the best outcome, but it is far from a bad one. Now Rico's energy will (hopefully, otherwise I'll just tune him out) be focused on finding baddies rather than getting himself lynched.

Fair enough. I just like lynching baddies on Day 1. Baddies like Sig.

[DharmaHelper]

Fair dues.

[Sorsha]

I'm happy with the result as long as Rico becomes an upstanding citizen and helps catch baddies.

Not caught up, just came to see the result.

[RadicalFuzz]

Faraday when you say I read civvie so you're not pinged by my "strange alignment comments" what comments are you referring to?

Oh thank god he wasn't just being a giant idiot.

Llama, explain how we "lost a civilian?" His unkillable role from which he literally can't be targeted and will therefore be able to advise as a mod-confirmed civilian for the everlasting future of the game is an unfavorable outcome? I honestly think this went better than lynching scum Day 1, as Rico would surely be lynched later down the line for his actions up to this point.

[Golden]

I am annoyed that there is no Latin llama option on the poll. I am also annoyed that we both lost a civilian and still have to put up with Rico's nonsense.

Why would you assume rico would still post nonsense? I guess we have lost a civilian but on the flip side we've gained a useful resource. Rico is, I think, one of the best analysts of the game and from his position he could definitely help the town win. I think that is a good outcome.

Past behavior tends to be a predictor of future behavior. I'll admit that I haven't yet read what he has posted after his death, so perhaps I misjudge him. Anyway, not a great lynch result, I would argue.

Rico has a clear role related reason for his behaviour on day one that no longer applies, so I see no reason for assuming it is a predictor of future behaviour.

I'll admit when I asked I forgot your history with Rico though.

[Ricochet]

I am annoyed that there is no Latin llama option on the poll. I am also annoyed that we both lost a civilian and still have to put up with Rico's nonsense.

Why would you assume rico would still post nonsense? I guess we have lost a civilian but on the flip side we've gained a useful resource. Rico is, I think, one of the best analysts of the game and from his position he could definitely help the town win. I think that is a good outcome.

Past behavior tends to be a predictor of future behavior. I'll admit that I haven't yet read what he has posted after his death, so perhaps I misjudge him. Anyway, not a great lynch result, I would argue.

I'm having doubts you read the D1 outcome itself in great detail, or else you saying "we lost" (past tense) a civilian (have we, yet, lost anyone in fact?) and "after my death" (which, in a way, yes, happened, but what defines me as dead, now that I can still post?) is confusing. And suspecting me or analyzing me the way you said it (past behavious predicator of future behaviour lolwut) feels like you'd keep barking at a confirmed civilian. Why do that?

[Ricochet]

Also, to whoever RIPd my vote priviledge, it's easily discardable based on past performances. 9 times out of 10 my vote wouldn't be on a lynched baddie, if a lynch goes well; 5 out of 10 it could be on a mislynched civ, if the lynch goes bad. So there's no reason it should affect the civ's hunting at this stage.

[Epignosis]

I'm three pages behind. Rico, please shut the fuck up sometimes.

[DFaraday]

I'm still not caught up, because this thread is longer than a Tolstoy novel, but this caught my attention.

The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

I'd expect anyone who does not join on the main two wagons to be able to put into words why they didn't vote for either of those people. If they can't, I don't care how good the reason is that they voted someone off the wagon, it is effective scum hiding. Nothing easier when scum than tunnelling on someone who isn't getting lynched.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. The point of Mafia, if one is civ, is to find and vote for baddies. If you have reason to believe another player is bad, you should vote for them, and owe nothing to the bandwagons, as if you need approval from the majority opinion to dissent. If you don't think a wagon is legitimate, that should be enough. I really don't like Mafia tactics which try to force anything out of players, then insisting that they are suspicious if they don't comply with these arbitrary commands from other players. It comes across as demanding and trying to force other players to fit a particular paradigm, and as a libertarian, I'm against that.

Having said that, I agree with DH that Rico's behavior is not helpful to the civ cause at all, so he is most likely bad or un-civvie-friendly Indy.

I don't think explaining why you voted in a way that you know will make no impact is either 'an arbitrary command' or particularly demanding.

I find people who choose to vote off-wagon inherently suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so, and yes if they don't give that reason I may find them suspicious and ask them what their reasons were. If they choose not to answer my question thats up to them, but it isn't going to make me feel good about them.

It is implicitly demanding when a player is viewed as bad if they don't explain their deviation from the wagons to the satisfaction of the interrogator. My broader issue is with a recent trend in games where players adopt certain tactics (eg. the above, GTH, rainbow lists), then suspect other players if they refuse to use those methods.

Do you find people who vote on-wagon equally suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so? I'm more inclined to feel the reverse, and think better of players who think for themselves rather than parroting the prevailing groupthink. I honestly can't comprehend how conformity with bandwagons is supposed to be a good thing now.

[DFaraday]

Faraday when you say I read civvie so you're not pinged by my "strange alignment comments" what comments are you referring to?

Oh thank god he wasn't just being a giant idiot.

Llama, explain how we "lost a civilian?" His unkillable role from which he literally can't be targeted and will therefore be able to advise as a mod-confirmed civilian for the everlasting future of the game is an unfavorable outcome? I honestly think this went better than lynching scum Day 1, as Rico would surely be lynched later down the line for his actions up to this point.

Alignment was a poor word choice on my part. I was referring to your early game comments about how you're playing differently from your usual style. I thought those were weird at the time, but you've come across as legitimate since then.

[RadicalFuzz]

Sorry if it feels like I'm harassing you, but when you say I've come across as legitimate since then that means you feel my "playing differently" were not legitimate?

[DharmaHelper]

I'm three pages behind. Rico, please shut the fuck up sometimes.

Epi was too kind using the word "sometimes" confirmed mafia.

[Epignosis]

I'm three pages behind. Rico, please shut the fuck up sometimes.

Epi was too kind using the word "sometimes" confirmed mafia.

Please kill me.

[Golden]

I'm still not caught up, because this thread is longer than a Tolstoy novel, but this caught my attention.

The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

I'd expect anyone who does not join on the main two wagons to be able to put into words why they didn't vote for either of those people. If they can't, I don't care how good the reason is that they voted someone off the wagon, it is effective scum hiding. Nothing easier when scum than tunnelling on someone who isn't getting lynched.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. The point of Mafia, if one is civ, is to find and vote for baddies. If you have reason to believe another player is bad, you should vote for them, and owe nothing to the bandwagons, as if you need approval from the majority opinion to dissent. If you don't think a wagon is legitimate, that should be enough. I really don't like Mafia tactics which try to force anything out of players, then insisting that they are suspicious if they don't comply with these arbitrary commands from other players. It comes across as demanding and trying to force other players to fit a particular paradigm, and as a libertarian, I'm against that.

Having said that, I agree with DH that Rico's behavior is not helpful to the civ cause at all, so he is most likely bad or un-civvie-friendly Indy.

I don't think explaining why you voted in a way that you know will make no impact is either 'an arbitrary command' or particularly demanding.

I find people who choose to vote off-wagon inherently suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so, and yes if they don't give that reason I may find them suspicious and ask them what their reasons were. If they choose not to answer my question thats up to them, but it isn't going to make me feel good about them.

It is implicitly demanding when a player is viewed as bad if they don't explain their deviation from the wagons to the satisfaction of the interrogator. My broader issue is with a recent trend in games where players adopt certain tactics (eg. the above, GTH, rainbow lists), then suspect other players if they refuse to use those methods.

Do you find people who vote on-wagon equally suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so? I'm more inclined to feel the reverse, and think better of players who think for themselves rather than parroting the prevailing groupthink. I honestly can't comprehend how conformity with bandwagons is supposed to be a good thing now.

I'm not talking about gth, rainbow lists or any 'method', DF. I'm talking about EXPLAINING YOUR VOTE. It's a basic, normal and fundamental part of playing the game, not a newfangled device. If you aren't willing to do it (not you specifically, but anyone), you deserve all attention you get for it.

"Thinking for yourself" is great. "Parroting groupthink" is bad. So we completely agree on those points. Neither of those things is relevant to the point I made though, which is this...

If you do not vote on one of the prevailing wagons, you are voting somewhere it is easy to hide. If you haven't sufficiently explained why you are voting off-wagon, then I will find it suspicious.

That might be an explanation for why you are voting for the person you are voting for, or it might be an explanation for why you are not voting for someone who can actually get lynched.

But either way, voting for someone who will not get lynched is a vote that will have no impact, so the only way it can have any meaning is with words in the thread. Votes on the major bandwagons speak through the result of the lynch. Votes off them do not. That's why they become easy places for baddies to hide. As I noted, in Biblical, it became very apparent that one of the key tactics of the baddie team was basically for all of them to nearly always be off the major lynches. It's such an easy tactic for allowing the civilians to pick each other off.

I'm not a fan of demanding others play a certain way either. But I don't see a lot of demanding that people do rainbow lists or demanding that people to gth reads. I think some people do them by choice.

Putting this in a very easy to understand, logical train of thought

1) Focus is often put on people for their vote when they vote for or against major bandwagons.
2) Focus is rarely put on people for their vote who vote off bandwagon
3) Meaning can often be drawn from votes on the major bandwagons
4) Meaning can rarely be drawn from votes off-wagon
5) Therefore, as a baddie a very easy move is to engage minimally and vote off-bandwagon. It is also a very COMMON move.
6) Also, as a civilian who wants to contribute to a civilian win, it is more likely that they will have thought about and are able to put into words why they are not voting on wagon, since it is more likely to be an active decision that they don't find those people suspicious.

6) I believe, statistically speaking, baddies vote off wagon a lot more commonly than civilians, and for less clear reasons.
7) I believe, therefore, that if a person who votes off wagon isn't giving much of an explanation for why, that is suspicious.

8) Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to suspect people voting off wagon if they haven't provided a reasonable explanation for why they are voting the way they are.

[timmer]

Interesting result, Rico!

[RadicalFuzz]

Glad to see you're all caught up and enthusiastic about the game Timmer.

[DFaraday]

I'm still not caught up, because this thread is longer than a Tolstoy novel, but this caught my attention.

The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

I'd expect anyone who does not join on the main two wagons to be able to put into words why they didn't vote for either of those people. If they can't, I don't care how good the reason is that they voted someone off the wagon, it is effective scum hiding. Nothing easier when scum than tunnelling on someone who isn't getting lynched.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. The point of Mafia, if one is civ, is to find and vote for baddies. If you have reason to believe another player is bad, you should vote for them, and owe nothing to the bandwagons, as if you need approval from the majority opinion to dissent. If you don't think a wagon is legitimate, that should be enough. I really don't like Mafia tactics which try to force anything out of players, then insisting that they are suspicious if they don't comply with these arbitrary commands from other players. It comes across as demanding and trying to force other players to fit a particular paradigm, and as a libertarian, I'm against that.

Having said that, I agree with DH that Rico's behavior is not helpful to the civ cause at all, so he is most likely bad or un-civvie-friendly Indy.

I don't think explaining why you voted in a way that you know will make no impact is either 'an arbitrary command' or particularly demanding.

I find people who choose to vote off-wagon inherently suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so, and yes if they don't give that reason I may find them suspicious and ask them what their reasons were. If they choose not to answer my question thats up to them, but it isn't going to make me feel good about them.

It is implicitly demanding when a player is viewed as bad if they don't explain their deviation from the wagons to the satisfaction of the interrogator. My broader issue is with a recent trend in games where players adopt certain tactics (eg. the above, GTH, rainbow lists), then suspect other players if they refuse to use those methods.

Do you find people who vote on-wagon equally suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so? I'm more inclined to feel the reverse, and think better of players who think for themselves rather than parroting the prevailing groupthink. I honestly can't comprehend how conformity with bandwagons is supposed to be a good thing now.

I'm not talking about gth, rainbow lists or any 'method', DF. I'm talking about EXPLAINING YOUR VOTE. It's a basic, normal and fundamental part of playing the game, not a newfangled device. If you aren't willing to do it (not you specifically, but anyone), you deserve all attention you get for it.

"Thinking for yourself" is great. "Parroting groupthink" is bad. So we completely agree on those points. Neither of those things is relevant to the point I made though, which is this...

If you do not vote on one of the prevailing wagons, you are voting somewhere it is easy to hide. If you haven't sufficiently explained why you are voting off-wagon, then I will find it suspicious.

That might be an explanation for why you are voting for the person you are voting for, or it might be an explanation for why you are not voting for someone who can actually get lynched.

But either way, voting for someone who will not get lynched is a vote that will have no impact, so the only way it can have any meaning is with words in the thread. Votes on the major bandwagons speak through the result of the lynch. Votes off them do not. That's why they become easy places for baddies to hide. As I noted, in Biblical, it became very apparent that one of the key tactics of the baddie team was basically for all of them to nearly always be off the major lynches. It's such an easy tactic for allowing the civilians to pick each other off.

I'm not a fan of demanding others play a certain way either. But I don't see a lot of demanding that people do rainbow lists or demanding that people to gth reads. I think some people do them by choice.

Putting this in a very easy to understand, logical train of thought

1) Focus is often put on people for their vote when they vote for or against major bandwagons.
2) Focus is rarely put on people for their vote who vote off bandwagon
3) Meaning can often be drawn from votes on the major bandwagons
4) Meaning can rarely be drawn from votes off-wagon
5) Therefore, as a baddie a very easy move is to engage minimally and vote off-bandwagon. It is also a very COMMON move.
6) Also, as a civilian who wants to contribute to a civilian win, it is more likely that they will have thought about and are able to put into words why they are not voting on wagon, since it is more likely to be an active decision that they don't find those people suspicious.

6) I believe, statistically speaking, baddies vote off wagon a lot more commonly than civilians, and for less clear reasons.
7) I believe, therefore, that if a person who votes off wagon isn't giving much of an explanation for why, that is suspicious.

8) Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to suspect people voting off wagon if they haven't provided a reasonable explanation for why they are voting the way they are.

I would argue that it is just as easy for baddies to hide their votes on a major bandwagon. You say that meaning can often be drawn from votes on the major bandwagon, which is true, but nearly every bandwagon in history has had several members who are basically going, "Yeah, sure, sounds good." In any instance where all of the endangered parties are civ, baddies would have little to lose by blending in to a wagon. And that is what baddies often do, they blend in. I get lynched for it often (although just as often as a civ to be fair). Most baddies try to avoid drawing attention to themselves, which voting off-wagon does.

For these reasons I feel that bandwagon voters have just as much explaining to do as non-wagon voters. In many cases, saying that they have a reason at all besides it being the popular option would be nice.

I may have been a bit hyperbolic regarding the new strategies, but I do recall incidents in fairly recent games where players were being pressured to do GTHs and ISOs on everyone else in the game. It's 2am so I'm not going to look for it now, but those occasions stuck with me.

[DFaraday]

Sorry if it feels like I'm harassing you, but when you say I've come across as legitimate since then that means you feel my "playing differently" were not legitimate?

I mean it felt shady to me that you would bring that up without prompting. You haven't done anything to make me suspect you since then.

[Matt]

Wow, cool result peeps.

Draconus, who do you think would curse you to ask questions?

[RadicalFuzz]

Thanks for reminding me Matt. To whomever is cursing the fine folks of this town: pick me next. I wanna be special.

Thanks for clarifying Faraday. While you're here and I have the ability to talk to humans at this ungodly hour, what is your impression of Wilgy?

[DFaraday]

Thanks for reminding me Matt. To whomever is cursing the fine folks of this town: pick me next. I wanna be special.

Thanks for clarifying Faraday. While you're here and I have the ability to talk to humans at this ungodly hour, what is your impression of Wilgy?

Wilgy usually seems a little shifty to me for some reason, but in this game he hasn't made a strong impression on me either way. Then again, I had to skim 15 pages or so if I had any hope of ever contributing again.

[DFaraday]

Also, voted Bos Taurus because I am a Taurus (even though I don't ascribe to astrology).

[juliets]

Good work Enrique getting yourself lynched. Several people have said it already but I look forward to playing with someone who is as much of an analyst of the game as you are. Please though, less posts so I can better absorb what I am reading, including what you are saying. These last two days went by in kind of a blur.

Metalmarsh, I really don't want to be a pain in the ass but i re-posted my question to you last night and even though you were talking in the thread you didn't answer me. This wasn't supposed to be this big of a deal but it's hard for me to believe you missed it again since I even posted to say it was coming shortly.

[a2thezebra]

Enrique? You mean Ricochet, lol.

[DharmaHelper]

Good work Enrique getting yourself lynched. Several people have said it already but I look forward to playing with someone who is as much of an analyst of the game as you are. Please though, less posts so I can better absorb what I am reading, including what you are saying. These last two days went by in kind of a blur.

Metalmarsh, I really don't want to be a pain in the ass but i re-posted my question to you last night and even though you were talking in the thread you didn't answer me. This wasn't supposed to be this big of a deal but it's hard for me to believe you missed it again since I even posted to say it was coming shortly.

And the identity of the people posting, I guess :P