The Syndicate

Wow, half the game got votes and still nobody died. Very weird lynch, but probably quite lucky since I'd bet the majority who got votes were civ.

Sorry I missed the votes guys, I'm here! Yay game

FZ. wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Day 1 random vote - Mongoose.

So you just randomly picked the person most talked about in the thread?

I was really struggling to decide, but that really helped. Thanks
*votes* -Elohcin

Um, random means just that. Like putting all the names in a hat and picking one out. It had nothing to do with how much she was talked about.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:I voted Elochin because I think it forces others to actually think about their decisions than waste their vote. Plus I too don't like his vote for Mongoose. I don't know that I really suspect him though. But I wanted my vote to do something productive, even though I'd much rather not have voted.

I'm confused by what you are saying . You voted her because she voted for someone that you think is a waste so you vote for her saying that you don'y suspect her isn't that the same thing as wasting a vote?

Haha...you got called out!

Day 1 is difficult. Many players randomize on Day 1.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:I voted Elochin because I think it forces others to actually think about their decisions than waste their vote. Plus I too don't like his vote for Mongoose. I don't know that I really suspect him though. But I wanted my vote to do something productive, even though I'd much rather not have voted.

I'm confused by what you are saying . You voted her because she voted for someone that you think is a waste so you vote for her saying that you don'y suspect her isn't that the same thing as wasting a vote?

I missed this post.
I won't pretend to like my vote. I don't understand why we have to vote if we don't want to, but apparently there are punishments for not voting so I chose to be as productive as I could. Since she voted someone "randomly" and could have lynched that person because of it, I chose to even the game out by placing a second vote on her. So in a sense, she got what she gave to Mongoose. I also thought my vote was better than wasting a vote on someone with no votes, like most people were doing because I wanted to see if anyone would break the tie. Which they didn't, so it's kind of useless but what can I say? I didn't want to vote in the first place.

Wow. An 8-way tie and we get no lynch. I think that's definitely a first.

I'm going to check the roles out again to see if they tell us anything about how Matt could have survived.

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:
Speaking of bloodthirst, it eeks from every pore of this post:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Now that I am caught up!!! I'm not sure about Mongoose. I feel like every time this happens with her we end up roasting a civ goose... But go ahead. I'd be interested in seeing the result

Devin has seen with his omnipotent mind that Mongoose gets lynched as a civvie for whatever reasons she's being suspected now, but Devin has no qualms with this potentially happening again. Devin only wants results. He doesn't seem to care what those results are. This seems to me an uneasy amount of curiosity.

Other than those posts, not much has stood out to me. I'm trying to get a feel for the player base since there's plenty of people here I've never played with. There's quite a bit of talking in this thread already, though some posts were light on substance and heavy on eye-searing quote-within-a-quote-within-a-quote-within-a-quote boxes.

Although I'm sure this post of mine isn't exactly easy on the eyes either, so I'll stop here.

Yeah, more than anyone I have been pinged by Devin. I am sorry if he had a bad day~ me too I just got back from a wake, the roads around here are slicker than snot, and i almost had 2 accidents on the way home, and i slipped on the ice and think I am gonna lose at least one fingernail so i can relate. But hell day aside, Devin tweaks me so I am voting for him.

*Votes Devin*

I can relate to everything you just said here (I even lost a fingernail about 2 years ago. NOT PLEASANT!) So, I understand

We aren't doing this yet, but instead of overanalyzing Day 1 votes to death, let's try to flush out some game from the bushes.

Does anyone think the aftermath is bringing any new suspicions to light?

^ That wasn't meant to sound castigating, btw.

Sorry for the OT, but I think it's a bit relevant: A lot of us were having cruddy days yday - hope today is going better!

Dom wrote: I'm gonna say that I don't feel like I'm manipulating the thread at all... I've hardly had time to really post.
What do yo think of Epig?

Yeah, I mean, it was mostly gut just based on what you have posted -- mainly with regards to Mongoose.

I am really torn on what I think of Epig. First impressions were likely ballsy baddie Epig, but since have been second guessing that, since I know he could act this way regardless of alignment. I can't tell just yet. Maybe in another cycle or two I'll have a better bearing.

What do you think right now, Dom?

Turnip Head wrote:MP my suspicions of Summer were lessened after I found her responses to me to be logical and genuine. There were still some things about her posts that seem suspicious but nothing I felt comfortable voting on at the moment. She seems like an active and logical player so I don't want to get her lynched especially being so unsure about her. Devin struck me as less genuine than Sumz.

Got it. I have to say I have been reading her as genuine too which is why I didn't throw my vote there yesterday.

I can get Devin striking you as less genuine since he puts on a zany hat when playing mafia, but I personally have been getting pretty solid genuine vibes from him so far. Always keeping my eye on him, but as someone who knows him pretty well, I'd bet a few bucks on him not being baddie. We'll see how the rest of the game goes.

Bullzeye wrote:Wow, half the game got votes and still nobody died. Very weird lynch, but probably quite lucky since I'd bet the majority who got votes were civ.

It is very weird. Interesting regarding your observation though; what makes you think that? It might have actually been a good time for baddies to throw away votes on their teammates, though I would say that's much more likely with someone who had 1 vote than 2.

Mongoose wrote:We aren't doing this yet, but instead of overanalyzing Day 1 votes to death, let's try to flush out some game from the bushes.

Does anyone think the aftermath is bringing any new suspicions to light?

Very possibly.

Do you have a better idea of anyone right now or no?

Excluding secrets being involved, this is what Matt/AP could be:

1) He is John Cena, and survived the first attempt on his life.

2) He's Shawn Michaels and stopped his own lynch.

3) He's Rey Mysterio and can't be lynched at all yet.

4) He is Edge, making him the ringleader for one of the baddie teams.

5) He is Triple H and survived the first attempt on his life.

Given that 4 of those are civ roles and 2 are bad, I would be inclined to believe that AP/Matt is good for now.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Excluding secrets being involved, this is what Matt/AP could be:

1) He is John Cena, and survived the first attempt on his life.

2) He's Shawn Michaels and stopped his own lynch.

3) He's Rey Mysterio and can't be lynched at all yet.

4) He is Edge, making him the ringleader for one of the baddie teams.

5) He is Triple H and survived the first attempt on his life.

Given that 4 of those are civ roles and 2 are bad, I would be inclined to believe that AP/Matt is good for now.

Very excellent analysis, thank you.

I agree, and especially based on his behavior thus far, Occam's Razor says it is more likely AP is civvie than baddie. Of course, I will constantly entertain the other possibilities, but you've proven a good point here.

So, what are your current thoughts as to how everything went down yesterday; have you formulated anything concrete yet?

Uhm.... wasn't it an 8-way tie, which means that the above applies to all 8 players, myself included, or am I missing something?

Is it the host post?

The host post specified that AP was the one selected from those in the tie, yet there was no lynch.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:We aren't doing this yet, but instead of overanalyzing Day 1 votes to death, let's try to flush out some game from the bushes.

Does anyone think the aftermath is bringing any new suspicions to light?

Very possibly.

Do you have a better idea of anyone right now or no?

Not really - I was trying to entrap someone into say something less than prudent, but I think my scheme was too obvious.

Ask me again tomorrow though; I should be getting some sealegs by then.

linki - I wonder if someone specifically protected AP then when he had already garnered 2 votes.

BWT - Thanks! Lots of possibilities for Matt for sure. He seems uber-civ to me right now, although I think it is prudent for us all to remember in the back of our minds that there are distinct baddie possibilities for him, but I'm just not feeling those now.

Mongoose wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:We aren't doing this yet, but instead of overanalyzing Day 1 votes to death, let's try to flush out some game from the bushes.

Does anyone think the aftermath is bringing any new suspicions to light?

Very possibly.

Do you have a better idea of anyone right now or no?

Not really - I was trying to entrap someone into say something less than prudent, but I think my scheme was too obvious.

Ask me again tomorrow though; I should be getting some sealegs by then.

linki - I wonder if someone specifically protected AP then when he had already garnered 2 votes.

You mean someone other than AP himself?

Very unlikely. What kind of civvie would use up a lynch protection/stop they have on a player whose alignment they do not know?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Excluding secrets being involved, this is what Matt/AP could be:

1) He is John Cena, and survived the first attempt on his life.

2) He's Shawn Michaels and stopped his own lynch.

3) He's Rey Mysterio and can't be lynched at all yet.

4) He is Edge, making him the ringleader for one of the baddie teams.

5) He is Triple H and survived the first attempt on his life.

Given that 4 of those are civ roles and 2 are bad, I would be inclined to believe that AP/Matt is good for now.

Thank you. I was gonna outline the same possibilities, but decided f*ck doing that on this tablet.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:We aren't doing this yet, but instead of overanalyzing Day 1 votes to death, let's try to flush out some game from the bushes.

Does anyone think the aftermath is bringing any new suspicions to light?

Very possibly.

Do you have a better idea of anyone right now or no?

Not really - I was trying to entrap someone into say something less than prudent, but I think my scheme was too obvious.

Ask me again tomorrow though; I should be getting some sealegs by then.

linki - I wonder if someone specifically protected AP then when he had already garnered 2 votes.

You mean someone other than AP himself?

Very unlikely. What kind of civvie would use up a lynch protection/stop they have on a player whose alignment they do not know?

Well, I've done this before. It was not me in this game, but I've definitely gone out on a limb to save someone I really believed was civ (and luckily he was). [If you are curious, it was in HSR when I saved Llama from the lynch]. It's a bit brazen, but I'm sure we can think of a few culprits who might save their dear Matt just on a hunch.

I was going to write more but I keep getting into this in-depth conversations with people about fiber.

linki - You are doing an excellent job for being on a tablet. I'd lose my fool mind.

EBWOP to add:

I think I was just going to say that sometimes you have to go out on a limb. I had a lynch save once and waffled and didn't save Hedge and it haunts me to this day.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Excluding secrets being involved, this is what Matt/AP could be:

1) He is John Cena, and survived the first attempt on his life.

2) He's Shawn Michaels and stopped his own lynch.

3) He's Rey Mysterio and can't be lynched at all yet.

4) He is Edge, making him the ringleader for one of the baddie teams.

5) He is Triple H and survived the first attempt on his life.

Given that 4 of those are civ roles and 2 are bad, I would be inclined to believe that AP/Matt is good for now.

Very excellent analysis, thank you.

I agree, and especially based on his behavior thus far, Occam's Razor says it is more likely AP is civvie than baddie. Of course, I will constantly entertain the other possibilities, but you've proven a good point here.

So, what are your current thoughts as to how everything went down yesterday; have you formulated anything concrete yet?

I would keep it in mind too. I mean, that's a 1 in 3 chance of him being a baddie. So for now I'd say he's civ, and it will depend on how he continues to act throughout the game.

As for yesterday, I think the fact that the votes were spread out was mainly because, while there was a lot of talk, I felt like we had quite a bit of fluff too. So we didn't really nail much down yesterday. At least I don't feel like I did; I can't speak for anyone else. So in all honesty, it's probably good that we didn't have a lynch yet.

I'm hoping that if we can avoid a nightkill tonight, it would be even more advantageous in trying to lay some more solid groundwork.

Indeed, BWT. Things that fly (or somewhat do) on Day 1 (random voting, non-voting, vote trading, LP voting) don't really seem appropriate for Day 2. And I'm including myself in that as well.

Do you have any idea on how to can start laying the groundwork?

DFaraday wrote:

Day 0 is over. Day 1 has begun. You have 48 hours to lynch someone. Also, you must each post on-topic at least 5 times by the end of Night 1, or something will happen.

Don't forget about the on-topic posting requirement, guys.

I too have had a lynch save power and used it on someone other than myself who I didn't know for 100% fact was civvie but felt very strongly about their innocence. So it happens. I don't think it happened here though, because that person would have to have known to save A Person in an 8 way tie, a tie in which AP even voted for himself. I doubt anyone would save him under those circumstances. That power is probably better saved for a more dire circumstances. AP survived because his role allowed him to.

So, we know for sure that is was AP that was supposed to be lynched? I must've missed that in my quick skim of the night post...

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Wow, half the game got votes and still nobody died. Very weird lynch, but probably quite lucky since I'd bet the majority who got votes were civ.

It is very weird. Interesting regarding your observation though; what makes you think that? It might have actually been a good time for baddies to throw away votes on their teammates, though I would say that's much more likely with someone who had 1 vote than 2.

Just a statistical observation. 9 baddies and 15 voted people means unless nearly every single baddie took a vote, it's likely that half or more of the voted aren't bad.

Spacedaisy wrote:So, we know for sure that is was AP that was supposed to be lynched? I must've missed that in my quick skim of the night post...

Yeah the post mentions him specifically being targeted by a group of people but surviving their attack.

I just lost a post I was working on. It's the second time it happened. Is there no way to make it reappear after it throws me offline?


And to the game itself. First, the players that came to play on Ksite told us you don't talk as much. What a load of crap There's too much to catch up. I don't know if I can do it.

Second, I wanted to say something about "random" votes. If there is someone here who actually throws all the names in the hat, stirs and picks one, I'll give them a hundred bucks. I don't believe anyone really randomizes their vote. At most, you do Eny meeny miny mo (or however it is you're supposed to spell it). My vote for Elo was because her "random" vote for Mongoose seemed like a very convenient way to vote for someone who already had votes with having to pay the consequences later. Hey, it was random, it's not her fault a civ was lynched, right? Besides, if you don't think any of the players is scummy at this point, why not just take those who don't have a vote at all and randomize between them? What if her random pick fell on the person with the most votes and she ended up lynching a civ? How is that better than voting for a person who's done even the smallest thing to pinge you, like you call it? Maybe she did do eny meeny. But randomizing makes less sense to me than giving the vote to someone who seems a little off to you and you want to give him the BOTD but you feel you need to take a step and vote. At least you're doing something. Sorry, I don't like randomizing, I don't like self voting and I don't like switching votes.

Most people who are voting randomly use this site: http://www.random.org/lists/

But I agree with you in general, I don't care for random votes, but I don't hold it against anyone either. This is an argument that frequently occurs in our games on Day 1 lol

Spacedaisy wrote:Most people who are voting randomly use this site: http://www.random.org/lists/

But I agree with you in general, I don't care for random votes, but I don't hold it against anyone either. This is an argument that frequently occurs in our games on Day 1 lol

Ahaaaaaaaa. You people are way to advanced for me Still, my reasons stand. If you think someone is even a little suspicious, vote for them so if you're wrong, you voted based on what you believe. If you do it randomly, you have a really high chance of lynching a civ as well. And again, when you say you voted randomly, it's easy to avoid the suspicions later.

I use Random.org and take randomness very seriously, possibly more so than mafia.

Mongoose wrote:Indeed, BWT. Things that fly (or somewhat do) on Day 1 (random voting, non-voting, vote trading, LP voting) don't really seem appropriate for Day 2. And I'm including myself in that as well.

Do you have any idea on how to can start laying the groundwork?

Not sure yet. Let me catch up and I might have some answers.

FZ. wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Most people who are voting randomly use this site: http://www.random.org/lists/

But I agree with you in general, I don't care for random votes, but I don't hold it against anyone either. This is an argument that frequently occurs in our games on Day 1 lol

Ahaaaaaaaa. You people are way to advanced for me Still, my reasons stand. If you think someone is even a little suspicious, vote for them so if you're wrong, you voted based on what you believe. If you do it randomly, you have a really high chance of lynching a civ as well. And again, when you say you voted randomly, it's easy to avoid the suspicions later.

Dude, many ppl share your feelings but I find it a bit hypocritical coming from someone who has the right not to vote at all. The problem comes down to hating lynching a civvie on day 1. You might have a ping on someone, but it's really hard to actually get a baddie on day 1. I really like the way your site handles day 1; because it solves the problem of not being sure.

But we have to vote, so I don't hold it against people who choose to do what they feel the most comfortable with.

Just a heads up everyone, I will be in Rome from tomorrow until Sunday and likely won't participate very much. I'll try to keep abreast about what's happening and to vote, but it may or may not happen, if I'm being honest. Apologies in advance if I don't, and if I'm still alive on Sunday I'll be back in more or less full force then.

FZ. wrote:Second, I wanted to say something about "random" votes. If there is someone here who actually throws all the names in the hat, stirs and picks one, I'll give them a hundred bucks. I don't believe anyone really randomizes their vote. At most, you do Eny meeny miny mo (or however it is you're supposed to spell it). My vote for Elo was because her "random" vote for Mongoose seemed like a very convenient way to vote for someone who already had votes with having to pay the consequences later. Hey, it was random, it's not her fault a civ was lynched, right? Besides, if you don't think any of the players is scummy at this point, why not just take those who don't have a vote at all and randomize between them? What if her random pick fell on the person with the most votes and she ended up lynching a civ? How is that better than voting for a person who's done even the smallest thing to pinge you, like you call it? Maybe she did do eny meeny. But randomizing makes less sense to me than giving the vote to someone who seems a little off to you and you want to give him the BOTD but you feel you need to take a step and vote. At least you're doing something. Sorry, I don't like randomizing, I don't like self voting and I don't like switching votes.

I completely agree with you, especially on randomizing. But it's a discussion we've had ad nauseam and it never ends well so I won't say too much about it.

FZ. wrote:I just lost a post I was working on. It's the second time it happened. Is there no way to make it reappear after it throws me offline?


And to the game itself. First, the players that came to play on Ksite told us you don't talk as much. What a load of crap There's too much to catch up. I don't know if I can do it.

Second, I wanted to say something about "random" votes. If there is someone here who actually throws all the names in the hat, stirs and picks one, I'll give them a hundred bucks. I don't believe anyone really randomizes their vote. At most, you do Eny meeny miny mo (or however it is you're supposed to spell it). My vote for Elo was because her "random" vote for Mongoose seemed like a very convenient way to vote for someone who already had votes with having to pay the consequences later. Hey, it was random, it's not her fault a civ was lynched, right? Besides, if you don't think any of the players is scummy at this point, why not just take those who don't have a vote at all and randomize between them? What if her random pick fell on the person with the most votes and she ended up lynching a civ? How is that better than voting for a person who's done even the smallest thing to pinge you, like you call it? Maybe she did do eny meeny. But randomizing makes less sense to me than giving the vote to someone who seems a little off to you and you want to give him the BOTD but you feel you need to take a step and vote. At least you're doing something. Sorry, I don't like randomizing, I don't like self voting and I don't like switching votes.

I went to this site http://andrew.hedges.name/experiments/r ... ckone.html and copied and pasted all the names and then it spit one out. so would you like to send the money cash or check lol

Matahari wrote:

FZ. wrote: Ahaaaaaaaa. You people are way to advanced for me Still, my reasons stand. If you think someone is even a little suspicious, vote for them so if you're wrong, you voted based on what you believe. If you do it randomly, you have a really high chance of lynching a civ as well. And again, when you say you voted randomly, it's easy to avoid the suspicions later.

Dude, many ppl share your feelings but I find it a bit hypocritical coming from someone who has the right not to vote at all. The problem comes down to hating lynching a civvie on day 1. You might have a ping on someone, but it's really hard to actually get a baddie on day 1. I really like the way your site handles day 1; because it solves the problem of not being sure.

But we have to vote, so I don't hold it against people who choose to do what they feel the most comfortable with.

I don't really like the bolded part. I don't think that type of argument holds any merit here considering that it's a different site and different rules.

I might be saying this just because FZ's logic is the same as mine. But that one part of your quote doesn't seem like a valid debate or issue.

Linki

I don't really like random voting either but

This game seemed to have quite a bit more than other games I have played lately.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

FZ. wrote:I just lost a post I was working on. It's the second time it happened. Is there no way to make it reappear after it throws me offline?


And to the game itself. First, the players that came to play on Ksite told us you don't talk as much. What a load of crap There's too much to catch up. I don't know if I can do it.

Second, I wanted to say something about "random" votes. If there is someone here who actually throws all the names in the hat, stirs and picks one, I'll give them a hundred bucks. I don't believe anyone really randomizes their vote. At most, you do Eny meeny miny mo (or however it is you're supposed to spell it). My vote for Elo was because her "random" vote for Mongoose seemed like a very convenient way to vote for someone who already had votes with having to pay the consequences later. Hey, it was random, it's not her fault a civ was lynched, right? Besides, if you don't think any of the players is scummy at this point, why not just take those who don't have a vote at all and randomize between them? What if her random pick fell on the person with the most votes and she ended up lynching a civ? How is that better than voting for a person who's done even the smallest thing to pinge you, like you call it? Maybe she did do eny meeny. But randomizing makes less sense to me than giving the vote to someone who seems a little off to you and you want to give him the BOTD but you feel you need to take a step and vote. At least you're doing something. Sorry, I don't like randomizing, I don't like self voting and I don't like switching votes.

I went to this site http://andrew.hedges.name/experiments/r ... ckone.html and copied and pasted all the names and then it spit one out. so would you like to send the money cash or check lol

:P

If all the discussion today had been about Phil Collins and not the game that we're playing, then I would understand randomizing, but... oh wait...

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Matahari wrote:

FZ. wrote: Ahaaaaaaaa. You people are way to advanced for me Still, my reasons stand. If you think someone is even a little suspicious, vote for them so if you're wrong, you voted based on what you believe. If you do it randomly, you have a really high chance of lynching a civ as well. And again, when you say you voted randomly, it's easy to avoid the suspicions later.

Dude, many ppl share your feelings but I find it a bit hypocritical coming from someone who has the right not to vote at all. The problem comes down to hating lynching a civvie on day 1. You might have a ping on someone, but it's really hard to actually get a baddie on day 1. I really like the way your site handles day 1; because it solves the problem of not being sure.

But we have to vote, so I don't hold it against people who choose to do what they feel the most comfortable with.

I don't really like the bolded part. I don't think that type of argument holds any merit here considering that it's a different site and different rules.

I might be saying this just because FZ's logic is the same as mine. But that one part of your quote doesn't seem like a valid debate or issue.

Linki

I can't see the bold on my phone, but I'm guessing you mean the comparison between randomizing and abstaining? I see it as being almost the same. On this site if you feel like you don't know who is bad early on, you can randomize (or self vote), on ksite you can choose not to vote at all. They seem like the same thing to me, but maybe I don't know the whole story of how it's done there. I could be speaking outta my arse ya know. Wouldn't be the first time

Um ok, so no one was lynched? Hmm. Well Idk what to think about that, it's good that we didn't lynch a townie though

Turnip Head wrote:If all the discussion today had been about Phil Collins and not the game that we're playing, then I would understand randomizing, but... oh wait...

we were just trying to drum up a conversation

Mongoose and TH, duly noted. But I just think it's really risky and often not worth it for a civvie to do that -- I know I would never do it. Because I've felt SO sure about people being civvie before as a civvie and been wrong, and I'd hate to save a baddie with my power that I could have used on myself.

Bullzeye wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Wow, half the game got votes and still nobody died. Very weird lynch, but probably quite lucky since I'd bet the majority who got votes were civ.

It is very weird. Interesting regarding your observation though; what makes you think that? It might have actually been a good time for baddies to throw away votes on their teammates, though I would say that's much more likely with someone who had 1 vote than 2.

Just a statistical observation. 9 baddies and 15 voted people means unless nearly every single baddie took a vote, it's likely that half or more of the voted aren't bad.

Oh, that makes sense.

Wow, 15 voted people... I knew it was a lot, but it's crazy when you think about it, that's half of all the players.

FZ. wrote:I just lost a post I was working on. It's the second time it happened. Is there no way to make it reappear after it throws me offline?


And to the game itself. First, the players that came to play on Ksite told us you don't talk as much. What a load of crap There's too much to catch up. I don't know if I can do it.

Second, I wanted to say something about "random" votes. If there is someone here who actually throws all the names in the hat, stirs and picks one, I'll give them a hundred bucks. I don't believe anyone really randomizes their vote. At most, you do Eny meeny miny mo (or however it is you're supposed to spell it). My vote for Elo was because her "random" vote for Mongoose seemed like a very convenient way to vote for someone who already had votes with having to pay the consequences later. Hey, it was random, it's not her fault a civ was lynched, right? Besides, if you don't think any of the players is scummy at this point, why not just take those who don't have a vote at all and randomize between them? What if her random pick fell on the person with the most votes and she ended up lynching a civ? How is that better than voting for a person who's done even the smallest thing to pinge you, like you call it? Maybe she did do eny meeny. But randomizing makes less sense to me than giving the vote to someone who seems a little off to you and you want to give him the BOTD but you feel you need to take a step and vote. At least you're doing something. Sorry, I don't like randomizing, I don't like self voting and I don't like switching votes.

Weird about you losing the posts! So sorry about that. I've never had anything like that happen... Has anyone else?

I agree with you about randomizing. I actually argued very strongly against it game after game for a long time, but I've gradually lightened up on it. I still don't like doing it, but I suppose you can't tell someone how to play, and if someone wants to randomize they'll randomize, and sometimes they do it regardless of alignment.

It frequently got him lynched when he argued so much against the use of the randomizer. Go figure, MP being loud and getting himself lynched.

Spacedaisy wrote:It frequently got him lynched when he argued so much against the use of the randomizer. Go figure, MP being loud and getting himself lynched.

ahhh the randimizer debate I wish I was playing Sockdebater

Roxy wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:It frequently got him lynched when he argued so much against the use of the randomizer. Go figure, MP being loud and getting himself lynched.

ahhh the randimizer debate I wish I was playing Sockdebater

It's certainly an argument I love to have.

thellama73 wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:It frequently got him lynched when he argued so much against the use of the randomizer. Go figure, MP being loud and getting himself lynched.

ahhh the randimizer debate I wish I was playing Sockdebater

It's certainly an argument I love to have.

i.e. an argument

lol