Forums → Forum Games → Vote to Kick | Voting & Discussion

@SirLegendary

Voting to kick: Chryosten
Reason: Because I've wanted to end up in the finals with my nemesis since Round 1 and this is an excellent way to make it to an epic finale xD Already have ideas and accusations in mind

Since I'm already getting voted out, may as well get this over and done with:

Voting to kick: HahiHa
Reason: Because he's a mod. Enough said.

(This may or may not be a reflection of who I might be voting out in the final)

you forgot to tag legend in your post Anyway, @SirLegendary, you might wanna wrap this round up Not much to discuss when it's just the 3 of us and the person voted off has already been decided ^^

Announcement

Eliminated: @Chryosten

The spread sheet is in the OP.

In the event of the finals, all participants are to be called back to vote who to kick between the two finalists; Doombreed and HahiHa. This round will last seven days, or until all votes have been casted. The two finalists cannot vote.

Let the finals begin!

Signed Up:

1. @Loop_Stratos
2. @Doombreed
3. @MattEmAngel
4. @HahiHa
5. @Chryosten
6. @armorplayergc
7. @akshobhya
8. @red303
9. @shafaet
10. @BalkanRenegades

Alright, @Doombreed, bring forth your accusations! Let's get this round started early this time.

Meh. Sore lack of computers of any kind in my place right now. Not sure if I can do this from a Mobile phone. But I will try.

First of all, I believe you were a tad bit too conservative with the way you played. You waited for a while before posting anything during most rounds. While you were here all the time, your posting and voting behavior (namely when the rest of us kicked akshobhya) was a bit inconsistent. You voted for people with no apparent reason, just because the person that was to be kicked had been decided before your vote. While it caused no harm or any noticeable effect in the game, it did show that you were clearly distancing yourself from the rest of the players.

More reasons to come tomorrow probably. Apologies. Never quite liked mobile devices

First of all, I believe you were a tad bit too conservative with the way you played. You waited for a while before posting anything during most rounds.

While you were here all the time, your posting and voting behavior (namely when the rest of us kicked akshobhya) was a bit inconsistent. You voted for people with no apparent reason, just because the person that was to be kicked had been decided before your vote.

I was careful not to dive head-on into all debates, true, but that is a survival skill in this type of game. Being a mod makes me even more exposed, as we saw with how Loop or even Chryos argued at some point, so I had to be careful not to present myself as a target early on.

By that logic being the only knight among the players exposed me just as much as you.

You yourself refrained from making the first post last round yourself, remember?

Nope. I still made the first post. I just didn't double post for the sake of discussion and it is the only round that I didn't start the discussion first.

I myself used the word 'inconsequential' when I voted Chryos instead of akshobhya, not 'inconsistent'. I think my strategy was ultimately rather consistent; making tactical choices when it mattered, being more creative when it didn't. And here I am, debating this final round with you

Of course, I never argued that it is an inferior way to play. But you have to admit, no matter how you did it, or how well the reasoning behind that is explained, doing this you did somewhat distance yourself from the rest of the players Like every way of playing, this is one of the disadvantages this one has.

You, on the other hand, were always very predictable in your reasoning: always voting the inactive ones or those who were less predictable and thus more of a danger to you. That's perfectly fine (and got you far ), but it's one way to play among several.

And that's the downside my way of playing has. It's something I had to roll with. Being predictable in reasoning might not make much of a creative reason but at least it means one can discuss it and support his/her ideas. I chose that admittedly predictable way of playing because I wanted to be able to respond to accusations and replies to my own reasons All in all, I wanted to be able to support my ideas in a conversation, especially because I was always the one to start a discussion. This did not leave much room to be creative with reasons, if I tried to do what you did as early as I posted it would only be more dangerous for me.

I consider that if my vote doesn't impact the end result, I can be a bit more creative in my reasoning, and I consider this a positive point, not a negative.

It's not a negative, it has both its positives and negatives. One of the latter being (in my opinion always) creating gaps between yourself and other players. Come to think of it, that may be what made you a target. Granted, you did not go out of the ordinary too much during the first rounds, but you being the only mod and me being the only knight should have made us both exposed by relatively the same amount If anything, it would have only made me more exposed for talking too much and trying to find logical reasons to kick people.

Lastly, when you mention specifically the case when you guys voted out akshobhya, I wonder what you expected. If I had voted for him because he already had your votes, that would have made little sense since it was already decided that he would drop out of the game. I could have tried to find a creative reason to vote for him, but then what difference would it make if the creative reason was for him, or for any other player?

Plenty of differences. One of them being my point above. And also, why did it make more sense to vote someone else? both votes were inconsequential and instead of voting aks, you voted Chryosten while trying to to give justice to his thought out votes. This is not exactly a creative reason. It is out of the norm if you call the norm voting for akshobhya at that round but what you posted was not much of a creative reason. If you were just trying to be creative, you could have made up a pretty nice reason for anyone (as displayed by Chryos in that round who voted with us but did not roll with our reasoning xD). Instead, you voted for Chryos while saying that you acknowledge him as a threat.

Before I vote, congrats to the finalists. I never intended to offend anyone at any point of the game but if at all I have offended anyone during the course of the game, please accept my sincere apologies. It has been a great time playing this FG with all of you. I wish luck to both the finalists!

Thank you @akshobhya ^^

By that logic being the only knight among the players exposed me just as much as you.

Of course, I never argued that it is an inferior way to play. But you have to admit, no matter how you did it, or how well the reasoning behind that is explained, doing this you did somewhat distance yourself from the rest of the players

Being predictable in reasoning might not make much of a creative reason but at least it means one can discuss it and support his/her ideas.

And also, why did it make more sense to vote someone else?

Before I vote, congrats to the finalists. I never intended to offend anyone at any point of the game but if at all I have offended anyone during the course of the game, please accept my sincere apologies. It has been a great time playing this FG with all of you. I wish luck to both the finalists!

No offense taken at all ^^ thanks for that

That doesn't follow, no. Knights and mods are not the same thing, for one; and secondly, I think users feel closer to knights than to mods. The events of this game so far tend to support my view, although one tournament is not a statistically significant sample by any means.

Well, the rest of the users are supposed to be watching our discussion and making up their minds on who to vote. So, to all of you, what do you think of this? Do you feel closer to knights than mods? Is that the reason two of you voted to kick Ha 'because he is a mod' but I got no vote during the whole game?

o be honest, I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. Are you saying I distanced myself from the others because my votes were "out of the norm"? Are you suggesting that following a 'herd mentality' would have been better? And if I stood out as much as you seem to think, why am I still here?

Yes kinda, that's what I think. I wouldn't say voting those that were to be kicked equals 'following a herd mentality' though. It would have some advantages, for example, I got absolutely no vote during any round of the game despite being the first to start discussions and accusations a lot and being, as you put it, 'predictable' with my reasoning. I think that other players voted you 'for being a mod' either because they were getting kicked anyway and just wanted to make a statement (in Chryos' case) or because they felt you were a bit distant and just could not exactly describe that in their reason (in Loop's case). Of course that's just my opinion.

And if I stood out as much as you seem to think, why am I still here?

Well, the original description of the game says we can kick anyone for whatever reason. I suppose 'standing out' was not attractive enough for the parameters of this game ( hence why I believe Loop needed some other reason to vote you and chose 'being a mod').

But don't you run the risk, in playing that way, of having to repeat the same reasoning over and over? It might mean that you're getting good at defending the same kind of points, but I am really curious to see if that strategy works out in the long run. More so if we assume that future rounds will include more motivated new players and hardened veterans

It's not the same reasoning. It's the same way of playing. That means using logical reasoning only but that's where the similarities end. And yes, maybe I would run that risk. However, why would you assume I am going to use the same tactic during future rounds (if we even have future rounds)? Hardened vets might even try to kick people who seem threatening early on as you put it.

Because voting for someone who is already out makes absolutely no difference, and could as well be the same as not voting at all.

Voting for someone who is not out but will not be out anyway also makes no difference though.

Also, it would be totally boring! Voting for Chryos was intended to spice things up a bit, make clear that he is a target, thus also endangering myself (which is a bit contrary to my usually more tactical votes, but the game was already well in and I felt it was time for things to get more interesting).

The point I am trying to make is that it is not exactly a 'creative' vote. It is just 'out of the norm'. And it also occurred after Chryos had voted for you 'for your nefarious plan of taking over AG'. One could argue that it was not a risky threat but rather just a response to the threat you got before But I suppose you know the reasons you did that better than anyone.

Still though, even if it did make things more interesting, both parties continued their usual way of playing while kinda ignoring each other's vote in those particular rounds. The end result didn't change, as a matter of fact it feels nothing that matters changed.

It's a bit like in the game Shadow of Mordor when you use an Uruk to send a threat to one of the generals. It makes the general more angry and higher level, so it's a risk, but if you beat him he'll drop better loot. Of course you could do it the safe way, but if you want the special runes, you got to take a risk

In our case however, there is no special reward for voting that party off if anything it only made you more of a target like you asserted.

Well, the rest of the users are supposed to be watching our discussion and making up their minds on who to vote. So, to all of you, what do you think of this? Do you feel closer to knights than mods? Is that the reason two of you voted to kick Ha 'because he is a mod' but I got no vote during the whole game?

Yes kinda, that's what I think. I wouldn't say voting those that were to be kicked equals 'following a herd mentality' though. It would have some advantages, for example, I got absolutely no vote during any round of the game despite being the first to start discussions and accusations a lot and being, as you put it, 'predictable' with my reasoning.

However, why would you assume I am going to use the same tactic during future rounds (if we even have future rounds)?

Voting for someone who is not out but will not be out anyway also makes no difference though.

The point I am trying to make is that it is not exactly a 'creative' vote. It is just 'out of the norm'.

In our case however, there is no special reward for voting that party off if anything it only made you more of a target like you asserted.

There being advantages to it is not a logical counter-argument to it being herd mentality;

Nor did I say so. I was responding to multiple questions of yours in that paragraph. The second sentence is different, it points out some advantages in following that way of playing. I didn't use it to prove it is not herd mentality. If I was to disprove the 'herd mentality' you used, the best way would be the different reasoning most people used, even when voting for the same person that someone else voted for (Chryos did that better than anyone else I think, but some other good examples there too.) After a while, I bet it was challenging to even find reasons to kick someone that were not stated by anyone else.

On the other hand, Loop voted me for being a mod before I even made my first 'erratic' vote. This contradicts your opinion of me being a target for being 'distant'. I think he really just had no better reason than "Hey, there's a mod over there!"

@Loop_Stratos is the best person to answer that

Either way, would you kindly leave my individuality alone?

Nope In such a game, we leave NOTHING alone xD

You even prove my point further by stating they may have voted me for being a mod because they might have felt that I was not part of the group.

Not necessarily, at least not in a game like this where users look for any sort of difference to cling on and kick you for. No one belongs in any group in such a game (unless they form an alliance with someone else). And since it is individualistic, voting and not voting for a particular person does not establish or separate you from a group I think.

It makes a difference for the subsequent turns, in my opinion; or at least, it has the potential to. Beating a dead horse doesn't.

If we go there, then starting the accusations on someone and eventually getting them kicked (like I did with almost half the players) affects the outcome of the final round if the person who did those things reaches it. By extension voting for someone who is about to be kicked might also mean that person will be voting you in the final round (though less likely than the other example).

Which just means it's even bolder

Well, if you did it to make things more interesting, then the effort is appreciated . It didn't change a thing though sadly xD

The others don't really appear to care, do they?

I was thinking of that myself I hope we won'the have to resort to a dice roll or something...