To Cor:
You are obsessed with this concept of Agreeing and outweighing one another, and being proven wrong, etc.. Well, not obsessed, but you keep falling back to it. I said something about Ciato, you claim to agree, thus outweighs the situation. You later bring up how I did something like that with Laggy to disprove you. That's not my intent at all; my point is that you going after something that was pretty much minor at best, and then I was showing I wasn't alone in seeing things that way.
My Shale defense? Simple. People are jumping on him a bit harder than I think he deserves. He is one of the people at hand, so I figured I'd get my own personal thoughts out there. If I didn't do that, I'd be called out EVENTUALLY for not talking about Shale. Actually, I said something about Shale earlier (negative even!), Elfboy called me out on it saying "That's it? Come up with actual support!" or something along those lines. Fair, my line said practically nothing other than "I need to look at Shale, what others have said, he looks bad." But when I looked back and went over his posts, and saw the flak he was getting...I dunno, struck me someone was trying to label him something. Admittedly, I'm not 100% certain he's not scum, but I don't think the cases on him are particularly convincing at all.
Also, Cor, you still haven't answered my question. You claimed I haven't made good on what I claimed I would. Care to, you know, point out specific examples? Simple taking a post, and saying "Meeple didn't do what he claimed later!" doesn't help. I looked at the specific post and saw something that I did actually follow up on. Maybe not in the way you wanted, but I did.
Also...where did I call you out on saying you didn't do what you claimed you would? You basically answered the converse of what I was saying. I said I did something you claimed I didn't, and you go and act like I claimed that you didn't say something you said you would.
To Laggy:
Cor's clarification does not, in fact, satisfy me is the thing. It feels like he worded something some way, then needs to back himself up. Go back and see what he said. They don't really match.
I don't even agree with his logic. Again, what's Shale suppose to do? Ignore those who voted against a townie...let alone three...just cause he was intending on doing the same? His logic just doesn't sit well with me. He's saying "How can a town say he looked scummy then, and now say others look scummy for saying he looked scummy?"
Well, my thought? Simple; scum will make bigger of a situation on another town in order to get others to look at it. Now, I don't think going back and looking over Tom's points in and of themselves will make him seem less scummy; the fact is, his antics (if you can call them that) were pretty bizarre, and did nothing to help us, especially with that stunt of "I can't explain why!" On Day 1, everyone but Scum is blind; on Day 2, when there are flips, perceptions can change. Tom will still probably look scummy in a vacuum; I'm not denying that.
But...those still related to his lynching (me included, sad to say), and possibly those related to dealings with the other now confirmed towns does merit looking at.
Cor's saying that he can't see it as at all townie to go back and look at those dealing with Tom as a starting point...I'm not sure I follow this logic. Its just bizarre.
To Andrew:
I reacted cause I felt it was odd that Ciato would attack my posting style. There are some people I'd expect this from...but she's one of the people who knows exactly how I act, game's be damned. Even back in FE Mafia where we were both scum, I explicitly told her I have problems keeping my posts concise. When I have something to say, I say it, and then I get this urge that I'm not being clear enough and then have to go into detail. Its just how I operate; I really wish I could so something about this, but paranoaia that something will be read the wrong way + mild cases of OCD make it so I just have to get things this way. I've explained that in the past; even in nonMafia games. Any argument I'm in, I'm like that. Attacking my style just irks me, especially when the person at hand knows about it.
...though, I will admit I was probably angry in hindsight, and my case on Ciato isn't as firm as it use to be. Eh...guess I don't really have much of a case anymore, but I figured I might as well toss SOMETHING else on the table, even if it did garner me suspicion. I wanted to avoid the same trap I fell into once back in Clue Mafia where people were attacking me for not bringing anything new to the table, Me-tooing, etc. where i was town...and it led to several tunnel visioning, forced me onto the defensive the entire game, people ignoring actual important part of my posts, what have you. IT was at a point where everything I said was used against me. I wanted to avoid that...seems like I might be back into the situation, though, at least this time, I'll admit I did something more grabbing of attentions. Do I like this position I'm in? Of course not, but well fuck, I gotta deal with it anyway, so I'm doing my best to get out of it.
Regardless...
##Unvote: Ciato
In any event...
Some more clarification regarding some things I'm done, not geared towards anyone specifically...
My Defense on Shale? Again, people were calling him out on something. Naturally, I didn't just want to jump on the train by word of mouth of others; very easy for scum to embellish something, cloud vision of the person and they read things the wrong way. So I went back and thoroughly looked at Shale's posts. I wanted an in depth analysis of him, and all I came up with...was a weak case at best. Does this clear Shale? No.
However, I suppose saying "someone on Shale is probably scum" is a bad idea. *HOWEVER*, I do believe that someone related to the Shale attacks (if you can call it that), himself included, is probably scum. It was an easy thing to take, be it cause:
A. Shale himself is scum, and people got him properly
B. Cor said something the wrong way, someone saw it as an opportunity to put a stronger case on Shale, and went with it.
C. Cor himself is scum, trying to put blame on others.
Why am I bringing up Cor? Cause I feel like he's a good deal responsible for the Shale situation. Now, if you notice in B, it COULD be a simple case of a Townie trying to find something odd, attacking someone, and then some other 3rd party (in the sense that its not Cor or Shale, I mean) taking advantage of it.
Of course, there's no way of telling what's going on unless we get more role flips, so speculating like this is just going around in circles, and I know, being unhelpful. Still, I think someone is scum related to the Shale aspects.
Again, I don't mean to say "Shale's not scum, don't go after him!" What I mean to say is the arguments on him feel...lackluster. He hasn't done anything to make me think of him as something one way or another.
I will ask for clarification from one person though...
Excal!!! I'm having problems understanding what you mean about Shale's first two posts not linking up on Day 2.
If I'm reading it right, are you saying its typically better to look at those who didn't attack the three Day 1 deaths, but rather, go after the people who were clearly training?
Just trying to see if I understand your statement before I make any sort of assessment on the point.
(Additionally, Excal, lots of people here only refer to others via nicknames/shorthand. You could just Ctlr+F their full name and find out posts that way! Its what I do after all, seems to work fine. Doesn't work for everyone, naturally, since some people like Shale and Ciato lack such shorthands.)
*phew* Ok, think I'm done defending my actions...
Anyway, thoughts on others?
Bard...I'm having problems seeing him as scum. The Anonyvote feels a bit too...powerful as a role for Scum. On the other hand, I believe El-Cid stated roles in this game would NOT be used logically in all cases, so perhaps giving Scum an extra vote falls under this. So given the weirdness of the game in general, I'm inclined to say that Bard's role power being known doesn't do us any good as far as telling us his actual role, but I do think that his telling us about it was the right thing to do regardless.
Bard using FoS' the same way as Rat, if for different reasons, seems like a just compromise on that note. He's definitely someone I can't fault for wanting to hold back on his votes, given the double vote weight.
For Snow...he said he wasn't going to be much available this week, no? I think his point on Bard was more him over thinking the situation rather than anything else. Stuff like this happens; you think about something a bit TOO hard, come up with something that's worse than it really is, and you fear it (if that makes sense.)
Going over the cases on him, however...
So far, I...have to say they do seem sound.
Snow's concern of overthinking the situation I'm ready to pass. However, in his post, he doesn't consider that Bard himself COULD be scum, which is far more dangerous than his situation. Rat is quick to point this out. Snow responds by basically taking offense to Rat's call out. Seems a bit weird, frankly. He also seems to have his priorities not set straight either; Cor points this out in that he's, possibly unwillingly, implying that not only go after scum, but be concerned with anything scum to take to their advantage!
Though, Snow does point one thing out that I didn't see the others noting, which doesn't sit well with me:
He tries to defend himself with "Everyone looks scummy! Of course Bard looks scummy to me!" I...no, I'm not sure I agree with that. Obviously, some people are going to look better than others (be it truthful or not), and feels like a bit of a slip.
If Snow actually felt suspicious of Bard...he'd have done something more along the lines of indicating it. No, I don't mean the full caps thing he tries to use as a hyperbole, but being subtle about feelings doesn't help. At least using a line at the end like "This is assuming you yourself aren't scum" or something indicates you at least are aware that Bard himself might be scum. He doesn't do anything like that; he just questions the reveal.
Andrew's vote on Snow does bother me a bit. He pretty much gives little explanation, just says "There are reasons to reveal without being provoked!"
He basically says "whole thing with Bardiche" and does little to elaborate. I feel like he's jumping on a train here.
...in fact, Andrew himself is causing me some concern in general beyond that! Will go and look over his posts, but for now, this should suffice.
But regardless, Snow's looking weird. However, I want to go back and look over a few people (Andrew in particular), *AND* let Snow at least get a chance to defend himself, before actually voting.
-----
Ninja'd by Bard and...Tai? Wtf? When did Tai get into this-...
*reads vote count message from mod*
...oh.
