With this [unsurprising] post spread density, I can already see why it's going to suck to be in my timezone for this fast paced a game. I think I'm going to have to settle with being active with whatever comes out during the slower hours, and making big posts shortly after waking up to cover the busy period at night. I'll try and be around for as close to the deadline as possible, but almost certainly won't be around for it passing on account of sleep, so will need to be sure of my vote before I do go.
First off:
##UNVOTE: Alex##VOTE: ExcalWatch me do the lurker vote dance. Bear with me, it's the rather anti-climactic conclusion of my thoughts so far.
First off,
Alex has posted a small bunch and that's enough for the unvote for now. I don't really buy into this
Delta personality thing yet (I don't inherently disagree with the meta-gaming perspective, but don't know him well enough myself to support it), but his frivolity and lack of content do at least raise a flag. He still needs to [be forced to] dig deeper before it draws my attention (you could call it the
Delta factor, or ±
Delta if I was looking for something particularly snappy).
As far as I see it we have three lurkers who've shown up once and not since for over a full day, yes? Of those, I'm willing to give
Strago the benefit of the doubt for now on the grounds that he at least aimed to move the game forward (not that I'd let it go if he was last man lurking). This leaves me with
Andrew and
Excal, and of the two it's
Excal's null contribution that worries me more when combined with a lack of content once things bridge into serious play (and whilst the lack of posting is bad for him, I don't hold
Andrew's standing joke vote as additional evidence against him, as I find it hard to believe that he'd think that votes would suddenly flock to
LadyDoor at this point).
I'm all for the consolidation of votes later in the day, but I don't want the lurkers to get a free pass through day 1 without scrutiny while we string up the active.
Speaking of the active:
Bardiche: ...hasn't posted since I last commented on him. This just looks worse as time rolls on. Those initial posts can at best be read as trying to stir discussion, and the lack of a follow up since discussion has been stirred leaves him on not much. There's still time left in which to convince me with something serious, but the day is dragging on now.
Remo: I still have my foot behind him. I'm yet to vote for him, but will stand behind my initial circling of his name after what read like a slip. It was the certainty of the statement that drew my eye - we can sit and theorise what's balancing this day and not get very far at this point (I have a fair range of my own random speculation, but I don't see the benefit in discussing it - does anyone disagree or have a theory that we could do something with right here and now? The only one I have that could be tested at all on day 1 would be some sort of simple post restriction), but
Remo seemed quite sure in that particular assertion. At that point I only wanted to make sure that it didn't slip through the cracks, but the follow ups have been less than convincing. The initial justification
here draws on the line from the sign up that would back up any sort of scum weakness rather that one in particular, which still begs the question of why that certain on an NK handicap especially when, as I said at the time,
if anything at all, the first post in this thread hints to me at day weaknesses rather than night weaknesses (I wasn't going to base anything on it anyway, but I'm slackening on this point now as I previously could only read it as implying day weaknesses, but now see how it could easily imply night weaknesses as well). The refusal of putting down a serious vote (as covered by everyone else already) is another negative.
I find his latest post
here a real mystery, in that it contains a description (but no real opinions?) of the people who have talked about him, concluding that they were justified in doing so, and then backpedalling on realising that the quote he previously used to justify his initial claim can in fact be used to mean just about anything. I agree, there are good odds of there being at least one scum vote on you somewhere if you are innocent (and possibly/probably even if you're not), but that in itself is not a measure by which we should line people up and lynch them. If your line of suspicion is in this direction then you yourself should be assessing the people who've voted for you or otherwise expressed doubts rather than vaguely telling us to do that. I find it hard to believe you can sit in that position without voting for someone. Without even looking any further it's not like
Bardiche has done himself any favours since voting for you. It's not OMGUS when you have good reasoning behind the vote, so sitting there coninuing to try not to step on anyone else's toes is one of the worst things you can do (especially when combined with close to a null defence, but I'm not entirely sure what you can do about that if it was an honest slip other than the apology that's already happened). I'm not insisting that you vote for
Bardiche specifically, but I can't understand the no vote when there's
at least that to go with.
Well, that took altogether too much time to write. I need to go and do other stuff for now, but I'll be back to cover the rest that I haven't done here. For the record, my field of vision is still rather wide, and I could go for any of
Delta,
Strago,
Smodge,
Excal,
Andrew,
Bardiche or
Remo, primarily dependent on most of them striking themselves off of my list for swatting the flies currently on them (
Delta and
Smodge still get the benefit of the doubt from me until I assess them more fully later today). If we're consolidating down to serious trains then my vote will currently drift to
Remo, but I have no intent of letting day 1 end very early with lurking going on unchecked, so I refuse to push that train any further for now.
