Excal's continued absence really sucks, as does Andrew's (but Excal's even moreso, due to his complete non-presence versus Andrew's flimsy-but-leaves-a-record joke vote).
Post-by-post response because my time this morning is limited and I can't promise I'll be back in time enough to go over everything like this before deadline. SORRY IT'S SO LONG, you people are active while I'm asleep.EvilTom : Yes, I get this, it was a joke vote and you un joke voted. I asked because there was active discussion on Remo and you made no mention of him whatsoever in your post attacking smodge. I completely understand the impetus, but you said nothing comparative (ie, smodge is
more scummy than Remo) and your entire post was in a vacuum of smodge!-almost-OMGUS, so I asked.
Remo : Bardiche's jump on you was indeed quite random (or was it...? ...), but it doesn't invalidate the points he made about you after you responded, even if I don't necessarily agree with what he said. The first half of your post is summary. Why? I also get that this Mafia business is new and role madness is frustrating, but letting it stall out your action is not helping it one bit. Your final bit -- "beware of those who are too eager to take [my neck]" -- is more of that stirring up panic thing. No.
Carthrat : Clear, yes, but what's clear does not necessarily equal what you meant. I'd rather not leave to inference and the chance of misdirection what can be said directly. You
have been pretty clear, however, which is why I poked you to a lesser extent.
smodge 2,
3,
4,
5 : I don't understand how he gets 4 lurkers here. Tom has posted, and even if it's been empty, that's far less of a lurker than the other three who had so far contributed what amounted to 1 post each (yes, yes, technically Strago had more, stfu). I DO agree with smodge's assessment that Tom's vote is OMGUS; that was very weird. I get where he's going with the "Delta = easy lynch" thing, but I don't agree. As the former target of such judgments, I'd've hoped he'd figure out that even though it HAPPENED, it didn't mean it was ACCURATE or RIGHT and, you know, not make the same judgment. Guess not?
#2, about choosing Remo-train over Delta-train, thanks for providing a stance. Sincerely.
The subsequent fail-codes are odd, and you could easily read into it that he's been coached: coached to make a vote, coached how to fix the coding. You could ALSO read it as "smodge hasn't been around and forgot BBCode" and "You know what, I thought about it, I'm more concerned with lurkers-with-no-posts than OMGUS-Tom" though... why is a lurker suddenly more important than a suspiciously bulldoggy poster?
Delta : ... wait, what? You pushed Remo for an answer and didn't vote for him because you want to use this against him later
and you left your joke vote on Carthrat in favor of this? And have yet to substantiate why it should stay there? No.
Alex : So your vote on Delta is (according to what you've said, not what I've said) because he supports "I think we should wait and use his scumminess later" (agreed), possibly because he brought up jester (eh),
"you're very gung-ho, ... possibly like you didn't draw vanilla townie for once" and lack of contribution and not moving the vote to Remo?
Xanth : I cringed a little. WoT to read quickly is a pain. Here goes, admitting I might be missing something:
Why are you reserving your judgment on Delta until he digs deeper? The reason we vote lurkers is because lurkers get away with not contributing, which cloaks scum in the darkest recess of "I didn't say nothin' incriminatin'!" Saying you won't be suspicious of him until he provides more content is... odd, at best.
Agree with your assessment on lurkers.
Agree with most of the assessment of Remo, except I don't agree that the reading necessarily supports a day handicap versus a night one (I think it could be read a variety of ways) but then I've said as much before.
Ultimately: giving Delta the benefit of a doubt thanks to his personality/posting style is fine. Doing so because he hasn't posted enough for you to judge him is less so. It's a fine distinction, but an important one, IMHO.
Remo : I... uh... actually agree with the comment on Bardiche there. The rest, eh, but thanks for giving your thoughts on people.
Alex : Pretty much agree with what he said here, didn't notice anything weird on a quick glance, moving right along.
Bardiche 2 : It was not inattention, TYVM, and I specifically asked for people to justify their votes related to Remo subsequent to the movement TOWARD Remo. "Why, Tom, did you move your vote FROM Remo?" Not why was it there. "Why, Bardiche, is your vote ON Remo?" Not why it was there. Notice that you hadn't posted since? That means you'd be reading that question -when you could answer it.- Which means you could answer it. And switch off Remo, or stay on Remo, and I would like an explanation for why you did X thing. Simple.
Comments re: smodge make me twitch a bit, if only mostly because he cites Tom's logic and, well, ignores the fact that Tom has said nothing about anyone BUT smodge. Agree with comments about smodge, am curious about the lack of comments about Tom.
Alex : Okay.
Soppy : First point: fair enough. Second point: could be construed as making too much of it, but also fair enough. Third point: exactly.
smodge : Why does it matter why it was started if it's still going for different reasons? A weird/odd beginning of a train is meaningless (EXCEPT REGARDING THE PERSON WHO STARTED IT) if it's going on its own steam later. Now, if the cases are flimsy, weird, off, et cetera? Maybe. But there are some fairly sound points for why people are on the Remo-train to Lynchville, so kindly stop ignoring them unless you'd like to take a trip yourself for ignoring good logic.
Yes, lurkers. They're lurking.
NO ONE PICKED REMO RANDOMLY EXCEPT FOR BARDICHE (and the joke vote, which was removed). Comments re: Delta were what I had guessed. Whole post is "I'd rather lynch lurkers Day 1 than anyone else if not given a choice," but failing to acknowledge that there are decent reasons to vote for people other than lurkers is making me hit my head against the wall.
Bardiche : More or less what I said above.
smodge : What I just said above, re: his "I'd rather lynch lurkers" -- yes, got it.
Strago,
2 : More or less agreed.
Alex : Squinty eyes for fishing for train-supporters, but otherwise moving right along.
EvilTom : *beats Tom over head* THERE ARE OTHER PLAYERS IN THE GAME! I get that smodge is problematic, but other than encouraging him to go to the Remo train (wut?), you haven't even TALKED about anyone else other than to cite them for why smodge is weird or Remo should seem weird to smodge. Even if I agree with your points (which I do, mostly), they're rapidly less convincing because you're building a whole case against a single individual with blinders to everything else. Even if this results in a scum net, you're making yourself more opaque to the other players. That is bad for town (unless you happen to be scum painting yourself into a corner, indeed).
Remo : Mafia is not the game for you if this is how you want to play. Slow and reserved and passive and quiet = SCUM, not thoughtful player. Unfortunate but true. Either learn to live with it or find a game that's more your style.
Xanth : Okay.
Strago,
2 : Agreed re: comment on Alex. And Remo.
Xanth : (ARGH NINJA'D BY LONG POST) Comment re: Strago is well taken, but I'm assuming Strago will be around long enough to vote. If not, that changes my mind immensely, but it won't be relevant until after deadline. At the moment, he hasn't said anything OMG SCUMMY to rate a vote, and he's no longer a lurker, so he's off the table as far as I'm concerned. The rest of the post makes sense to me, so moving along.
---
GOSH. Sorry that sucked and was long.
I will be back later tonight, pre-deadline (whether it's 8PM PST or EST) to adjust my vote as I consider it (it's on Remo, I'm considering either Delta or Tom fairly strongly, possibly Excal if it happens).
