Oh god, this has turned out way longer than I expected. There was just way more to comment on than I expected.
Since this is important material from me, find a tl;dr summary at the bottom so it isn't just lost in the wall of textSmodgeThe initial
straw grasping worries me in its scattershot approach, especially when he doesn't remove his joke on
Tom, which is the worst part as
surely he knew that
Tom would attack him for it if left long enough. I don't inherently disagree with voting for
Tom for lurking at that point, but he doesn't bring the lurker angle out until after he's questioned about it by
Rat, and had only previously mentioned
Alex out of the people he could/should have been slamming for it. I don't get his angle on
Delta at all - I think it's either trying to guilt people away from voting for
Delta, or drawing more attention to him in a reverse psychology sort of way (not that I can seriously believe the latter from
Smodge)? I'm not sure I like how that ties him to
Delta, especially in the case that one and only one of them is scum. For all his talk of bloating post count, he then has a post with the same content repeated, a game irrelevant question (not that I should penalise him for that), and then his vote on
Tom becomes serious
here. Primarily I dislike the idea that it wasn't serious before that, but even more worrying is the growing likelihood that he is actively going out of his way to rub
Tom the wrong way. It's all so convenient that he would attack him from the start and pick him out for the first error he can find - the result is entirely predictable.
At this point I theorise scum
Smodge under instruction to do exactly this from the start to create a smokescreen that people have seen plenty of times before, except usually town on town. Not that this clears
Tom in any way, as on the other end it was rather convenient that he was away long enough for
Smodge to fire so early on, but I don't think it would have been hard for
Smodge to set this up regardless of
Tom's actions.
More of the same
here. No new information in a new post. The ten second turn around on
Tom to
Andrew here is baffling due to the lack of new information for some time - I don't take immediate offence with either stance, but the sudden change of priority defies the senses and has already been posited as scum advice implemented badly (I don't see bad town play in it because something really ought to have sparked that, but nor do I see sensible scum direction in it, as it sticks out like a sore thumb).
First main thing in defence of
Smodge is the defence of
Remo. There are a few scatterbrained ideas for this, but chances of guessing the system of the game seem weak at best, so I'll chalk this up as positive. However, in the same post we get:
Eviltom was remaining quiet, i picked him out of the lurkers to pressure seeing as i only have 1 vote i cant target all of them.
Tom then begins to post so its on to the next lurker.
Which is not true, having previously justified sticking on
Tom well after he's started talking. Again, sticking with the lurker defence now looks like it's trying to hide a tree in a forest, as it doesn't look like
Tom was an arbitrary choice at all. It fits together if he's scum and he's been told to tone it down now that there were two good threads going (it's less likely if
Delta is scum, but I suppose having one(?) member taking heat is still better than two).
Yet another post
here which just repeats his mantra about lurkers.
In his big post
here his vote for
Delta when he could vote for
Remo really stretches my belief that both of them can be scum. As such, I'm leaning towards the most likely situation being that
Smodge is scum and
Delta is fumbling very badly as town. Suddenly turns around on
Delta from 'easy to pick on, but don't overlook him' to 'definitely thinking he's scum' without an inbetween from that diplomacy (other than his very first impression), practically citing
Delta's latest flailing as the justification (I
do not stand against him for pushing
Delta instead of
Remo, but the attitude feels like stretching for cheap justification). Token kick at
Tom to threaten that screen starting up again, whilst reading pretty much everyone else neutral. This also forced
Delta to show his hand (but not to make the miscount screw up, although he'd made the same counting error earlier), ever so neatly after I'd stopped that judgement from being forced.
---
Through to day two play, and he's gone for a while, but explained so let's gift that point. The first post ploy of 'I don't think
Delta is scum, but here are all of the bad things he's done' is very unsettling (much more natural if it had come when he actually voted for
Delta, but now it sits along side 'hey guys,
Delta's an easy lynch' as odd things he's done to keep people thinking about
Delta (not that we'd forget), especially since
Delta has got a lot worse in my eyes today compared to yesterday. It's a really bad combination to cleanse his hands of the responsibility.
The play into voting for
Alex upsets my position, as he's my other likely candidate. I think I'm into WIFOM territory if I'm going to try and justify one or the other, or both. It's not a strong argument in comparison to the others offered on him anyway, but I do admit this is a strange piece to fit. I don't take his
Rat comments as badly as others have, but I again note his fluctuation in his case on
Tom brings us back to the OMGUS case rather than lurking only. Straddles the
Delta/
Tom/lurkers issue again
here, where his opinion is back to lurkers only, although he finally retcons his vote on
Tom to make sense.
You claim my votes were wishy-washy, i disliked the trains and so i picked on something i thought was more likely to reveal scum.
Picking on lurkers is more likely to reveal scum how? Lurkers should not get a free ride and pressure votes are justified most of the time, but you're not getting any new information out of someone who just plain isn't there. I did similar yesterday, except I made my long term moves clear rather than just repeating that it was right to stick on the lurkers.
The flip shows exactly why i dislike day 1 random bandwagoning for no reason, Bardiche manipulated it so it deliberately landed on a townie.
I do not like the implication that it was
Bardiche's master plan because it implies that you're absolving the rest of the people voting for
Remo of doing anything wrong without judging them on their own merits.
The annoying thing is so many posts hinge on Delta's alignment
A death wish for someone who you've just again put down as being town rather than scum?
##UNVOTE: Andrew##VOTE: SmodgeI still need to check today's other key players (
Alex,
Rat,
Delta and the lurker twins), but I'm sufficiently confident in
Smodge's guilt to put my vote down now. I may yet swap to
Alex, but that's looking likely only in the case that they both look scummy and
Alex is the better chance for a lynch today.
tl;dr
-Suspicious movement on Tom through both days, repeatedly changing his story back and forth for the reason behind the vote.
-Kill him but I don't think he's scum approach with Delta, who I now believe is probably innocent.
-Baffling change of mind from Tom to Andrew does not read good in any way.
-Several posts that say the same thing over and over again. Fluff of the simplest nature.
-Hid behind the lurkers to keep on the fence on the issues that were actually going to decide day 1.
-Approach to Delta has also flipped at least twice in quick succession.
-Minor slips on the game set up, while laying this down as bad town play on Delta.
