Okay, this is getting stupid. D&D finished a bit later than expected, but I'm then no more than a paragraph into writing stuff here when my connection fails again. All the attempted fixes fail and exhaustion gets the better of my senses and I start to get into bed when it decides to recover. It's so ridiculously conveniently close to the deadlines that I don't expect to get the benefit of any doubt here, but at least I'll try to get through the immediately important stuff as a sign of good faith and try for the time in the morning to finish it off, but in turn my being tired is trying to convince me not to care about the game.
What I had written before the connection went down (at least I had the foresight to copy/paste it elsewhere first this time):
---
Right, I'm back. I'm already regretting guaranteeing that I would post at this point, but it's worth the effort if I can remove the legs of this pointed argument where it currently stands.
I don't like the argument at all, as it was set up to draw an argument on me nearly regardless of my response. I've been neither non-commital nor lacked opinions from the start. Whilst I tried my hand at pressuring the lurkers I made it perfectly clear what my long term actions were going to be, and did act on them. I'm guilty of being slow, but I stand by my decision to follow the lines I did as they've led places, and I can't believe that
Bardiche flipping as godfather caused so little discussion otherwise. The question
Alex asked that led to the sudden scum assertion was hilariously pointed because it was either going to result in a poorly explained vote, quickly fumbled together reasoning or no vote at all as I continued to get through what I thought was important before reaching a measured decision, all of which justify whatever he likes. What's that, the conclusion to my thoughts don't make complete sense at that point? Well obviously, you've just called me out at a point where I'm clearly unready and uncertain of myself, and delay me in reaching my own conclusions even later to boot. There's already been the whole of day 1 to see that it takes me a while to write my posts, after all. And now it's a self-fulfilling argument where you can justify anything I do as either being to your set list and hence scum trying to coveran exposed weakness, or not doing something by your list and hence being scum who's not playing as he should be as town. It's not even a complex plan.
---
I dislike just how much of a free ticket
Andrew's had. He's posted a grand total of four times in the game (the last of which was practically two days ago), only talked about two people, one of whom was
Remo, and has just left his vote for
Delta there undefended in more than two days based on a small initial argument. Tunnel-visioned and little post quantity and quality, yet we're hearing little more than 'come on, post more' calls for him. I'm possibly getting into WIFOM here, but I can't see how he wouldn't be a bigger target to scum if he wasn't scum himself, when the amount of flak he's taken doesn't even come remotely close to the amount he deserves despite being what would appear to otherwise be an easy target.
Alex lashed out at me immediately for voting
Andrew as an attempted scum train on him, despite the fact that the other person on
Andrew at the time was
Tom, who
Alex has distinctly favoured as townie #2 after himself. They've voted the same both days,
Alex on the hard sell and
Andrew on the passive addition.
Xanth: Er.
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.
How do you justify this? It reads "I'm willing to vote for lurkers, but lynching them? Heavens, no!" Sorta undermines the purpose of voting, don't you think? Double points for Andy not actually responding to pressure before your change.
No, it doesn't read like that at all. Lynching lurkers is all fine and dandy [in the right context], but what
Smodge was doing was pressure voting for them (at some point he specifically says that he dumped the vote on
Tom because he'd talked so moved on to the next lurker - of course he contradicts this about five times, but this is working with him on his best terms), which nets you no new information most of the time, and
Smodge had just claimed that he had been voting on lurkers for precisely the reason of gathering new information.
And yes, surprise surprise my vote changed when I actually had the time to work out what I wanted to say and wasn't randomly pressured into getting my view out immediately. I'm actually back to being strongly against
Andrew, but
Smodge's trail came up convincingly first.
The reason for the quick switch from Delta is town, to Delta is scum was because Delta tried to hammer the day when there were a few hours still left, also majority wasn't even needed just most votes, Remo already had most even without Delta's vote, Delta then attempts to hammer and end the day early which is what resulted in the quick turn around.
As far as I can see it was a tie at 5-5 the point
Delta voted, which meant that the action was quite necessary for him.
This was notably just after you voted for him, so retconning your vote to be based on something that happened after it seems outright suicidal, especially when you were the one who forced the move out of him (it was clear that
Delta incorrectly thought that
Remo was at -2 from
this post, so I'm not even convinced that people didn't see his fake hammer coming). Also, even if I accepted this reasoning as to why you suddenly changed your mind to
Delta, this doesn't explain why, after it turned out that he hammered an innocent and started out the next day incredibly hyper, that you would suddenly change your mind back to thinking he was just bad town, let alone why you would parade all of his faults in front of everyone if you thought it wasn't him and implied you wanted him dead anyway, let alone that this doesn't address anything else I've suggested of you (other than the
Tom thing tangentially in the previous post).
Why aren't
Smodge's terrible slips being piledriven by anyone else? For all of the accusations of inattention I can't believe that one went without comment.
----
I think that's all that's immediately on me, so I'm going to have to call it a night here at 2am,
way after my bedtime. Not as much as I wanted to do, but hey. Where is everyone? I thought I would be fighting my way through new posts as well.
