I dislike Xanth's reasoning voting Alex. It seems... simply flawed. I know people reach at the beginning, but you're going to pin your first real vote on the basis that "Scum pay less attention" when you know that that isn't true?
You're right, I do have my sayings mixed up,
my mistake. I'm not particularly sure why I've otherwise been given the total benefit of the doubt in my absence, but hey. I don't agree with this view of 'real' vote when these things come in drips and measures in day one. I still find the voting patterns at the start of this game to be rather odd, but I've moulded this unease on a fallacious principle, which I should have been hit harder for.
Not that I understand
Alex any better now. Not that I can see what the scum angle would be on this behaviour, but I don't see any of, you know,
Alex in there, nor anything approaching useful play. This is still the sorest thumb out there, so my vote yet stays (even with the incorrect rationale on top, I stand by the double-voting weirdness as something to start from).
Elsewhere, I completely and totally side with using metagaming where possible/sensible. Town should be using every last weapon at its disposal. At least use what you have of it to guide your suspicions if you're not willing to use it to directly justify voting for someone. And no,
Tom's joke argument obviously doesn't count as such, given that it's not at all meaningful. I don't particularly like
Strago bringing up an old game only to immediately toss the argument out of the window, but that's not for the metagaming, just for bringing up an argument that's completely tossed away in the same breath that it's posited.
Xanth: Who would you prefer to see at three votes right now, if not me?
Most other people, if anyone at all. Putting you to three effectively put a poll to everyone saying 'hey guys, what do you think about
Kilga so far?', which nets us bugger all information when you had at that point just posted a fairly typical joke vote and nothing more, at a time where it was reasonable to have done that much. Anything else you get from this from seeing how people react to a generic first train would be better served on someone that we could actually talk about more than just 'oh, he made a joke vote'.
So yes, given quite how early it was at that point, my answer is effectively 'on no one'. Answering the question for now, I'd say I want more of a spotlight on
Alex,
Bardiche for his typical shallow commentary style, maybe more on
Tom if he doesn't jump out of his first vote as a joke, and
El Cid for opting to frame the discussion quite so early.
