Gah, messed up quote tags. Fixed post below:
--->
M'kay. Since Kilga declares intent to vote on me apparently, I'm going to respond to this first and then uh, yeah, El Cid killed? WIFOM mindfuck to me what the scum are thinking.
Ignoring the bits that really can't be responded to in any way other than, "uh, right."
You're wandering into both False Dichotomy and Appeal to Emotion territory here. My answer is that you should NOT not post at all, but you should also not post posts that are opinionless summaries doubling as placeholders.
In this instance, yes, I believe it would have been better to not post at all if the only other alterrnative was to post what you did. (Again, false dichotomy, but that can be ignored for the purposes of this hypothetical situation.) If you absolutely must post to maintain a presence in the thread while you work your way toward time where you can actually focus, stuff like this is better (in my opinion: there are others that would disagree, most notably those who prefer no excuse for absence is made at all) because you don't look like you're trying to look like you're contributing without actually doing so. If that makes sense.
As far as I was concerned I was reflecting the stuff I had caught up with so people'd know. Was I contributing at that time? No, I wasn't. But I also do not feel that what I did is in any way grounds to lynch someone, or otherwise an anti-Town sentiment.
There is no attempt in the post we're arguing about to have
any contribution to the thread at all.
Here, I refer to what I write as "thoughts" indeed. They are my initial impressions of the issues I caught while skimming and are a clear indication that I was catching up to the thread and that real contribution could be expected in the near future.
You could but it would be a hell of a lot harder to do so without looking really bad. It is better to solidly commit to an opinion not because you genuinely think what you're saying is true, but because it allows others to get a better read on you and form their own opinions accordingly. If you're flip-flopping all over the place you're going to stick out like a sore thumb (because if you're town you have no reason to do this).
The above in its entiriety is nothing more than playstyle differences/argumentation differences and I cannot respond to that in any way that doesn't boil down to, "That's the way I play, kay?"
You miss the point again. Your assessment of Cid started off as a negative one and ended as a positive one, and I have a very hard time seeing the bridge connecting those two sentiments in the rest of that paragraph. It's like you forgot what your opinion of Cid was halfway through. (Either that or you were somehow leaning TP on Cid, and I find it very hard to believe that anyone could make that call on Day 1.)
I suspected TP on Cid from then since he showed apathy towards the results. And hey, I find it equally hard for anyone to make a call on scumminess from game-start, so. I didn't feel Cid was particularly scummy that he should be lynched, but I also didn't feel he was being particularly Town. Leaves two options: write him off as "neutral read" or "Third Party", and I suspected the latter.
Not what I was asking. "His one-track approach is pretty..."...what? Townish? Scummy? Clever? Crazy? Gassy? Use an adjective instead of an ellipsis. "It makes me wonder" and "I'm not sure what makes me dislike it" are not terribly helpful. Sure, you say you dislike it, but you say it in such a fashion that's easily brushed off as nothing later at your convenience.
His one-track approach is pretty I cannot bring it under words so I am making use of implied dislike for the one-track approach. If I have only gut to rely on I can't make it any clearer than I have. I don't rely solely on logic in this game─if I did I'd have little to rely on for myself.
Then why not simply go back, count the votes and vote for Tom when you see it's safe? Or, if you're not sure, vote for no one? (I was even nice enough to point out in the post before yours that Tom was at L-2! :V) Do you not realize why "We need to lynch Tom! *Excal vote*" looks bad?
Like I said, I wanted to show where my suspicions were as well. I broke down earlier that I felt both Alex and Tom were Town, and so I can't find problem with actually pointing at where my suspicions do lie.
---->
If possible, I would like others to assess what I have laid out against him - useless journalism (which I admit is less prevalent than I initially thought when I first posted attacking him but still more prevalent than when Xanth was picking at him on Day 1 for it)
I'm going to admit to that only one of my posts was nothing but journalism. The two other posts you highlighted I have refuted. Will you hold that one post where I felt I was informing people of how far I've caught up/was being a useless reporter so strongly as a lynch argument? If you will, well, be my guest. I can't do anything about that.
voting for Excal while claiming Tom needs to be lynched
See above.
suggesting the "if x flips town we need to lynch y" line of following.
If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Town, we will need to lynch Alex to be sure of his alignment.
I'll admit to later on saying, "Tom presents a case where Alex can only die",
I think Alex is seriously convinced he's nailed scum, and I think EvilTom's seriously convinced he's notScum, since he presents indeed a scenario in which case Alex will die if he dies.
Which was inspired by:
If I'm lynched and flip town, he'll just shrug and say "oh I'm insane" and then be 'roleblocked' for the rest of the game ("I think this is an important goal, since it is very likely scum have a roleblocker given we have a cop..... I consider this important enough to outweigh the obvious drawbacks of my early claim"). He's already set it up for himself. [4]
I failed to consider the possibility of Alex just continuing the investigations and providing proper results then since he knew his sanity. That is the err I can admit to.
---->
Current day. Really want to hear Alex first of his investigative results.
Excal going away is... really damn inconvenient to me, since I suspect him of scumminess and then he's going away!
Alright, here we go.
##VOTE: ExcalThere is no looming Cop claim right now, so I want to pick up where I left off.
Quote from: Excal on December 04, 2008, 08:11:27 PM
Also, Bard, in regards to why I was more interested in my side thing. It's because I really was hoping for a role blocker, irrationally so I suppose. Regardless, had that been the case, it would have meant, like I said earlier, that we'd have nailed scum 100%. Sadly, the actual resolution is utterly inconclusive (or does have answers, but not ones which benefit Town to be talked about and so I'm dropping this thing like a radioactive potato) so yeah. I get to stand here and look silly.
You may also have noticed that although I said I was going to think about it as I was leaving, I had also shown signs of musing it over before I left. Most importantly in the aspect of admitting that whatever else had happened, I had been wrong in my earlier paranoia and that the Alex scenario I had earlier mentioned no longer fit as I had put it.
Your hope for a roleblocker is... irrational indeed, that you prioritize possibility in favor of what's been concretely put in our faces.
I must've missed those signs. You've been rather reserved insofar as commenting on the relevant matters go, though. I note your Day 1 activity was there, but little of it actually seemed keen on scumhunting. The only real vote you placed was on Sopko after things went awry for him. Your continued behaviour in that regard Day 2 makes it even look worse.
I won't hold your lack of a vote Day 2 against you─that'd be unfair given my own vote record, and I am already straining the reaches of courtesy by holding it against you Day 1 when I was hardly present for the first Day. I justify it to myself only as your activity being there despite no vote.
But despite that, I still hold your lack of... lack of actual scumhunting against you.
Excal's been lurking altogether and has been lackluster in actual scumhunts. When the entire Tom Case became an actuality and the soup du jour as Strago put it, Excal waved it off as paling in comparison, supposedly "showing signs of mulling it over" when I saw no such signs.
Also:
My first thought is that the Roleblocker theory seems slightly more plausible to me due to the fact that if the scum assumed doctor instead of bulletproof, as seemed to be the sentiment in the thread, then with Alex's revelation that it would be more likely that El Cid would not be under Doctor protection due to wanting to keep the Cop alive
the fact that if scum assumed doctor instead of bulletproof. This may be going into WIFOM, but the fact that
something happened to that Night Kill, be it Roleblock (either side) or Hitman (scum), doesn't really indicate the Scum assumed anything. I do not know why you purport that they must've assumed Bulletproof.
---->
ADDENDUM:I realize Kiro and Affinity have been lurking hardcore.
Speak up you two.
