Yes, I didn't comment on this yesterday; while I am following the game, scouring the topic and composing replies are not extremely high on my list of priorities at the moment. That said, I'll cover it now; it's more prudent to do so now anyway, since it'll draw more attention to the points I'm trying to make rather than slipping below the radar with the patchu mess.
Playing cautiously, you say? I wonder. I've read the topic and expressed my thoughts. I don't have the material or desire to generate huge lengthy rants, I'll give you that. I'd rather get my point across with brief statements. If that makes me look suspicious, I do not comprehend it. What, should I be trying to pull off attention stunts and Xanatos gambits, or just padding my posts with filler?
That... was actually the point of my original post (
link) in the first place. You HAVEN'T stated your thoughts on anything, you've merely gone along with the flow and contributed little to no information on any of the trains you've joined.
Tom was just "let's get the mess out of the way" with no commentary about what he was actually doing or how you read him.
Post of intention on Strago again doesn't say anything about what kind of read you got on him, you were simply going to hammer to get the day over with.
mia boiled down to "yeah what everyone else has said".
Then late yesterday you OMGUS'ed on me since I never retracted my vote. I didn't retract it because nothing you said actually made any difference about the points I made, and trying to get serious contribution while everyone else was focused on Patchu - and later Andy - wasn't generating much; no one else bothered to make more than a brief mention of my post. Patchy has been settled and Andrew will have to prove himself today, so they're both no longer in discussion - therefore this is a much better time to organize my reply, when the table is more or less clear and people can take more time to focus on it.
So no, you really -haven't- given us any of your own thoughts - even the "rundown" post where you moved your vote from Shale to me is a big list of "waiting on reply, looks weird (with no exposition on why), no comment, and finally said something so I'll unvote him".
So now I'll go through your original response to me.
First serious reply is 173, where he reverses on Smodge and shifts to Tom to "cut loose the argument" - no comment on any of Tom's actual actions to that point.
It is as you say. I simply wanted to cut the detrimental argument, having nothing else to go on early on in day one, and Tom was the one of them with realistic chances of getting lynched.
But again, this has no commentary about -why-. Tom was giving off scumtells like a madman - a huge number of people commented on that - but you never actually bothered to comment about any of that; the only thing you voted him for was "he was likely to get lynched and it was day 1". So you don't really show any of your own thoughts about him at all.
again posts no content - states his refusal to shift vote on Tom, cites there being "no way to test its believability" (seems weak to me; I didn't shift my vote either, but I've baldly stated that I didn't believe the claim in the first place). If completely uncertain about the claim, it does seem to me that it'd be safer to err on the side of caution here - and shift the vote off Tom.
I did not believe the claim, my fault for not expressing it clearly enough I guess.
I'll let this stand as is, as you're ceding the point.
states his intention to hammer Strago since the Tom train was going nowhere fast. Doesn't make any assertions about Strago's guilt or innocence (although admittedly this is after Strago flipped), but it would have helped to know -why- he was planning to vote Strago other than "just to get the day over with".
Threat of NoLynch, which has since been clarified to not exist.
About all I can do for this is give you a pass; you never commented on Strago's behavior but by that point he'd already flipped, so saying "he looked scummy for X" would be slightly odd given that he was 100% confirmed town at that point.
But that would still only be slightly odd. People comment quite frequently on how dead townies acted scummy when they were alive. This is just another example of "I'm not volunteering any information, I'm just going to do something".
Comments on Andy getting cranky over votes during sleep phase (mmm, sleep~), says "town vibe" but doesn't really back that up much. Only other comment is on how being "neutral but sticking to a vote" makes sense; I'll venture an answer in that it's because you never actually volunteered a clear opinion on that vote.
Town vibe was based off Andy's posts in late day one. Reply #235 if you want to get specific. I have no hard evidence to back it up, of course. Though, your analysis of Reply #222 is interesting. Will wait for further reply. Latter point I will concede.
Yes, you're talking about only a "vibe" here, and yeah, there can't be any hard evidence for a simple gut feeling - otherwise it wouldn't be just a gut feeling, it'd be a solid case. But again, it's being extremely cautious about committing to anything and that looks fishy to me.
328/329, which came in as I wrote this! Asks for more info from Andy re: forgetting his vote, pokes mia for more content about people not herself, drops a pressure vote on Shale, and requests content from Tai. Still not volunteering anything new. Calling out Andy here seems the oddest to me, given that he got a "townie vibe" from Andrew earlier. Analysis does change as the game progresses, but the lack of any content at all strikes me as off.
Apparently it's unheard of to question people who are not confirmed as town. That, and even though I thought Andy is a townie, I wanted to question him about bad play. As for "volunteering anything new" and "content", sure I could generate an epic guthunch detective story out of thin air, but there would be absolutely no point to that. S'pose I could go over the full list of people, though? Requires another reread of the topic in any case.
No, it's not unheard of. But my point was that you're still not adding content yourself, you're merely prodding other people to provide it. I'm willing to cede the point about Andrew at this point; suspicions do constantly change in this game, and this was only a "looks slightly off with everything else that looks scummy" point.
And you mention combing the topic yourself to come up with opinions, but never actually do it other than the highly noncommital post where you switched your vote onto me.
To everyone else: I can't claim that I'm not being fairly quiet in this game; I daresay I have fewer posts than Tonfa himself does. Partly this is because I have other things at the moment that are taking higher priority than Mafia, and partly this is because I don't want to waste the time I AM spending on the game with vague "me-too"isms as Tonfa's been doing. I haven't posted much, but when I have posted I've tried to make it count.
And since nothing about my original point has changed:
##VOTE: TonfaStill being very low-content lurkery.
