Okay, I'm not gonna quote the whole thing, but I'm referring to the quotes of mine
here.
1. And the directions I gave him were... to re-read the topic. Right.
2. No, what it comes down to is "Tonfa is still suspicious. Alex is more."
3. From the fact that he said he wasn't even gonna bother reading any of the Walls of Text? Maybe him saying he wasn't gonna read part of the topic implied that he wasn't gonna be reading parts of the topic. Maybe.
4. I checked the topic about 15 minutes from deadline. I started writing up a post, previewed, and added a bit for the next 5 posts. I then changed my post to vote Glen, then previewed to find he was down to 3 votes against two 5s. Went to switch vote to Tonfa and the deadline post hit.
5. I meant later in the day there. If the train on Alex were to build, and then I voted him, I'd be accused of train-hopping. It's already happened a few times in this game, no reason it wouldn't happen again.
Smodge: Alex was openly stating that he wasn't co-operating at all, which to me seems anti-Town, not bad-Town.
Sopko: I personally don't see it as train-hopping when there's a good case against that person. Each time, I've had and presented reasons for voting for those people, which are the reasons those trains have started in the first place. (Also, as was previously said, when I initially voted Alex, there was one vote, which is definitely not a train.)
Right. Time for today's actions.
##Unvote: Sir Alex.
##Vote: Smodge13.Smodge starts off making some very questionable arguments on the first few days,
as Excal pointed out - but in response to Glen, not at Smodge. Hops around between two cases - starts with Rat, moves to me, then goes to Excal (due to deadline, claims Rat is scummiest here), and then back to me.
Re-reading the Tonfa case... I'm not seeing it as half as bad as I did at the time. It started out badly, with flailing and bad logic, but he explained those away. Past that, outside of some semantics, seems like a mostly neutral read on him from Day1.
Glen suspicions peak on Page 3 with the "It's not my argument, I'm not gonna respond to it" thing. That still looks very suspicious to me, especially seeing as he never actually defended his interpretation of that post. I don't like the idea that he seemed to stick to the Rat/Excal path solely because he thought it'd be seen as a Scumtell if he switched - the scumtell would be narrow-mindedly following a dead case, if you ask me.
Alex has already started strongly with Day2, with a good case on Bard. Seems quite similar to this post's case on Smodge, but.. Bard's posts seem much more Town in style than Smodge's, and the logic is better, hence the vote. Gonna keep an eye on Bard, though.
Those not mentioned... Rat strikes me as slightly Town, but I don't like the style. Kiro's practically impossible to read for me. Tom seems likely to be Town, Sopko too, to a lesser extent. Mage is still as suspicious as he was Day1, I'm not getting much from his Day2 posts yet. Alice is too low-profile to get a read.
In all honesty, this case against me seems to be badly argued at the start, and now it just seems like they're going about this backwards - look for who could be Mafia, not how one person could be.
Except for this reporter thing people keep commenting on. I'm actually not too sure where or how I've done this, other than the occasional snarky remark. Can someone point out a post in particular for me..?
And Smodge: Cases mean nothing? Cases are pretty much everything. If you can't present your case well, nobody will follow it. If you can defend your case, you're not likely to fall. Cases lead to scum-hunting, so saying scum-hunting is important and cases aren't is ridiculous.
(Apologies for the Wall of Text. I'll try to avoid making another any time soon...)
