Part 2!
Kilga, first and foremost.
Page 1 - no serious posts. (forgets octothorpes when voting, I'm surprised he's not trying to attack me for not having pointed this mistake out yet.)
Page 2A:
On the other other hand, why is Alex attacking someone for attacking someone for either using bad logic or simply not paying attention? I'm not sure how Rat would be trying to stifle conversation by answer-prod-voting someone.
It sucks knowing that at least one (and most likely more) of these views is (are) wrong...Excal looks the least of three evils, since all I can really hold against him is one line...
*votes for Alex*
Accusing Person A of trying to stifle conversation by voting for Person B and then voting for Person A in the process seems somewhat hypocritical to me (in addition to being nonsensical, as questioned above), and is, at least, more concrete than what might just be me misinterpreting Corwin's internal thought process. I feel this almost got lost in the midst of Corwin/Excal, which I don't like, so this vote doubles as a friendly reminder for everyone.
At this point in the game voting on the early stuff is fine, but his line of logic is faulty. B (Sopko) votes A (Meeple) for some pretext to get discussion started. C (Rat) votes B for voting on a pretext (ghost line: to get discussion started). D (me) votes C for voting B on the reasoning that C is unproductively voting against starting discussion. E (Kilga) now comes in, says D is also voting against discussion - then votes D. But this doesn't work out. D's vote only stifles discussion if any vote in the chain's does. Which means that E's vote does the same thing, and Kilga himself is being hypocritical in the same way he accuses me of being. Extended, anyone voting anyone for any of this is stifling discussion... of course this is bunk and only the C vote is directly anti-discussion. At this point it is an (apparent) minor logical error on Kilga's part, but it will continue to be played on later.
Then at the bottom of page 2:
Kil, though, I'm suspicious of. His vote on Alex is incredibly flimsy and he doesn't really contribute much other than that other than bringing up behavior from past games, as Corwin said.
I'd love an explanation as to how my vote is "incredibly flimsy".
Also I was unaware that Excal's 20% line happened in a previous game. Regardless, I don't see why referencing previous games even matters one way or the other. I saw someone that did not appear to be consistent with themselves, and I noted it (while tagging said note with a potential for misunderstanding, as the two situations are not exactly the same). Is that a problem?
Already defending metagaming vs Excal?
Page 3:
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9732#msg9732Here he first calls Sopko's Meeple vote incorrect, saying Meeple couldn't fly under the radar this early. Also continues the argument over the chain votes being pro or anti discussion.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9741#msg9741Votes Meeple for the now infamous mistake.
Page 4:
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9805#msg9805- The discussion starting thing was WIFOM because your saying "provoking discussion is not something scum want to do" is exactly why they WOULD want to do it, and then we have our loop. You may say that scum might be afraid the discussion would turn back around on them, but I imagine that it's a risk worth taking if they're going to get town cred right off the bat for it (which you, for example, were willing to do with "In fairness, that does actually remove suspicion from you in an odd sense").
Why, then, is the discussion starting chain a cause for cases, if Kilga's going to (correctly) assert that it's too WIFOMY to draw much out of? He says he finds hypocrisy and contradictions in it - but as stated above, if my vote is hypocritical how is his own not? This is his last post on day 1.
Page 5:
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9871#msg9871If I'm correct that it's about Meeple's misinterpretation of Rat, he retracted it promptly and it is a mistake of reading rather than of WTF like the glaring scum mistakes usually are. (Addressing dead people, etc, see Super and Rat in prior games) I see it as neutral and not a large issue.
What the heck? This is the second time this game that you've discarded someone else's mistake as a non-issue. The town Alex I know would be all over this stuff, not sweeping it under the rug. This isn't like you at all.
Not to mention that your actions in downplaying mistakes seem an awful lot more like attempts at stifling conversation than Rat's vote for Sopko.
Votes Alex
Here's where Kilga falls off the cliff for me, so to speak. He says that twice this game I've discarded mistakes as non-issues. This is flat out wrong, as I detailed in my responses on that page. He calls metagaming on me, which we've also been over, and accuses me of stifling conversation by downplaying mistakes - Meeple's and Sopko's. This is also wrong. Note that he's again equating Meeple and Sopko's actions, calling them scummy, and calling me scummy for not joining in. Primarily, however,
note that he's calling someone saying "This is a minor case to me" stifling discussion, and voting on it. If downplaying something you see as a minor mistake is accepted as scummy behavior, town is obligated to concentrate on minor mistakes wherever and whenever someone brings them up! This is holding town at gunpoint to concentrate on details - precisely the scum line I see being pushed in this game, and right here, Kilga's the pusher.
Backed up again by his next post:
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9880#msg9880http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9897#msg9897- At no point did I say "Meeple's acting like Meeple, SCUM!" I said the equivalent of "Meeple's acting like Meeple when he was scum before, SCUM!". There's a very large difference, and I'd appreciate it if you could start using the latter instead of the former when discussing my past arguments against you. It doesn't help you that "me too"ism is easy for scum to fall into, either.
"I'll thank you to metagame properly, sir." This post is where he last mentions the "Meeple has a me-too" playstyle argument, and in this paragraph he puts it as secondary to metagaming.
- Your mistake is not that only strike against you, whereas I haven't seen much of anything else about Sopko that looks bad. So yes, there is a difference there as well.
Really? What else, except for metagaming and me-tooism? Those are the only three things he's mentioned - and his vote is still resting on me, not Meeple. Apparently it's WORSE to call mistakes minor when they aren't your own?
- This is the first time I've said anything of the "this isn't the Alex I know" variety. Now my entire argument is based around that one phrase? So we're just going to throw out the fact that my first serious vote was on him too then? I don't think so.
His first serious vote was logically unsound, but that's still what he retreats to here. He's right, though, he voted me for metagaming and "stifling conversation" by downplaying Meeple's mistake (and Sopko's non-mistake). As he's about to say:
Uh, that's not a case. In that scenario, he doesn't bother to explain why one time mistakes aren't a big deal or why misinterpretation especially falls into this category. (Alex's cases were actually "flimsy Day 1 cases are okay", which didn't really apply since the case was flat-out incorrect, and "misinterpretations happen", which is true but that doesn't mean they get a free pass.)
So the overriding reason to vote me is that I didn't bother to explain why one time mistakes aren't a big deal? Again, drawing conversation towards trivialities, saying anyone who makes them needs to be cracked down on and calling Sopko incorrect again, when by this time it's been established that he was not - he was referring to a timespan, in which Meeple was indeed gone.
It is also worth noting that in this page he mentions and defends Rat quite a bit.
Grammatical mistakes are one thing. Gameplay mistakes are another. The fact remains that you are, in effect, defending the right to play poorly, which is very much an anti-town stance.
No, I'm not. I'm defending the right to make single, minor mistakes in reading, and my responses on this page made that very clear. Equating this with "defending the right to play poorly" is a flatly untrue smear, and one that again promotes the agenda of forcing town to concentrate on any mistake or detail, no matter how small.
Page 6:
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9930#msg9930Again pressing Meeple on a triviality and again making Rat look good... while ignoring Rat's mistake at the end of page 5, which I'll cover shortly.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9953#msg9953Oh, well, looks like Kilga was wrong. But Rat's just metagaming so it's still all good eh.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg10010#msg10010Accuses me of strawmanning. Except that it's an example, not a straw man - I consider what Meeple did to be the equivalent of a simple grammatical mistake. He saw Rat voting, he saw Rat commenting on the transition from joke to serious, he mentally connected the two. And yet again, this is a trivial issue. In fact it's a trivial issue ABOUT a trivial issue.
The only people Kilga has expressed serious suspicion of all game are myself and Meeple, both over trivialities and metagaming. He did mention Meeple's style, but has constantly shied away from using that as a basis for a case except when backed by metagaming. This is why my vote is on Kilga.
--------------
My other two main suspects at this point are Rat and QR.
First, an aside to QR's latest post - the metagaming stuff applies to Kilga, not you. The talk of hammering me is as you say, and not meant as an attack on you, but I hope you can understand why I find it quite distressing. The point you bring, though, is in fact my listed point #1, my vote for Rat. You say I was twisting his words. I was not, I was finding an implication in them. We've had that particular debate before - and in this case, as I've kept pointing out, my vote there was also a discussion starter, not a serious lynch-Rat attack.
I've been over QR some before. 95%+ of her content is on or about me. Even the discussion she's started with Meeple recently makes heavy mention of me and seems to judge Meeple based on what he thinks about me. Read that post again, this one's growing long so I won't quote it again, but note the repetition of "Alex is scummy, Alex is scummy, Alex is scummy" injected into talking about Meeple. I find this focus grounds for suspicion in and of itself - all the more so when she called for more discussion that wasn't about me, when at the time she hadn't contributed any herself (and still barely has). Even more so when noting the striking similarities this bears to Kilga's behavior.
There has been plenty of discussion on everyone (except QR herself) all game, lack of material is not (in my judgment) an acceptable excuse with the way this game's gone. I feel that she is effectively getting away with this focus by virtue of her conference limiting her time, and is taking advantage of this to post in a manner that she would surely be called out for otherwise.
I also take issue with what she's been saying, as I said three paragraphs up. She's just outright said that the main reason she finds me scummy is my first vote for Rat. Which is absolutely trivial, half the game wasn't even present, it was a discussion starter, all the things that I've said before which she keeps on ignoring while she founds her sole case of the game on a single incident of a position I took when coming out of jokevote phase, did not seriously press, and have copiously explained since.
Yeah, I'm just repeating myself here. It's like she hasn't even read anything I've said past page 1 of the game, and she's openly saying it and somehow nobody's calling her on it? There's no way this sort of tunnel vision would be tolerated if she didn't have limited time as an excuse. If she drew scum, this is exactly what I'd expect her to do in a limited time situation - hide behind it and press for a single mislynch, since she'd likely be sunk in endgame anyhow. If she drew town, I have no explanation as to why she's playing this way. Even if she's town and truly believes she's right, she's painting herself into a corner with nowhere to go after she gets me lynched. Which, since that's going to be LYLO, will probably lose the game. Which is why I think it very unlikely she'd play this way as town.
She is now also attacking me for being reactive. Which I must admit I have been. It is a natural response to her hounding me exclusively all game, and others buying into the stuff Kilga's pushing. There are only two scum, so I know townies are buying, and that frustrates me immensely.
----
Rat.
Soppy: Ehhh. I dunno, it feels like you've taken Alex to task today for stuff he's done on day 1, and didn't then. But it's a relatively minor concern at this point.
Alex: Way to list over half the current players still alive and say "I think one of these guys is scum!" Anyone can do some basic probability and put out that stuff. I note both of my suspects (being yourself and Meeple) don't appear on that list. This seems like a ridiculous way of trying to strongarm discussion into all the parts of the game that don't include you; instead of really accusing others, it seems to say "Meeple and I are not scum!" more than anything else.
I am generally hesitant to point to links between players, but this feels almost ridiculously blatant. As far as the Wolverine game goes... that's the game where everyone thought you'd tried to lie, then abruptly realised how stupid it was. Just because you screwed up in one game isn't going to give anyone a pass to do it, and if anyone pulled the same thing again, I'd vote for them, just like back then.
Meeple: I don't have time to go through your entire post, but I can say this.
And Rat brings Soppy's original error back up. Ok, so Soppy coming out and openly claiming something that is LESS true than what I said is suddenly not as bad as "Skimming a post -> misinterpreting"? There's something that doesn't fit here. I smell inconsistency all over the place. Soppy gets called on an obvious mistake...then people decide to overlook it.
THEN I get called on a mistake not long after, and people keep going on over it.
Soppy's mistake is *somewhat* forgivable for getting things started. My understanding now is that it was based on the distance between your posts in terms of time. I still found it strange, but it's a fairly trivial detail at this point. Your *mistake* is not only based on you reading the thread wrong, but leaping onto the argument of someone else. They are different, in both how the mistake was actually made as well as the actual magnitude.
What.
I've covered before why it's absurd to say I'm scummy for being suspicious of 4/7 people. In addition to that he attempts to draw a connection between me and Meeple - which falls apart completely because I also did not mention RAT HIMSELF. This IS the sort of massive error scum make. I don't see any way it makes sense with Rat being town. It's also pressing me on a triviality. He also lines up with myself and Meeple being his two suspects. Kilga defends him a lot over the last couple of pages. This post ALONE is enough to make me vote Rat, it's just that I'm more certain on Kilga.
-----
Responses to stuff posted as I made this:
Soppy - Yes. I'm saying that voting me
based on the four arguments I outlined is very bad play. Metagaming is bad play. Overemphasizing trivialities, both minor mistakes and earlygame discussion votes, is bad play. Saying that someone is scummy because they say 4/7 people are suspicious to them is bad play. Saying that someone is strongarming discussion by saying "This doesn't seem like a big issue to me" is bad play.
Saying that you find my earlygame vote on Rat wrong and scummy is not bad play, though I think it is wrong. Basing an entire case on it and pursuing it to the extent QR has? That's bad play.
Think about it. For Sopko particularly, put yourself in my shoes - because a case based on my vote for Rat can be just as applied to your first vote for Meeple.
