Tom and Andrew:
Which mistakes are you talking about? Please cite if you're going to make general statements like that which haven't really popped up before. It's not a stretch to see at least part of what you're referring to, but specificity is helpful. I mean this in general, too, not just for me. Making some off-handed observation can become a mischaracterization later ("oh yeah, Lady Door HAS been making mistakes since the very beginning! scum!") and setting the stage for that is pretty scummy behavior. Legitimate complaint, good. Vague mention of complaint, not good. Tom I only see citing my explanation for keeping my vote on Otter and the subsequent removal of vote, while he says he agrees 100% with Andrew's point mentioning my mistakes. (For the record, it was indeed irrelevant when I posted that because 1) Otter had posted; 2) both you and Andrew, the other people I would've prodded for activity, had a pressure vote. More on this below.)
Re: Tom's confusion over my decision to wait (which is also Corwin's question the second, conveniently):
Three things at play here. 1) That was my last post for the evening. 2) Tom and Andrew both had a vote. 3) I had no real reason to differentiate them.
1) I didn't intend for it to be my last post for the evening, but I was feeling pretty tired at that point. I didn't intend to drop a vote I wasn't sure I'd be able to do anything about for 8+ hours, especially since there's an apparent explosion of activity in those hours. "Train" doesn't take much -- my vote on either Tom or Andrew would put them at -2 from lynch, and there were more than 2 people that were capable of pushing that along while I wasn't around to do anything about it. Then I would have lynched someone for lurking when they quite possibly had ended up coming back and having a fully involved argument that would've swayed my argument somewhere else. Or whatever. Point is, possibilities were uncomfortably high in favor of something bad happening when it need not.
2) I considered 1 vote enough to pressure both of them at the time. We hadn't yet hit 24 hours, and my reasoning was pretty much as Corwin says in the post above me: there are plenty of legitimate reasons why he might not have showed up in the first half of Day 1, including missing the topic, bad schedule coincidence, etc. They're certainly not things I'm going to forgive lightly in the future -- "oh, lawl, sorry guys, forgot this game existed" doesn't fly -- but they were no reason to act against my hesitations from point #1.
3) Andrew v. Tom is honestly exactly the same as where I was in Otter v. Tom. Who I voted for didn't really matter. The point was to pick one of them and call out both. I had no reason to differentiate between the two -- Tom hadn't checked in at all, and Andrew had checked in but only barely; which is worse? which is most likely to be rectified with a vote? -- and thus choosing one of them over the other (especially when I wasn't going to be around to defend that choice) would have been a study in arbitrary action. Arbitrary action which could end poorly. It's kind of hard to defend myself when the train gets analyzed the day after he gets lynched by saying I had no real reason for voting him.
Observations of other things:
i) Tom seems pretty high strung. Post 1, squeaking in less than 1 hour before it had been an official 24 since the beginning of the game, is somewhat iffy, a la Otter's observation. There is just something about his tone that's rubbing me the wrong way, too. It's particularly pronounced in this post:
Ninja'd Edit: ...rather, post something relevant, man. While I realize that posting, in and of itself, can be good, it is not so good to come in, vaguely waggle a finger at another lurker and then retreat once more. I at least look like I read the topic here. You seem to be just dropping by to try and get rid of pressure.
No, sorry. I was just typing up a bigger post in the meantime, and I dropped that first one. Just bad timing.
Still, you could be nicer about it!
I agree with you 100% on points #2 and #3 though, you'll notice I independantly made the same observations. That gives some merit to them. I'd be prepared to go with LD, followed by Otter at this stage.
..then again, I'm currently leading on votes thanks to you. But you hadn't seen my 'big' post yet which I was still typing up. So I'll forgive you for now.
Magnanimity feels wrong to me a lot, but I think that's because it's often used sarcastically. In this post, he seems to be telling Andrew he'd OMGUS but for this forgiveness. He's also careful to point out he independently made the same observations as Andrew during a cross-post. Nevermind the fact that these observations are concrete things that required absolutely no logical deduction (other than "hey, Rat isn't in this game, that can't be right"). The interesting thing for me here is that, on the surface, this looks as innocent as "we both independently made the same argument, hmmmmmm, that could mean something" but I could easily see as "hey, people, ignore the fact that Andrew and I are agreeing in favor of this point we're making against these other people!" This is especially reinforced when Andrew's response to that post is to remove his vote on Tom and move it to one of those two people they agreed on. Yes, it makes sense concretely. In sequence, however, it looks a little different.
... this is getting more and more wall-of-text-y, so I'm going to break this here and continue in another post. Hi, super.
