http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12297#msg12297There are two Cids because one of them was originally in italics, and copy-pasting to Word for the wordcount and back didn't allow the style to survive. Re: Yakumo, as you'll notice I was quoting, and messing with quoted text is iffy. A two star post of effort on your part, though I have to wonder why so often you only resurface when prodded.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12306#msg12306I hope you don't mind if
I comment on my own arguments? You did ask everyone. Have four stars for being helpful and not ruining my eyes when you post.
As per my previous stance of observing people who talk on their own and plenty, I backed off Shale earlier. I still thought him (and Excal) incredibly suspicious, but I was far more wary of leaving around people who hid behind their restrictions, and thus didn't contribute much of anything.
I also happened to be proven wrong on him when we saw his flip on a modkill. That made me rethink my stance on Cid, since part of what I've seen there was a dynamic between two scum supporting each other's claimed restrictions. Also, I must admit, gritting my teeth and everything in annoyance, that I haven't considered merely dropping letters and common phrases for Cid to quote, and it took seeing them in action to actually believe that Cid could contribute despite only quoting things. If he's scum, I salute him, because that shows a level of zeal to the game I believe I would have sadly lacked in his place to such an extent.
So who's left that I still suspect? Lady Door, whom I've pursued before quite a bit. I must reiterate that she is extremely low on content and tends to lurk (inexplicably, given that her posts are mandated to be short and have filler, at that) where merely picking up her posting pace would've gotten her over the restriction she claims. And finally, a personal reason – she hadn't really struck back at me in any serious way. After playing a few games with LD, I find that puzzling. My take on her is that if she believed I were scum, she would be all over me. And yet… she doesn't even defend herself against me by going all out, mostly dismissing parts of my arguments and defaulting to the words of others.
Next is Tonfa, for aforementioned low content. The only thing of value he had done so far was point out Tom. I intend to vote Tom, but… if Tom turns out to be incompetent town (again), then this means absolutely nothing and Tonfa comes out even more suspicious for me.
And Tom. I find the warning unlikely... but we did suffer two modkills already. Who knows. I do find that altering one's restriction or not stating it clearly enough when I called for the restriction claims and we all agreed to do that… well, it's a failure to be good town at best. If he is actually playing such a bad game as town, and isn't scum that slipped, I shudder at the thought of going into LYLO with him. I suppose his OMGUS tendency might've prevented me from commenting much on him. Then again, he was posting more than Tonfa and LD, and so I could live with that until he would finally tip off his hand; which he just had. Argue with my gaming approach all you like, but I find it working so far.
This does leave Excal as a suspect. I suspected him earlier in the game. Shale suspected him far more, to the point it agitated him enough to misclick and get modkilled. But finally, when faced with Tom's slip… he goes to vote for me. Yeah, call it OMGUS or whatever if you wish, but there's a way to say I'm suspicious the way Cid did while placing your vote where it should be. Never suffer scum to live. Ever. We have someone who broke his claimed posting restriction and Rat posting afterwards, with no modkills in sight. What possible reason could there be to NOT vote Tom? If you were defending Tom, that is one thing. I certainly tried to oppose the previous lynches. But this isn't how it goes, is it? There'll be more when I address that post directly.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12350#msg12350I think that's a star of fail. I never pushed hard for it? What else would you call pretty much standing up against a fully-formed train and urging people to abandon it and vote LD instead based on the case I presented and repeated several times? How would you describe arguing that while a part of my argument was shaky even by my own later admission, I still believed the rest of it was solid enough and asked others to consider it?
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12354#msg12354Three stars for cementing my feeling on Tom, if nothing else. It's true I stopped calling for your lynch. This has two reasons: the first being that people didn't really care to agree with my case, and you are not the only one I consider scummy. Until Tom, I merely considered you the
scummiest, but you were hardly alone. Anyone seeming sufficiently scummy to me was an acceptable target (certainly more so that people who seemed okay that were actually being lynched). The second reason was Shale's flip, and furthermore reconsidering Cid afterwards. I have been proven wrong on Shale, I could be wrong on Cid… this caused me to take a step back and tackle the issue from another direction. If it still lead me to the same general area, excellent. If not, well, then perhaps I would avoid tunnel vision.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12373#msg12373Yet another star of fail. I still intend to vote Tom before work is over, which is ~7 hours away, but I would like to hear what people already uncomfortable with Excal in this game have to say about this. He does not defend Tom. In fact, he accepts Tom's lynch as a done deal. He also doesn't actually object that Tom looks scummy; on the opposite, Excal is building off this scumminess to make connections to myself. Why are you suffering scum to live, Excal?
Also related, it's clever how you catch the minimum post length I have but ignore the other components of my restriction. Oh wait, no you don't. You reference them earlier in your post as something cleverly scummy. It's not exactly easy to always react rather than act, and what more do you need than a direct link to the post I'm referring to, however tangentially? It's only a click away.
