I suppose one of the nice things about being hunted by Otter is the fact that he does lay out his arguments nicely, so it's easy to look at them and figure out exactly what you're being accused of. Of course, it also makes them harder to defend against, but that'll come up later.
So, Otter. You've been waiting a while for a proper defense from me. I'll start off with why you didn't get one before. The first bit, the self-contradictory stance against Ryogo, was meant to be a risky maneuver that very well might backfire and catch some flak in my direction. I honestly had no issue with being a target early in day one, if people got talking. However, how I worded things in my attempts to clear up what I had attempted to do were far less lucid than the original idea (which is impressive, as the original idea wasn't that hot to begin with) and so I left a muddy trail where a defter hand was needed.
When you called me on this, my response was not to refute your words, but to let them slide. I came to this decision for three reasons. The first is, I honestly felt that there was no worthwhile defense I could offer. When I read them, my conclusion was that if I didn't have my PM as proof that you were wrong, I'd likely agree with you. Second, was that I felt the situation was such that no words I had would dissuade you. Finally, I know my habit of liking to talk about myself, and wanted to avoid that if possible. As such, I wanted to minimise any defense I would make as the defense is all about talking of oneself and ones thoughts.
And so, I brushed off your inquiries with all of the skill and tact that had brought them down upon me with such force and moved on to step two. Find Scum and present my findings. On day one. While I wasn't able to think clearly (not that I was admitting this to myself). Naturally, such genius could not possibly fail. And so I flailed about like a fish out of water for the rest of that day, eventually settling on OK due to LAL, and then staying on OK after that reason fell apart because he was the only viable lynch candidate that wasn't me. That said, I am glad that I was at work when the day ended, as I don't think I would have enjoyed having to make the choice between no lynch, or lynching myself.
Finally, on Day 2, I made just the one post, and then withdrew because I realised that all I was doing was hurting my side by posting, and the best thing I could do would be to withdraw until I figured out what was wrong in my head, got it back together a bit, and had more free time.
So, that is the whole of why I did not answer before. Now, let's move on to the specifics, shall we? I'll deal with the issues raised in the three posts Otter linked to in his recent post calling for my lynch.
Right now, though? Excal.
Ryogo, you're still four votes away from hammer. And oddly enough, even if those four votes were sitting in my back pocket, I've somehow refrained from using them.
I thought this line was weird when I first read it, but didn't bring it up because there wasn't a whole lot to say about it. I just actually examined what Excal's been doing all game, though, and while he's casting himself as the conscientious discussion-starting townie, he's also displaying a habit of not standing by anything he says.
Rat, you wound me! You make it sound like I ever meant poor Ryogo any harm.
That vote, along with the pressure I laid on the people who didn't find it suspicious [my emphasis], was there entirely to get people talking. And, with the possible exception of Tom, I'm honestly finding it a bit worrysome that some people still think I was seriously after him.
"I pushed Ryogo closer to danger to stimulate discussion! Now discuss, presumably about why I did that or why I shouldn't have! But don't act like I was seriously trying to put him in danger." The contradiction here is in plain sight. You want the idea of that third vote on one person to get discussion started, but you don't want anyone to make the mistake of acting like that was a real vote. Early vote pileups only create talk because there's a reason for them and they supposedly signify actual danger! If the threat was fake and your lack of commitment to the vote was manifest (which you're now claiming it plainly was, even casting aspersions on anyone who's still acting like it was "serious"), then what were we supposed to say about it?
I endorse getting early trains started to stimulate discussion, but that works because there's some meaning to, say, that third vote early on. Excal immediately went out of his way afterwards to assure everybody that the third vote was just a utility to start things, like a jokevote; if that's the case, why should anyone have treated it any differently? We're not going to take it more seriously than you do.
Excal's followed a repeating pattern here: "Rather than make a jokevote I'll vote Ryogo due to early name claim" --> "Nah that was just to start talk! Why'd you guys let it go without mention though?" --> "Hey, guess what, I was only needling you guys about not taking me seriously enough to respond... in order to start discussion! Haha, that's right, you can't call me on it after all, I was being a good townie! Why are you guys acting like I was really going after Ryogo though? Surely you aren't taking that vote seriously?" By revealing his earlier insincerity after the fact with an oh-that-should-have-been-obvious attitude and then criticizing people for how they reacted or didn't react, he's playing "Gotcha!" with the entire town and this confusion isn't good for us at all.
It also sets a precedent for Excal being allowed to contradict himself at will, which is basically what he's been doing. Then he comes in with this "earlier draft" post with a non-comment to Shale, gets called on it, and responds but conspicuously doesn't say what he was going to tell Shale he was looking forward to, even though that's exactly what Rat asked about. He's retracted his easy-to-justify, very-safe smodge vote now that there's modkill on the table and no reason for it anymore, and now he's sitting with no vote out at all. There's a lot going on here and nobody's called him out with a vote yet, so I'm going to.
##VOTE: Excal
Yeah. Not much to say to the heart of this. I tried to do something good, but my logic used in executing it, and in explaining it afterwards, were horribly flawed. I can't justify it beyond saying I didn't think it through all the way.
As for the second point, the earlier draft post is exactly that. It had a comment I never intended for public consumption because I didn't like where that line of thought was leading and discarded it. It's just that this time, it wasn't erased and hid out of sight to make it into the final draft. The core of the Smodge vote and no vote at the time was basically on the fact that at that point in time, I didn't find anyone scummy, and was looking for someone on whom to rest my vote.
Alex, I think the more interesting thing we're discovering here is that you feel that we should all think like you think. I can understand where Keeshi is coming from, given that I don't find anyone overly scummy at the moment either, and the decision to go with lynching the lurkers when nothing else concrete is at hand is a sensable and acceptable alternative.
That said...
##Unvote: Andy, ##Vote: Keeshi
I don't like the fact that Andy's response was the same thing that I was already calling bunk on, but I get the impression he's not going to budge from there. So, while it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, it's not something to move on right now.
However, Keeshi, Alex has raised an excellent point in his first post against you, and it is one which you haven't addressed to any length yet. Why do you suggest letting Andy swing in the same post where you admit that you will indefinatly share the same flaw he has until Saturday?
Okay! So Excal starts by calling Keeshi's decision here sensible and acceptable, when Alex has demonstrated that it amounts to random lynch insofar as likelihood of actually nailing scum is concerned, and random lynch is an absolute death sentence for town. To be clear here, this isn't Lynch All Lurkers, this is "Lynch Andrew because he revealed even before the game started that he'd have limited availability." In fact, let's let Keeshi put that in her own words:
I agree. Which is why I've been saying that it is not due to his current 'low quantity'. He has found the time today to make a substantive amount of posts. This is, of course, all to the good. What I based my vote off of, again, is his statement that he believes himself able to make a single post every 24 hours usually (until his time eases up when the weekend arrives).
So, I reiterate: this isn't LAL, she even admits he's been substantive today. It's voting on somebody for a factor totally unrelated to whether or not they might actually be scum, which is the same as a random lynch. Mathematically, town opting for random lynch is not a "strategy," it doesn't have its ups and downs, it's just surrender pure and simple. Suggesting that we choose to lynch based on these factors (rather than actually hunt scum) is easily as bad or worse than advocating for no lynch, and Excal is calling this sensible and acceptable, while misrepresenting it as "lynching the lurkers" (which isn't what it is at all).
Let's pretend for a second, though, that this wasn't already incredibly anti-town! Excal's called this reason for voting for people legitimate, already. Now, he votes for Keeshi for voting for Andrew on this reasoning, citing the fact that Keeshi has the same (apparently vote-worthy, given Excal's agreement earlier in the same post) flaw herself. This would be ludicrous even if the reason for voting made any town sense originally: obviously you're not going to vote for yourself whether you're townie or not, because if you really are a townie, that gives you absolutely no chance of hitting scum regardless of what tells you may have of your own. If I've got some potentially voteworthy flaw and someone else does too, is it really so surprising that I'd vote for the other guy?
So, recap: Excal's supporting Keeshi's anti-town essentially random-lynch policy (which is -not- to be confused with LAL, because she clearly states that a lack of content from Andrew in-game so far is not her reason), but saying she shouldn't be voting for other people on this reason, because she has that problem herself and indefinitely.
Now.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13357#msg13357
That's a post I made attacking Excal for his two-faced attitude, which was essentially him contradicting himself at will and revising which posts of his that he actually meant compared to which ones were "just to start discussion" and then calling people suspicious for not understanding that his words shouldn't be taken seriously when he's said afterwards that he wasn't serious. His entire defense against that whole post was as follows:
Otter, I'm not going to defend my duality. I've said my piece, and it is either enough or not. As for why I did take steps to ensure that there was no miscommunication after the purpose of the two-face argument was done, that was mostly so that Ryogo didn't get too antsy. After all, you might like increasing the pressure on people until they break, but I don't generally believe that posters here are akin to trylobytes and thrive under vast amounts of pressure, and would rather not start a campaign of driving off the new guys. At least, not yet.
It's a "I'm not going to stoop to defending myself here" followed by a tangent into "Hey, unlike you, I don't hate all the new players" while avoiding addressing anything I brought up with any specificity.
The only reason I'm not capping this post off with a vote for Excal is that my vote's already on him.
This passage regarding Keeshi does an excellent job of showing why I needed to take some time to get my head together. As some of you may recall (in fact, Shale specifically called me on it) I claimed that I did not agree with Keeshi in the specifics Otter is claiming I did here. And this was used as more evidence of my contradictory nature.
Looking at the quote properly, yeah. There's no way I can expect someone to believe me in that claim, as what I wrote doesn't begin to convey what I was thinking. And I'm not entirely sure how I figured that was the best way to state my case.
That said, my actions were consistant with my beliefs, even as you place the weight on that mangled sentance (and yes, I do admit that it was mangled by myself. It does a poor job of conveying the information I meant it to contain by actively meaning something else.)
Namely, at that time, I was not entirely agreeing that Alex's interpretation was the only way to read Keeshi's train of logic. It was certainly one way, but one issue I have with Alex is that he has a habit of finding the worst way to read a person's statements at times, and then treating them as the true intent of a statement, even if it were just an unfortunate meaning that was never intended. This is a flaw due to holding us all to a higher standard of play that I think we're all consistantly capable of, and feel it's something that often leads to a worse position for town. That said, while I found the general principle cited by Keeshi to both be more valiant and less malign than Alex saw it, I also found this specific instance of it to be questionable, and peppered my wonder with a vote in order to a) emphasize it, b) have a vote out as I dislike not having a vote out on day 1, and c) hopefully placate your concern that I don't have a vote out.
As for the side swipe I took at you. I will state that, yes, I do have some issues with how you have played scum in the past. But, they should never have come up here in this context. I respectfully apologise for being so rude and hypocritical as to make such comments in a forum that is both entirely unrelated and also thoroughly public.
And finally the third post.
Excak, you're being intentionally misleading. Keeshi is not talking about LAL, and when you agree with her reasoning, you are not agreeing to LAL.
Already covered above.
I can understand where Keeshi is coming from, given that I don't find anyone overly scummy at the moment either, and the decision to go with lynching the lurkers when nothing else concrete is at hand is a sensable and acceptable alternative.
You say that as if Keeshi is talking about lynching people for actually lurking, which she isn't. Then!
I disagree wholly with the argument for why Keeshi is voting for Andy.
I'm not twisting this around somehow. This is simply Excal continuing to contradict himself blatantly.
You're either putting words into my mouth, or are so sure of yourself that you're deluding yourself.
Oh yeah? Which is it then? I've been quoting you directly this whole time. If I'm deluding myself into thinking something about you that isn't correct, point that part out.
I'm not sure which it is you're actually doing, but it is fascinating to watch.
I do find your utter opposition to it entrancing given how often you've mentioned the viability of the tactic of over stating your position in order to put pressure on people.
The funny thing about calling my attacks "fascinating" and "entrancing" is that it's not a defense. It's just you trying to handwave everything I say. Then you make something up about my supposed stance on "over stating your position," which I've never heard anything about. Are you implying that I've advocated town lying and contradicting itself in the past? Because I haven't. I'm pressuring you right now, simply by observing all the contradictions in your posts and demanding explanations from you, and your response is basically to go "Oh that's very interesting."
You're right. You weren't twisting my words, I just didn't go back and read them, and thought them actually representative of what I thought. ie. We were arguing in a situation where neither one understood the other, and I wasn't being rational about it. I cannot defend against this post, as I am clearly in the wrong. The defense I made against the second post above will have to suffice as the proper defense I should have made before, and I surrender the first defense as both lacking, and harmful to my side.
Now, there is my defense against Otter's claims. It has taken a good chunk of time, and I still need sleep. Expect a full on post tomorrow with my thoughts on others, as well as responces to Shale, OK, and any others who have levied charges and queries against me, tomorrow when I am well rested, and have had time to let my thoughts dwell on this topic.
Edit for Corwin:
My initial thought is that, yes. If you're not going to side one way or the other, you should at least say why. That said, it's the people who not only didn't side one way or the other (after all, hammer will come before some people can make up their mind) but who also stand by not going after one of the two that look worse. After all, not changing your vote could be scumminess or indecisiveness. But, trying to deflect attention by not picking either, and not mentioning your reason for it at the time, that doesn't look good.
Now, I will admit, I haven't looked closely at OK or Shale yet, though I remember having a decent impression of Shale, and not much of one on OK, aside from his taking a while to show up. But, Otter catches my eye for showing up there after also passing the hammer on Day 1. He also doesn't mention the sanity possibilities when it could have delayed the lynch and done some good, but only afterwards when he is now justifying why he claimed it better to go after a third party instead of one of the two people in the spotlight. The fact that he's doing this two days in a row seems questionable to me.
