Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (GAME OVER)

[Yakumo]

I missed the fact that LD had put links into the middle of her post which helped explain what she was talking about, all I saw was a list of names and not really any actual -reason- for believing those names were worth considering.  For the record, I can't see those unless I mouse over them for some reason, probably bad color on these monitors.  In the future, could you guys not hide the links in your sentences?  Frankly, lurkishness and Corwin's stubbornness about the rules don't strike me as any more scummy than Smodge's contradictory logic was, which left only Andrew as a serious candidate out of that four, and if you don't see the link then there's nothing there on him.  Even if you do, she says in the post she references that she wouldn't feel comfortable voting on him for that, and yet she's more concerned about him than she was about Smodge who she did vote for?  How does that add up?

Andrew, I already explained why I wasn't here.  If you don't think that's a good enough reason, that's one thing, but totally ignoring it?  Look.  I just started a new job.  Until my work account was activated, and now aside from about half an hour before work, I have a short window from about 5:30 pm until I go to bed to post in the topic.  The topic had three full pages of posts I hadn't seen, and was hammered while I was reading.  I didn't expect the night phase to be so short so I didn't check back.  I was carrying on a debate with Otter as best I could while I was around, and then my chance to comment was cut off. 

As for Otter's comment that I was making an unsound arguement because he said in his post that he had thought it was suspicious before, it's not that I ignored that he said it, my reasoning is that he has never ACTED on it before.  You can say anything.  Just because you say you always thought it was suspicious doesn't make it true.  I cannot recall Otter ever calling Ciato out on this behavior like this before, and it's behavior that she has always used, and she hasn't been scum any other time.  I'm not saying this makes her automatically town now, but I don't see any validity to using it as an attack on her this time when it was clearly not a scumtell before.

That's all the time I have, time to go to work.

[AndrewRogue]

Really, really short post before I vanish to work: Sorry if it came off like I was ignoring your reason for not posting Yakumo. I did actually consider it (hence me not dropping my vote on you!), I just called it how I felt. I understand RL issues, but obviously they have to be taken with a grain of salt as they can be used to scum advantage.

So yeah. Sorry that it came across like I didn't notice your explanation.

[Corwin]

Catching up.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg8594#msg8594
I disagree with the idea of 'two votes is fine, this is enough pressure'. Yes, if you just want to call out a lurker, it could work. But you do have your own vote, and you should use it to call out another lurker or in some other fashion. Also, while most people haven't checked up, almost a full RL day had passed by then. We have to move the game along and get to the deliberations stage, rather than sit around in silence.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg8619#msg8619
"Has everyone seriously forgotten he's playing?" -- to a degree, yes. Even though, I only have the one vote, and I went for the one with the least contribution at that point.

A response to Yakumo. I wanted a roleclaim from smodge, and it wouldn't matter if he were at -1 at the time and roleclaimed, I dunno, an uber-useful/easily-provable town role. Had anyone hammered despite that and not allowing for debate, we would've just lynched that scum the next day. And I wanted smodge to realize the seriousness of the situation... which he didn't, not doing a full roleclaim. Eh. If being at -1 didn't make him do it, being at -2 might've given us even less at the time.

Kilga has a couple of large posts of analysis. He, however, at the end of it... removes his vote from Nitori. That's it. What exactly is there to prove it's not one giant smokescreen? If your views are not enough to convince even you of anything (and this is hardly hammer, but could even be a pressure vote at this moment), why put it out there?

##Vote: Kilga

"Overall null to slightly scum read. Not bad enough to keep my vote there though. " --  Why the hell NOT? Where is your vote better-used?

Anyway, pausing at that post. Will continue later.

[Corwin]

And to do this PROPERLY.

##Unvote: Nitori
##Vote: Kilga

[Lady Door]

Okay, so I was way more tired than I thought last night and fell asleep before I could get back to writing about new developments. Things on people I'm considering today!

Andrew: Still not digging the light-weight presence thing he has going on. He shows up Day 2 with a "me too" on a lurker, reflects on Day 1's events, then returns to talk more about lurkers. Combine that with his Day 1 posts which are as such: defends himself from the fall-out due to his inattentive vote; puts a vote on the person who calls him out for it; retracts that vote and jumps on Fnorder's suspicions over smodge, who also voted for him; and then repeats others' arguments against smodge to justify leaving his vote on him. Not going to fault him for voting smodge because I think there was a valid reason to vote him -- it just turned out to be poor town play rather than scum play. I am going to stick it to him for floating entirely on others' opinions while trying to make them look like his own and being a non-presence, especially when repeatedly calling out other lurkers.

... the more I read over the thread while pursuing Andrew, the more I really noticed the Otter v. Ciato argument functioning as a smokescreen. The other "big" issue on the table was Andrew's gaffe, and several people pushed it to the side because they were responding to the content of that argument -- that is, "at least he's started some conversation" and "things have happened since that which are more interesting (like Otter v. Ciato)." It draws away from other issues in a detrimental fashion, in this case. It isn't a choice between leaving that cat-fight over there and talking about other things. It's about that cat-fight drawing discussion from other issues or distracting from the ability to find new ones. It's a pretty safe place to be, in the middle of that argument, because people start making excuses for one or the other. I know I did. 

I've had my own problems with Andy this game (bit of inattentiveness early on, generally not saying enough and staying out of the spotlight which is a Bad News sign for me) but he struck out on his own here, having noticed an inconsistency no one else had brought up yet, and I approve of this.

He did no such thing. Fnorder pointed it out and Andrew picked up on it. Why are you praising him for something he didn't do?

Here is my biggest problem with Otter: "You may not be paying attention, but I am" and "you are correct in saying that I was essentially calling out OK and Corwin for failure to pay attention" and "Yakumo, you'll notice I was as observant as you were" and "Generally, I expect attentive, consistent play from townies" and "I'm not at all sure you're even reading my posts anymore" and asking people to "notice how people are actually leaping to her defense" and "Attentiveness is crucial" and then... you outline your thoughts on Excal despite him being NK'd.

Oh yes, yes! I saw that you immediately retracted having included that. "Hahah, my bad, wow is my face red!" and so forth -- and then you go back to chastising other people for not paying attention. And then you defend yourself against Corwin and spend almost your entire post justifying why the way you handled your mistake should clear you from snap suspicion. I've considered your quick retraction. I do appreciate that you noticed your mistake rather than waiting for someone else to do so and forcing you to defend it. You still made a huge error for someone who advocates close reading every post and castigates others for failing to notice nuance. There's also the smaller but not insignificant error of praising Andrew for something he hadn't actually done.

combine this with the business from Day 1, and:

##VOTE Otter

Yakumo posted, which at least lifts the "long time no see" suspicion, but I'm having a hard time with him not noticing what I wrote in the rest of that post. I said I voted smodge because -- referring back to that post ( http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg8450#msg8450 ) AGAIN -- "smodge has 3 votes, Ciato and Andrew both have 2, and pretty much everyone else has 1 -- a number of which are still jokevotes -- so that's not really somewhere to go. smodge seems the worst off in this case with me amongst those who could conceivably attain consensus without a whole new line of argument, so that's where I'm going to put my vote." That is, everyone was deciding whether or not smodge was lynch-worthy. I agreed he was. There were other people I considered who could possibly develop stronger cases -- such as Andrew -- but since I thought smodge was off anyway and conversation/consensus was around him to begin with, I decided to hold off on pursuing it until Day 2.

...

have now wasted the better part of my morning. I have a couple more things to say about a couple people, but nothing stands out to me quite as strongly as Otter. In addition to needing to get stuff done today, this post is already long enough. I'll be back for a quick post this afternoon before I disappear for the evening.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Okay.

First of all, I don't think Corwin not noticing the rule thing is.... anything to make a big deal out of at all. Not paying attention to a minor thing slipped in the rules section of the game doesn't even feel close to equal to game stuff, like missing that someone was NKed. (Personally, I think forgetting that is o.O in general, since, while a lot of the time trying to analyze the kill leads nowhere, reading the commentary of a confirmed townie later is quite useful. You are getting views you know for fact aren't obscured by bad intent. I find it to be a pretty bad sign, myself, because NKs are so important, since it's how we meet our demise.) I do agree with Otter's point that he seemed rather content to lynch smodge, but this attitude might just be of someone who wants a lynch to happen sometime in this century. I'd like to see a response to Otter's inquiry.

About Yakko: He got cut off from his commentary, I saw him come into chat about 10~ minutes before OK dropped the hammer. That's not really enough time to put in a post of sizable length, so his lack of presence could be due to that. Yakko is pretty darn tricky though; he has an uncanny ability to blend in pretty amazingly. He makes me nervous, since I remember the other Mafias that he was scum in and he was really lax and pretty awesome at adding things but not really adding them. I waver between being understanding of his situation and being really scared of scum Yakko since I have been burned by him before!

I disagree with LD on Otter. I don't think he was smokescreening; he was just latching on to something he thought was scummy and decided to run with it and dwell on it in his incredibly lovable Otter way. I pretty much disagree with his methods because regardless of your opinion on someone else's play, you are trying to catch scum, not criticize others' style of play, buuut... umm... what I said pretty much applies here too! I disagree with this style because it does offer a place for scum to stow away by taking middle of the roads stances on things while you attack someone, but I don't think it was done out of malicious intent. It's just... how he is, for better or for worse. (Well, let me rephrase, I don't think... it is a sign it was done out of malicious intent? The point I'm trying to strike at is that Otter being Otter isn't a scumtell. )

I've found myself talking more about the people I don't think are scum than the ones I do, because honestly the people I think look the worst just... don't have very much to talk about, frankly! I'd have to dig the topic more extensively to analyze them because off the top of my head I don't remember any hard stances by them. However, that will be done after lab; right now I'm going to relax a bit before class~

[Lady Door]

I don't know that he actually intended it to be a smokescreen, Ciato. I'm not going to guess his intent. However, I think it did in fact function as one. The results show that it ultimately distracted from other things, and made it difficult to pull up other things. Considering I see no real reason to see you as scummy as far as my readings have revealed, and I see other reasons to see Otter as scummy, I don't like the anti-town feel of that sort of focus. Perhaps that is his normal method, sure. I felt similar to how you do now in WoW mafia when Corwin was attacking me -- I was afraid that any response I had was just OMGUS and not based in other weirdness in his post. I waited too long to get over that hesitation, and Corwin-and-smodge scum sweeped that game. It's not JUST that, which I can't definitively say is even his fault and can only suspect. It's that oddness plus the other things.

[Luther Lansfeld]

*nods* That makes sense. ALSO HA HA RELAXING? MORE LIKE SHAVING MY FINE WINTER FUR (shaving my legs) and listening to Michael Jackson.

[Otter]

I never did say I should be cleared of suspicion because of the fact that I corrected myself first.  I did express hope that other players would be more lenient considering that fact, just as I would be in your place, but what do you want me to do?  Be a hypocrite, agree with Corwin, and say "Inattentiveness shouldn't be a tell now that I'm guilty of it too!" or what?

Frankly, I missed Fnorder's mention of smodge's logical error because when I was searching the topic for smodge train members, I was using the search function with ## tags.  I'm glad you mentioned it, though, because it makes Fnorder's trainjmp later look even weirder to me, since he's unable to reformulate the problem correctly.  As I mentioned,

It's like saying, "I was asked to pick a number 1-10, so I rolled a die and got four. That guy picked four too! Scum!"

misrepresents the issue slightly and makes smodge's leap of logic look completely irrational when in reality it was simply naive; smodge assumed that people would generally play scum in the same way, which is an understandable idea if not exactly applicable.  To hear Fnorder tell it here, smodge was being an absolute lunatic, and that simply wasn't the case.

What's more, when Fnorder spotted the problem initially, why didn't he lay down a vote?  Why does he wait for four people to jump on the smodge train before he feels safe enough to do so as well?  He'd only jokevoted Corwin up to that point, so it wasn't that he needed his vote to be someplace else particularly.  Andy struck out on his own because he was the first one to get serious and actually throw a vote down on the subject, while Fnorder played it safe and didn't get involved until voting smodge was already extremely popular.  I could understand wanting to be more cautious than not if we were later in the game, or especially in LYLO, but on the first day?  That kind of unwillingness to take risks and put your vote where your mouth is tells me that Fnorder doesn't want to attract any attention to himself, and it's that kind of lurky play that scum favor.

---

OK, my bringing up your voting pattern was more of a prompt to speak since I didn’t have much on you (And you technically hadn’t placed a vote down yet, since the mammal thing didn’t retroactively enable your vote, just enabled future voting).

OBJECTION!  Look back to page 1, where Fnorder jokevotes Corwin without mentioning a mammal, then mentions a mole in a subsequent post.  Alex's votecount includes Fnorder's Corwin vote.  By all indications, mentioning the mammal does retroactively enable your vote, which makes sense given the phrasing of the rule as given by Alex as well.

[Nitori]

*continues kappanalysis*

I wasn't too sure of what I thought of Dhyer of first, but I suppose I should look at him since he's garnered some attention. It actually seemed like we agreed on a lot of the same points with regard to Ciato, and his vote for smodge...it would have taken him to 6, which is -1 (and he states that he believes that it is 5 votes),  but he forgot to unvote. That being said, Dhyer hits on some of the main points I hit and also calls out OK (who had been gone for a while), and so far today is focusing mainly on Ciato attacking Cor. Besides the voting counting gaffe, he's been responding well even if I find the Corwin/Ciato case a little weird myself (from what I glean, it's mostly language again.). I don't think I see the scum case here that Kilga and OK do here, although the voting throws me off a bit.

Re: Kilga. The idea with saying that is that you've seen the Otter style before, and I didn't think there was anything noteworthy of it from previous games. I suppose a person's interpretation as to exactly what effect it did have would vary, though. I do find it odd that you missed smodge's bad logic entirely, as it was pretty easy to pick out from his posts.

Also, when Otter was doing his smodge train analysis, I found it weird that he didn't say anything about Dhyer; he wasn't on the train, but he certainly attempted to join it and did vote for him, but forgot to unvote. I think that makes him as worthy of analysis as the actual train members and I would ask Otter to share his thoughts on it.

[Kilgamayan]

Why did I respond to Kilgamayan’s saying Otter was being harsh and not really think about Lady Door’s? Kilga pointed the question at me! It was more that it tied in with the smokescreening stuff that I found more relevant. Lady Door’s argument was more that Otter’s severity was weakening his points. At that point, I had already spoken my stance on how I viewed the Ciato/Otter fight, so I had already somewhat accepted the points he was making (and whether or not it would affect whether somewhat would accept his points would heavily fall on personal opinion, and since I wasn’t going to argue over that, just debating on whether he seemed rude or not didn’t have a point to me).

I realize it was me that asked you the question, but it was the phrasing of your answer that got to me. You said here (link note for Yakumo) that

I don't really feel like Otter has been all that uncivil; he's very aggressive yes, but I tend to equate uncivility with out and out attacking people rather than attacking their gameplay.

If you had said something like "I think you're overreacting to Otter's attitude" then I would be more understanding, but the way you said what you said implies that you considered all presented arguments and came to the conclusion that Otter was not being uncivil. This is where LD comes into play, as she does indeed accuse Otter of using "inflammatory" remarks here (link note for Yakumo), which seems to imply that she thinks he was being uncivil. LD, if you wouldn't mind explaining which way exactly that you lean, that'd be great.

I'm willing to let the smokescreen argument go as an extention of my Otter "epiphany", as it were, but

Andrew’s gaffe wasn’t really causing any extra talking, and even if it was, the conversation still could have easily kept going.

- Excal, Corwin and Otter weighed in on it immediately, and they were followed shortly thereafter by smodge.
- The vast majority of the rest of the page was Ciato vs. Otter and outsiders commenting. People have talked about Andy since, but it certainly wasn't "easily kept going".

Kilga has a couple of large posts of analysis. He, however, at the end of it... removes his vote from Nitori. That's it. What exactly is there to prove it's not one giant smokescreen? If your views are not enough to convince even you of anything (and this is hardly hammer, but could even be a pressure vote at this moment), why put it out there?

I was waiting for Dhyer's response to my section on him. I had privately concluded that I would vote Yakumo if I was satisfied with Dhyer's answers at the conclusion of our discussion and vote Dhyer if I was not. Sorry for not stating this publicly. (Since our discussion is not over yet, I will continue refraining from voting.)

"Overall null to slightly scum read. Not bad enough to keep my vote there though. " --  Why the hell NOT? Where is your vote better-used?

My vote was purely to get Nitori to talk, and he obliged. Why should I keep a "post more" vote on a person when (a) said person has posted in a satisfactory manner and (b) I have people I find more suspicious?

[Ranmilia]

Votecount shortly, notification immediately, Fnorder's getting modkilled.

[Ranmilia]

"Huh.  You know, that water doesn't look all that bad, man.  It looks groovy, man.  And that alien guy, he's blowin my mind!"

So saying, another member of the group lept into the lake!

Mad Fnorder, aka The Yoga Ball, Vanilla Townie, was modkilled by request!

Votecount!  With 10 alive, it still takes 6 to lynch.

Nitori (0): , Kilgamayan
Kilga (2): Nitori, Corwin
Fnorder (0): Otter, Yakumo
Dhyer (1): OK
Ciato (1): Dhyer
Otter (1): LadyDoor

Bout 43 hours have elapsed in day 2.  Things seem kinda sluggish, so if discussion doesn't pick up tonight I'll set a deadline.

[Corwin]

Kilga (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg8707#msg8707):

My vote was purely to get Nitori to talk, and he obliged. Why should I keep a "post more" vote on a person when (a) said person has posted in a satisfactory manner and (b) I have people I find more suspicious?

Because, like I suggested in the post you're replying to, that you could use your vote to spur other people to talk? Say, those very people you find more suspicious, by your admission?

Man, even though it seems like I'd be able to play more over the weekend, I actually get less mafia time. Bah. Would like to hear from Andrew more on other people (he talks of Yakumo and Fnorder; the latter had gotten modkilled, while he quickly backed off the former once Yakumo posted). LD seems to be reading into the same thing, if perhaps from a slightly different angle.

[Dhyerwolf]

Corwin, I kept my vote on Ciato and didn’t switch over to someone else because I still had (have!) a part of my question unanswered at that (this!) time. I’m still quite confused over the 1/3 logic she later put forth on trains when Corwin hadn’t put someone over 1/3.
Official vote counts say that OK never had a vote counted until the final one, Otter. I don’t know if this was a mistake or not, but based on that my thinking OK hadn’t correctly voted at that time was validated by the vote count.
Andrew’s gaffe really wasn’t causing much discussion. Yes, three people commented on it…with almost no info. It basically boiled down to “Andrew made a mistake.” Seems like most of the discussion tied to it after all this time is still “Andrew made a mistake.” Lady Door, Ciato, and Smodge all posted before Otter started really railing against Ciato, and none of them saw fit to mention Andrew’s mistake. I’m not really sure there was much more to argue about the mistake at that point. It was identified and a reason was given, but it was still not really something that much meat could be drawn from likely because it was in the joke vote stage. Also, Otter was 3 hours later, which is not immediate. It really didn’t look like the mistake was going to start a lot of discussion.
And yes, I had read Lady Door’s arguments. I only said that I felt no strong need to go against them because they were tied up in the effectiveness of Otter’s argument, which strikes me as something that everyone has to decide for his or herself. However, when it was linked to smokescreening, which I do not see at all, then I decided to tackle it. For the most part, I do not consider whether Otter was rude or not to be something of great importance; rather, it was the discussion it brought forth and cries of smokescreening that I think have the importance.
And Yakumo’s reasons for going against Otter day 1 still leave me pretty cold. The “you didn’t react this way before” could still be explained by the fact that Ciato called the idea retarded, which tends to put a lot more emphasis on it than just not doing it. Otherwise, it might not be horribly noticeable.

[Luther Lansfeld]

I SAID THAT 1/3RD IS ALARMING FOR JOKEVOTES. JOKE. VOTES. 1/3 should NEVER HAPPEN FOR JOKE VOTES. Corwin's vote was not a jokevote.

[Dhyerwolf]

Then why say that he was causing a train when he was only the second active voter?

[Otter]

Well, Fnorder suicided and was town.  That explains his lurking and the weirdness of his day 1 behavior; he just didn't have the time/energy.  It sucks, but this is exactly why people shouldn't sign up for games if they can't actually swing the effort and time required; now we're out another townie.

Nitori: I was trying to limit myself to the actual train members because my monologue really went long enough as it is.  As for my present views on Dhyer, well, I think he's generally been reasonable and I've found myself agreeing with a decent amount that he's saying.  He's been slow to post content without being pushed, which is bad, but the content does show up (including votes, which is great).  On the other hand, the failure to unvote was definitely a slip, and coupled with his slight reluctance to participate could be a sign of a player who's not really paying as close attention and participating as actively as he could be, which both say bad things to me.  The alternative is "somewhat lazy townie" and I don't like to assume that.  Overall, slightly negative read so far, but he could redeem himself pretty well by volunteering more information in the future without needing to be called out.

---

On that topic.  Lack of content has been massive from Andy today.  Lots of "mmm..." stuff, he says "I have to go do stuff now but I'll be back later to say more" in virtually every post, etc.  Continually promising more content later, not putting enough stock in anything he's saying to make an actual vote, these are bad things.  Recently he said he'd vote Fnorder later if he didn't show up with content!  So, now that ACTION-PACKED promise is irrelevant and Andy doesn't even have a potential vote on the table.

##VOTE: Andy.  (My Fnorder vote has been annihilated so I don't have to unvote, right?)  I'm calling him out for content, preferably content he puts enough faith in to deserve a vote, with a whole lot less waffling and uncertainty and deferring content for theoretical later posts.  Those are all ways for scum to hide as far as I'm concerned, because they don't serve a lot of purpose for townies.

---

Ciato: You say that you don't have so much to say about the people you really suspect, because there's less to say about these people due to lack of hard stances.  Fair enough.  You did say you were going to name and discuss these people later, so no big callout to do that right now right now, but do get around to that, hopefully sooner than later!  I look forward to it.

[Kilgamayan]

Kilga (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg8707#msg8707):

My vote was purely to get Nitori to talk, and he obliged. Why should I keep a "post more" vote on a person when (a) said person has posted in a satisfactory manner and (b) I have people I find more suspicious?

Because, like I suggested in the post you're replying to, that you could use your vote to spur other people to talk? Say, those very people you find more suspicious, by your admission?

Neither Dhyer nor Yakumo needed extra motivation to post; Dhyer was/is doing it enough on his own and Yakumo had just done so recently.

[Yakumo]

Mrghle.  Well.  Possible     line looms and our votes are scattershot around all over the place.  Well, let's see what we've got on the people that have at least one vote so far.

Kilga, Dhyer, Ciato, Otter, Andy.

I'm not totally sure what Nitori's case on Kilga actually is, here.  What do you mean he seemed disconnected?  He seemed to be commenting on the major things and bringing up smaller things as well, and I really don't see a reason to attack him for not being super focused, especially on day one.  Corwin's reasoning is just that he did a lot of analysis but didn't vote based on it, I think?  I can see that one, yeah, but I'm not sure it's enough for a vote right now.  Definitely bears watching.

OK's vote on Dhyer seems to be pressing for content, am I right?  Well, he did respond, and he has more content than some people, myself included honestly.  Don't really see this as a good option right now, I don't see anything that's actually that bad.

Dhyer has the vote for Ciato, which is pressure for her to answer a question.  I'm not sure exactly where he's going with the question, though.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I'm reading this is: you think she's suspicious because of why she found someone else, who hasn't been proven to be on one side or the other, suspicious, and you're voting for her because she hasn't completely answered the question?  I guess the question I'm asking is, what is it that you find so suspicious here?  I get the feeling I'm not seeing something.  Leaving this one alone until I hear more.

Otter, I'm still worried about from what I was talking about on day one, his choice of targets not being consistent with what I'm used to seeing from him.  Then he forgets who got NK'd and makes an analysis of them.  Catches it immediately, yes, but it's still a major error to make in the first place.  He's also been rather incivil in a few instances.  In fact, I'm finding it harder to find things I've liked about the way he's been playing this game than things that are rubbing me the wrong way. 

Andrew does need to post more actual content instead of promising it will come later, and if we weren't about to be facing a timer, I'd probably pressure him about it with a vote.  With Alex all but saying there will be one enforced, though, I'm going to vote for the person that seems scummier over the one that just isn't here. 

##Vote: Otter

[Ranmilia]

Votecount!  With 10 alive, it still takes 6 to lynch.

Fnorder (0): Otter, Yakumo

Nitori (0): , Kilgamayan
Kilga (2): Nitori, Corwin
Dhyer (1): OK
Ciato (1): Dhyer
Otter (2): LadyDoor, Yakumo
Andrew (1): Otter


49 hours have elapsed in day 2.  Try to have things hashed out by this time tomorrow. 

[Kilgamayan]

Oh, to hell with it.

##Vote: Yakumo

Even so:

I do not consider whether Otter was rude or not to be something of great importance

Even though Otter has been the main proponent of "town has no reason to be uncivil" in the past?

[Luther Lansfeld]

Ctrl+F: "SageDuneFangirl" (tee hee)

Ciato finds far more analysis and trying to be helpful than everyone is giving the young kappa credit for. He puts forth some interesting additions to the case versus smodge, namely the point about linking Andy to myself in scumminess. Maybe I missed someone else saying it earlier, but his posts seem to be trying to connect things individually. Day 2 he comes out with an attack + vote on Kilga, making some more decent points on Kilga. Although being aggressive looks good and if he has a scum buddy kicking him around for it...

(Aww, his avatar is so cute! ^.^)

Hrm. Otter's forgetting who got NKed is weird weird weird, but my problem with using this as evidence is that I can't fathom -anyone- forgetting who got NKed. It's not really an attribute I am willing to stick one way or another...

Ctrl+F "is a lie"
Andrew has had crazily little presence in the game. He switches votes a lot, latches onto Corwin and then smodge and then it stays there, basically not existing. Day 2 he's all like "I'm going to attack the lurkers. Maybe!"... um... wow. One thing he does say is making a complete 180 on his view on the argument between Otter and me, despite nothing actually happening in that time! He says we feel like townies arguing, and then he tries to vaguely waggle fingers at both of us. It kinda feels like he's trying to add content artificially?

Kilga says that he has a lot of "mild, somewhat, slight" scumreads on various random people in his first post in Day 2, but oddly doesn't lay down a vote on anyone. Very weird. It feels like he doesn't want to be decisive at all here. ....and he votes as I post this. Excellent.

##VOTE: Andy

[Yakumo]

Gah, we have votes on what, six different people now?  I mean, if you find me scummy looking then vote for me, by all means, but at least make a case and try to get other people to vote with you.  Putting a vote on me like that is just asking for it to be sitting there useless at the end of the day.  You said why you think I'm the scummiest looking one left, nobody else bites, then you just say "hell with it" and vote me?  That's it?  That's not putting your vote to use, that looks like voting just so you can say you voted.

[Otter]

Explain the Yakko vote, Kilga?

---

Otter, I'm still worried about from what I was talking about on day one, his choice of targets not being consistent with what I'm used to seeing from him.  Then he forgets who got NK'd and makes an analysis of them.  Catches it immediately, yes, but it's still a major error to make in the first place.  He's also been rather incivil in a few instances.  In fact, I'm finding it harder to find things I've liked about the way he's been playing this game than things that are rubbing me the wrong way.

Looks like you've raised four objections on me to justify your vote.

1)  "Choice of targets not being consistent."  I find it very hard to believe that you consider my suspicions inconsistent with what you're used to seeing from me.  Is my stance on town needing to witchhunt and get action started new to you?  How about my strong tendency to vote for people who are lurking on the sidelines and refusing to take center stage, as I am doing now?  Maybe it's the policy that a jump onto a train should be adequately justified?  Absolutely none of this stuff is new.

2)  Yes, I momentarily forgot who got NK'd.

3)  If you think I've been less than civil, then I apologize but you're also not mentioning anything specific and I haven't been intentionally rude to anyone all game.  If there was a turn of phrase somewhere that struck you badly, you could mention it to me and I'd try to avoid saying anything like that in the future.  As it is, though, you're just generally saying "Otter's been uncivil at times" and I'm not sure that's fair.  Saying it doesn't make it so.

4)  "Rubbing you the wrong way."  Again, that's a pretty insubstantial claim.