NOTE: Please read the entire post if you have time, don't just skip over it, especially if you are going to vote for me, since I believe I made some important points.
Wow, there's a lot there. I'll just tackle everything in chronological order, since that makes the most sense.
Fuldu wrote:You're trying to redirect suspicion on the people who placed it on you in the first place with the argument that it seems ill-argued and rushed. Ill-argued and rushed it might be, but to me, at least, it's so obvious how and why it happened that the idea of pointing to it as an anomaly seems desperate.
*sighs* I knew someone would say something like this. I guess I should just post with a disclaimer from now on. Anyway, it made no difference to me that the bandwagon in question was on me; I would have pointed it out no matter who it was on. I understand that DP often gives no reasoning for his vote and that people often start bandwagons with little or no reasoning. I also understand that usually, on such a bandwagon, at least one of those people is scum. I was just pointing the fact out, not "desperately" trying to "derail" my bandwagon. Any decent scummer would have at least mentioned it, and it's not like my entire post revolved around it.
Aelyn wrote:Bah, I really ought to be more careful. Nevertheless, I'm happy with my vote for now
Why? It seemed to me that you were completely on my side until you misread my last post. There's no need to just follow the crowd here unless you actually believe I'm scum.
Aelyn later wrote:Since then, I've realised my mistake, but I'm still suspicious of Gaspode in general. My gut reaction is that it's even chances he's scum, which to my mind is worth it.
This is a cop-out. What's suspicious about me? The only specific things you've said in reference to me all game were supportive of my logic. If you can back up your vote with good logic I'll back off, but right now it just seems like you don't feel like completely admitting that you were wrong in your interpretation of my post. That's not a good reason to vote for someone.
Mith wrote:Ironic, considering I've been fighting against all the random/nonsense votes, but anyway.
You're right. To be perfectly consistent with my demands for logic-backed votes, I guess I shouldn't have random voted early on, but it's a tough habit to break.
mith wrote:So, maybe he only mentions this because he was particularly concerned with *not* falling into one of my traps?
Another misinterpretation. I did not mean this to be a reason not to follow you specifically. I meant it to support my argument that your reasons for voting are not always solid.
mith wrote:The main problem I have here is that if you insist on going slowly, what's the point of a random vote?
See the earlier point about my random vote.
Stewie wrote:Well, as you mentioned before, mith seemed to be 100% sure. You agree with most of what mith says. Most means more than 50%, and more than 50% of 100% is more than 50%, every time, no matter how you look at it. Therefore, you should be sure enough to vote.
Good point, I guess I was a bit careless with my wording. The point is, I cleared it up in a later post, saying that it wasn't my intention to come across as more than 50% sure korais was scum. I'm not a perfect writer, but a bad night at the keyboard doesn't make me scum.
Stewie wrote:But you agree with (most of) what he's saying -- why wouldn't you also agree in with him in the vote count? It's not like you'd be blindly following him, but you read his argument and made an informed desicion on them.
Yes, and my informed decision was that korais had done some suspicious things, but not enough to make me believe he was scum yet.
Stewie wrote:Again, if we all just sit there and watch until something suspicious enough for a vote comes up, this would be a really slow game. Although I could probably get my children to replace.
So we have different philosophies about the optimal speed of a game. By waiting for more information, I didn't mean that we should wait around forever; I just wanted to hear other people's views on the situation. Other people have an obligation to post as well, and I don't see anything wrong with wanting to hear other opinions before formulating my own.
Stewie wrote:That, or that you are NOT trying to start a bandwagon on them, and either say "Yeah, I thought that they weren't suspicious enough to vote for them" if they are town or "Yeah, I thought that there was something suspicious about them" if they are scum.
We all know that doesn't work, and I thought you knew I wasn't stupid enough to attempt that ploy. I guess you don't. I wasn't trying to set anything up; I just wanted to show that I was thinking about what was going on and provide an interesting topic for discussion. As I said, everyone has an obligation to post things of substance; I was trying to fulfill mine.
Stewie wrote:So what are you saying? That we should vote for innocent looking people? Obiously you'd agree in that it sounds like a silly plan. My point is, we have to go after suspicious people, and hope they are not town.
Obviously I don't think we should vote for innocent-looking people; I just think it can sometimes be dangerous to vote for suspicious people too quickly, because they often turn out to be powerful innocents. And now that I look back at mith's original anti-korais post once again, I realize that his logic is even thinner than I remembered. That's not to say that it's wrong; I just don't think it's nearly enough to vote for someone. When I said I agreed with most of what mith said, I basically meant that I agreed that each individual case he presented was slightly suspicious, but disagreed with his belief that it made korais look scummy enough for a vote. My post was simply one of caution, nothing more.
Genocide Heart wrote:It seems to consist almost entirely of poor reading comprehension.
This post made me laugh, because it is largely true: not so much that people are unable to read, but that this whole thing has been caused by misinterpretations of my posts.
For now, I am withholding my vote for two reasons: a) the discussion is all about me right now, and we should resolve a few more issues before adding something else to the equation, b) I know people would jump all over me for "trying to derail suspicion". I'm sure they'll jump all over me for this paragraph and my lack of a vote, but I don't care, since I don't think it's the right time for a new vote right now anyway.
Sorry if any of this doesn't make sense, I'll be happy to clear anything up; it's a lot to be writing in one post.
), but I'm not ready to revote yet. Korais and mepmuff have done some pretty scummy things, but I'm not 100% convinced that they're mafia yet, as mith seems to be. I'd like to wait for a little more information before I make a serious vote.