Finally have a chance to catch up. This first section will probably be edited due to other people realizing the holes in Sando's position and saying what I'd want to say, so try to ignore gaps in grammar/tense (they annoy the hell out of me).
@Sando: Starting with ISO 190 (page 8):
1) I didn't ask you for a rundown. I wanted your top suspect because you weren't voting for anybody. There's a big difference. Also, due to my explanation below; asking for information does help instead of looking like busy work, "when bugger all is happening" in your words.
(I think this comes up later, but it ties in as well) I ask for people to say what their primary "suspect" is so that we can all further explore what each other are thinking, and give a wide base to see what we can find that's scummy. If more people explore it, and the person has a townie response (logical reason for acting the way that they did) then we can get a read on them because of it. If they overreact, then we can explore that and see why (which I typically don't interpret to be a townie reaction. Scum (more towards the non-experienced spectrum, but it's worth a shot here) tend to not like having the spotlight on them; so when somebody brings something minor up, and they overreact it's worth looking into. (ODDin's 2nd paragraph in post 200 ties in perfectly with this, agree with that 100%)
2) The "about time comment". Look at the time line. I said that after your ISO 4. Your first 3 posts do absolutely nothing for the game for 4 days, so I was really looking forward to you actually contributing. That's beyond a lurker timeline, when you're actually here.
191: {You find rundowns less scummy in newbie games.} It's been gone over that I wasn't looking for a rundown, but I like how you think only scum ask people for their suspicions.
193: Do you even know why I "vote-switched"? Do you know who, if anybody, has voted for more people than I have?
197: (this is broken up into numbers)
1) No, just cause you think 1-2 people are scummy does not automatically translate into you thinking everyone else is pro-town. Absolutely does not work that way.
3) Asking you to vote for somebody and give reasoning is a general question? This is after I wanted to know where your suspicions were, and you said to look where you were voting.
--page 9--
(Not sando related:) I don't see the points of SC against ODDin really holding ground. VP's 232 is basically what I was gonna say about the 1.5 day point, I don't really agree with the other points either.
Back to Sando:
212: --edit out-- Covered by VP Baltar in 217
(This was @Scien from Sando): Saying "6 people are scum" is both not what I asked for and a stupid/scummy idea to actually say. Obviously in a 12 person game 6 scum is too much; so you're clearly fabricating cases there. 1-2 is all I really wanted to know. As an aside: I've only really seen one scum-linking case work in all my time here (and that just happened in a game that just finished, Hellsing Mafia (mini-theme)). I think everyone should be judged based on their own play as that will turn up scum more often than not in my opinion.
@Troll: Ahh, yeah. I got more of a weak pro-town vibe from SC after the questions, so I thought that you might've looked at the situation the same way I did. Sorry for the confusion.
Sando 216: Ok, so then what are your reasons for voting me. The most prominent part of your point against me that I recall is that I was "whinging for your vote". If that's all, or if there's more; I'd certainly like to hear it.
@AGar: {Why I want opinions out right away} I feel it breeds a better D1 atmosphere to actually look for people who aren't operating on the towns agenda, and get people to talk about something. Low activity games hurt the town. If I get everyone to talk about something, then it's helpful to my faction.
@SC {giving reads} Then explain that you really don't have solid reads at this point. Nothing is sticking out to you, whatever. As town, I definitely don't expect you to make anything up.
--page 10--
@Sando (end of 217): This will be the main reason for my vote at the end of this post (I realize it's a long one). You're essentially asking for people that SC has as pro-town. This is much much worse than asking for scumspects. If there's a wagon on somebody that SC doesn't mind seeing lynched, you'll see that he's not pro-town enough in SC's eyes. Scum only benefit from that type of information.
@OJ: Meta and an occurance that happened in another game aren't exactly the same thing. I was trying to get a point across about a situation that I saw that I thought hurt town. I was pointing out why ignoring people's more serious posts (that turned out to not be serious at all.. -_- ) is a bad idea. It doesn't really correlate to this game as I'm not giving him town points for saying he'll ignore people (like he did in that game as town) like a normal "meta" would, I just wasn't in the game at the point where VP said that he was going to ignore CKD to attack the behavior.
I meant that I've never played nor read a game of Sando/AGar/ODDin. I've read one or two of the rest of you that I haven't played with; or played with them. I like to get a feel for how active they are, primarily, and look for a super gambit or something. If they're just solid, that's fine too and I like reading the games.
My vote on SC was initially due to wanting a bandwagon (and forgetting the VC on the page); and I thought due to his post on page 3 that he was going to set up a push for a cop claim early on and try to dismiss his action as not scummy because he brought it up D1.
PZ's retraction gives me scum vibes as well.
@PZ: We have 10 pages to go on, now that you don't have a case (that you never really had), what do you think of some of the debates that have gone on recently?
Unvote
Vote: Sando
I'm going on a crusade to put more thought into my posts.
No, my name is not "Ed."