farside wrote:MOI seems really quiet now that pressure is off of him I'm tempted to switch back to Magna
Really quiet? Really? I post generally once a day. Due to a busy day Thursday I was unable to do so. I posted Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. If you are expecting multiple small posts from me you should either expect disappointment or adjust your expectations. I don’t make serial posts as a general rule.
Additionally how is the pressure ‘off’ me? I have 4 votes to Charlie’s 5. Hardly a situation where there is concensus.
Poro wrote:I have caught up whilst I have some town reads but no scum reads as of yet, I need to read when its not early morning, however I think an unvote would be appropriate at the moment.
You have no-one who you feel is playing scummy enough to warrant a scum read? So was your initial attack on Sotty simply for pressure?
Locke wrote:That was your original objection. I don't see anything there about why she brought up only Zach. The tone of that seems more along the lines of my objection; that is, she's making a point against Zach but excusing (or undercutting, if you prefer) it at the same time that she makes it.
It was my initial question. I wanted to see her reaction and if she would widen the meta-field. When she didn’t I inquired about what most bothered me – the lack of meta attack on others (in my very next Post).
Charlie wrote:You make it sound like it is a bad thing.
Opprotunistic voting? Yes I feel that is a bad thing. Let’s look at your voting record (outside of RVS so far).
When you vote for Sotty at 101 it is your first mention of her. When you placed your vote on her (in the dreaded third slot) she was competing with Jack and Poro for wagon leader. You’ve repeatedly stated that you wanted to take a side in the Jack / Sotty debate but didn’t choose the side of the player who ‘confused’ you. This seems off to me.
After I vote for you at 136 you return the favour. At this point I have 5 votes. You are the next leading vote getter with 3. It looks like again choosing a big wagon and also trying to save your own neck with a potential quick lynch.
Also, please answer this question which you seemingly ignored –
MoI wrote:Finally why can’t you explain your confidence without lying?
Charlie wrote:How do I figure out which is mafia..it is like Day 1. Again, you make it sound like it is a bad thing.
You can’t for certain determine when they are Mafia or not. That’s a straw-man attack. You commented that one of the two is exhibiting behaviour that you expect from a Mafian. You do not indicate which player it is. That’s fence-sitting, which I believe is a bad thing.
Which player of CBD or Zaj is the one you suggest is playing in a manner expected of a Mafian?
Charlie wrote:Certainly better than sitting around to the point that I get accused of active lurking! Which I am glad it has not come to that.
But hopping on a popular wagon as opposed to questioning / putting pressure on the player whose behavior you find confusing or scummy is much worse than actually following up on suspicions. And you don’t address either of the following points. Please do so –
MoI wrote:Why are you uncomfortable about others drawing conclusions based on your play?
Didn’t you chide me for not expressing opinions about people’s play earlier? You can't credibly call out someone for not expressing opinions and then attack them when they do.
Charlie wrote:Actually if I were to go on this statement alone I think it justifies my vote on you (Over-complication of simple things = mafia-ish). Would you kindly tell me more about this Cognitive Dissonance and how it fits on me being mafia?
Demonstrating your behavior as Cognitive Dissonance is not over-complication of matters.
Cognitive Dissonance is when the stated opinions of a player are in direct conflict with the behaviour and actions they undertake. This is scummy because playing in a manner inconsistent with your stated opinions indicates your opinions are not true but contrived.
You state that there may well be better lynches than me. You point out players (Jack and CDB/Zaj) who may be playing in a manner you feel is worth investigation and / or voting.
Then you don’t question said players and lazily slap you vote back on me. Your actions are in conflict with your stated opinions. Scummy.
Your buddying up in 172 to Farside is noted.
Zajnet, Zach, Jack are all pretty much contributing nothing outside of their votes on me. No scum-hunting at all. I would not be surprised if at least 1 Mafain (if not more) were not riding out the day among these slots.
I’ve made my opinion on Charlie well known.
Poro’s lack of reads is moving him up the scum ladder in my mind.
@MOD – I’ll be V/LA from 4pm EDT until Monday morning due to family responsabilities. I will have limited chances to contribute before deadline but will not have a chance to make significant posts.
"I am a leaf on the wind ... watch how I soar!"
Pretty much Geriatric game restricted at this point ... unless there are players I REALLY want to play with.
