Krazy:
UNLIKE Darth, goes on to imply that Umbrage et.al is also tl;dr.
I noticed this too. I don’t know why the Umbrage-related material is tl:dr. The caps rage makes it not pleasant reading either, but with a wagon that size that quickly, attention should be paid. I forget who said it, but I agree that Umbrage flailing is kind of a null tell, as town are apt to get that frustrated too; I am more interested in his voting and occasional omissions in replying to his accusers.
@Umbrage: Not liking that you're ignoring my press about Snake Eyes' reply to you.
Also, I do think my vote and dialogue with Krazy has indeed run its course. Krazy is actually helping the town now. I think I can and should re-deploy my vote. (ZOMG, he's drawing attention to his vote again! Obvscum! Obvscum!)
Unvote. Vote: Xotxm.
Lurking makes me a sad panda.
Now, for Vordark’s ISO wall of me…no way around it, my reply is also going to be a wall. My apologies in advance. All quotes come from Vordark unless otherwise noted.
Summary for tl:dr folks: Vordark thinks I've spent too much time engaging Krazy, and that I have some unhelpful beliefs about mafia theory. I think that putting pressure on Krazy was the right move, and he is in fact now behaving in a much more townish manner. I don't think I was unduly calling attention to my votes; I think saying my read has changed on someone who I had my vote on is a fairly normal thing to do.
I don't like this post very much. The question "why the need to exit us out of RVS" doesn't vibe as town at all to me. The sooner we're out of RVS and into discussion and debate, the better. Anything that moves us along in that regard is better and I can't think why someone town would disagree.
I already explained my reasoning—that we hadn’t heard from much of the town when we exited RVS. Do you actually want to respond to that, as opposed to openly supposing why someone would ask about the need to exit RVS?
The first part is DY's case that SE is defending CS. Two quotes and an "Um, right". Again, not a defense.
You say it isn’t without explaining why. I say it is without explaining why (although I feel like a sentence that attempts to attribute town motive to a person kinda constitutes defending them…odd, I know). Looks like we’re tied.
The "Hunting for scumpairs before there have been any flips is junk science" comment is strange as well. SE is talking about what happens "should Umbrage flip scum". It is also natural, and necessary, to look for relationships between the players as early as possible. All in all, it's a suspicious sentence.
Yeah, there totally is not any scum motivation in insinuating relationships between players. Totally not a way to tee up future (mis)lynches.
I personally think that hypothesizing about relationships so early in the game needs to be taken with a few grains of salt. Associative tells only become tells usually when flips have occurred. Meta me, and you’ll see I hold to this belief as town.
He also notes "Commenting on every single thing is something I have neither the time or inclination to do", but he ends up spending much more time engaging Krazy that I think is reasonable.
If my vote is on someone because I’m scumhunting them, I’m probably going to spend a little more time replying to their posts, no?
Also, this is just fluff. What is “reasonable” is often completely subjective. I’m clearly engaging other players as well, if you want to accuse me of tunneling, then just come out and say it.
This part of the post just strikes me as egging him on.
So why aren’t you calling out the other umpteen players who pointed out said irony?
but he does keep engaging Krazy.
So…what you’re saying is, putting concerted pressure on a player who has been behaving anti-town is bad? Because that’s sure what it looks like you’re saying.
The first part of this snippet and the first sentence of the last paragraph strike me as odd when taken together. The first bit remains critical of CS's early bandwagon vote on Umbrage, but the sentence I indicated appears to back off that opinion with "I think this is a more fast-paced game than I was either feeling or anticipating". I'm wondering which it is.
How exactly are those sentiments mutually exclusive?
I think any vote outside of the RVS needs at least a few words of explanation as to why you are voting forsomeone, but I find it suspicious when someone makes a show of why they are taking it off of someone when they move it. It's worrying about appearances and that's something more likely to come from scum than town.
So, when I don’t think someone is as scummy as I originally thought, I should just not mention that to the town? That’s just bad play right there. Especially if you think it is important for players to be looking for relationships and connections (which you clearly do). If that’s the case, then the town needs to know where I stand on the guy I just had my vote on.
DY's reply was unnecessary and I think anyone that really wanted to focus the town would have let Krazy's comments slide,
So, when the person I am accusing of being scum encourages me to “back up my accusation,” I should instead let it slide?
Iamusername:
I was more concerned about the fact that he is self-admittedly voting Krazy for reasons that have nothing to do with his alignment
So, using my vote to try to determine if someone’s anti-town play is scummy or just bad town is…bad? Ooooooookay. BTW, do you actually plan on weighing in on the rest of the game? You’re clearly reading the thread, but are saying very little.
On hiatus from any new mafia commitments.
Jesus loves you. But that doesn't mean you're town.
James 2:13