4 Good Reasons to Vote Glork
An Anthology of New and Old Arguments*
*meaning that many have already been mentioned earlier
1. He hasn’t made one single case on Day 1
I invite you to ISO him and confirm this by yourself. He has voted six times during Day 1, not counting RVS (
37,
171,
428,
603,
807,
830). Not one single vote was backed by a minimally in-depth case and, except for his vote on Yosarian (which only explanation was “Yos's switch from VitR to LML is particularly cringe-worthy and smells like scum trying to ride the tides to an easy lynch”), not one is accompanied by a solid justification. He pushes for PJ’s lynch (posts
603,
605) without ever saying why he suspects him so much. He votes CES because he gets annoyed by him (post
714). His second-to-last vote, on KK (post
807), was simply to put pressure on him. And his vote on LML was because of his “bus post”, even though Glork didn’t believe that was a scumslip (see below).
2. He contradicts himself severely
Glork about “cop-out” replies:
- Post 1029 (in response to PJ, who had asked him why he wasn’t voting VitaminR): “Because I don't feel like voting right now? Here, how about I answer these with one of your own lines from earlier: [quotes PJ] ‘Bluntly, I don't care what you'd like... I will pursue potential scum as I see fit.’ “
Post 1321 (in response to me): “your response (saying you don't care about wagons, and that it's subjective) is like the biggest cop out ever”
Glork about Bookitty:
- Posts 523, 593: “As much as it pains me to say, I'm pretty fine with a Bookitty lynch” ; “I'm like 80% sure that I will be voting to lynch Bookitty or PJ today. I just really can't decide which.”
Post 641: “I've been by and large pretty fine with Bookitty's contributions.”
Glork about LML:
He first states he doesn’t want to lynch LML; then, after LML’s “bus post”, he VOTES HIM TO LYNCH, even though he says he’s not convinced he will flip scum (!). If he’s not convinced LML’s “bus post” was a scumslip, WHY THEN did he vote him because of that very same post?
Speaking of which…
3. He defended LML since early on
Glork has generally defended LML throughout the whole game. His first sympathy posts appear page 5, and on page 18 he openly expresses his dislike of LML’s wagon. And – I insist – even after LML’s bus post, and even after voting him to lynch, Glork continued to say he thought he would flip town.
Earlier I thought Glork and LML’s buddying was so obvious they couldn’t be scumpartners (since they are experienced players and all that). But what if that was precisely what they were going for? I realize it’s WIFOM territory, but they surely are proficient enough to try to pull it off.
4. The only case he made the whole game (the one against me) was dishonest and based on fallacious, sensationalist phrasing
No need to repeat myself on this one, my post
1352 makes it pretty clear how Glork dishonestly manipulated facts and used sensationalist formulations to attack me. Accusations of me “lurking through the thread doing nothing of value” come to mind (again, I invite Glork or anyone else to point out when exactly I have lurked).
Even if some may consider he was not that sensationalist (for those I'll leave another Glork quote: "You don't want a spread of votes. You don't want parity. You don't want to look elsewhere and discern multiple players' alignments"), no-one can possibly deny the enormous fallacy he committed in his last attack against me (because logic is not subjective).
