Newbie 480: Game Over!

[Civil Scum]

So first he panics and asks that a vote be reconsidered (and why is he only asking one of the two people voting for him to remove it? Why would you not ask both people? Why is he "okay" with leetonicon voting for him but not Porochaz??), then he casts a vote that for some reason he feels he has to justify, so he tells us he is "obligated" to cast an OMGUS vote (which he most certainly is NOT obligated to do... I don't think anyone else did).

I mean obligated by myself, not obligated by the "rules" or the situation. Since my name automatically gets mentioned for a random vote (it's just easy), I have made a rule of voting for the person who does it first. I know the first few votes are random, How is the incorrect use of obligation a scum tell? I know I don't NEED to justify a vote this early and that's not what that was.

1. Civil Scum, your vote is purely on the basis Im voting for you, yes?

yes

You feel you should not be at L - 2 so early as your new?

It isn't L-2 that bothers me, it is a quick lynch with a bad town vote.

I ask for anyone beyond myslf and Civil Scum to tell us what they think, I also just want to hear from people generally, your past experience with Mafiascum and Mafia in general, for example. This is my first game here, although I used to mod games elsewhere. I also very occasionally play in the real world.

Porochaz,
It's only my second game on here, but this is what I've noticed. Lot's of the good disscussion that occurs in the first few pages always stems from odd behaviour during the random voting stage. Obviously suspicions have to start somewhere. The problem is that a lot of the slip-ups, flip-flopping in voting, panic and defensiveness (interest in self-preservation for town or scum) that are CLASSIC scum tells are easily done by newbie townies on accident. So in newbie games with newbs [raising hand] it obviously becomes a bit of a dilemma, becuase these types of mistakes can be umbrella defended with the inexperience defense.

You are currently the prime suspect in my book. I can tell you now my vote will be staying on you unless something major changes my mind because 23 posts in, (including mine) I am sure your scum. Your excuse "Im new" doesn't hold up with me. This is my first game here, 3 other people are new as well... and your OMGUS vote confirmed it, you actally didn't give a reason beyond the fact you want me at L - 2 as well presumably to take the pressure off yourself... I dont think that reason is sound.

My worry here with this game is that you are SURE this soon that I am scum, while the evidence is not THAT fantastic. I am the prime suspect, true, but mostly because I'm the only suspect at the moment. 23 posts is just a start.
This isn't an attempt to curry your favor...

unvote

leetonicon wrote:

Hmmm.... I've been wine-in-front-of-me-ing for a while trying to determine what to make of what's been done so far. The fact that Porachaz voted for CS to put him at L-2 slightly early in the game suggested to me that they might be connected.

For the two scum to attack each other like this first off D-1 (while a viable option especially in real-world games) is not the best tactic when there are so many other players. If you ask me, you are stretching, first to read to much into my voting, and secondly to read even farther and suggest that any of this links porochaz and me. At this point, it is WIFOM, it is not coordinated behavior and nothing can be read into this.
It looks like you are trying too hard to find scum based on little evidence.

(And actually, CS's first request struck me as the reaction of someone new who didn't want to be the first day lynch which indicates nothing of scumminess or not; the second request (as was pointed out by others) is a little bit stranger)

You somewhat defend me and then say that my second post was srtranger. It pretty well asked again for porochaz to reconsider. I'd call it polite, cause if he's town I don't want him to get duped by some scummies on weak evidence.

The fact the we now have two L-2 bandwagons appears to be a good thing for the town,

Explain why this is good please. Two BWs early is good for town y?

but the fact that both wagons (Noob question: is wagon the appropriate term at L-2 on day 1 or does it have to be L-1 to be considered a wagon?) are unstable in the sense that each wagon contains a vote from the person being threatened by the other wagon and that makes me wonder whether CS's action was designed to look like he's helping the town while not actually helping as much as it would seem.

I'm with porochaz here, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Again, you seem to be reaching too far for some strange reasonings behind not-to-strange behavior. Early in this same post you introduce the idea that porochaz and I have made an early attempt at distancing, then later in the post... I'm turning in a townie? What exactly are u accusing me of here?

So, I'm keeping my vote on Civil Scum for now, FOS'ing Porochaz and hoping one of the other uncommitted people either starts a 3rd bandwagon or pushes one of these two to L-1.

Before we've heard from anyone else, you would like a 3rd bandwagon (how does this help the town? There's only 2 scum) and/or you'd like either/or/both me and porochaz pushed to L-1. You created some strange explanation and planning that "are" behind my voting patterns, and then FoS porochaz (asking and hoping someone L-1's) soley on the basis that porochaz and I could be distancing.
This is the scummiest post on the whole page, but hey thats just my opinion.

[Civil Scum]

oh oops, double

vote: leetonicon

[Porochaz]

So first he panics and asks that a vote be reconsidered (and why is he only asking one of the two people voting for him to remove it? Why would you not ask both people? Why is he "okay" with leetonicon voting for him but not Porochaz??), then he casts a vote that for some reason he feels he has to justify, so he tells us he is "obligated" to cast an OMGUS vote (which he most certainly is NOT obligated to do... I don't think anyone else did).

I mean obligated by myself, not obligated by the "rules" or the situation. Since my name automatically gets mentioned for a random vote (it's just easy), I have made a rule of voting for the person who does it first. I know the first few votes are random, How is the incorrect use of obligation a scum tell? I know I don't NEED to justify a vote this early and that's not what that was.

When you are the candidate who is looking like a suspect the most and you vote the person leading the invstigation, I would think it wise to give an explanation... usually no, but this game got "serious" faster than others I have read so yes I personally think you do need to justify your vote this time

You feel you should not be at L - 2 so early as your new?

It isn't L-2 that bothers me, it is a quick lynch with a bad town vote.

Im voting for you, yes but that doesn't mean you'll get a quick lynch. You have to convince other people of that first, I believe you may be scum but thats not to say others do.

My worry here with this game is that you are SURE this soon that I am scum, while the evidence is not THAT fantastic. I am the prime suspect, true, but mostly because I'm the only suspect at the moment. 23 posts is just a start.
This isn't an attempt to curry your favor...

unvote

Well, I think the evidence is stonger than anybody else at this moment. You are the only suspect at the moment, so although I won't take back my vote, I want to hear from other people before I see you lynched.

leetonicon wrote:

Hmmm.... I've been wine-in-front-of-me-ing for a while trying to determine what to make of what's been done so far. The fact that Porachaz voted for CS to put him at L-2 slightly early in the game suggested to me that they might be connected.

For the two scum to attack each other like this first off D-1 (while a viable option especially in real-world games) is not the best tactic when there are so many other players. If you ask me, you are stretching, first to read to much into my voting, and secondly to read even farther and suggest that any of this links porochaz and me. At this point, it is WIFOM, it is not coordinated behavior and nothing can be read into this.
It looks like you are trying too hard to find scum based on little evidence.

Thats what I read from it. I think from both of our stances against each other this behaviour would not be wise, why would I be building a case against Civil if we were both scum? Wouldn't that be a stupid thing to do as it would be effectively lessening the scums chances to win. Granted if I had voted and said nothing/very little then there could be a chance. However, looking at it objectively, my making such a case (strong/weak or otherwise) against Civil would suggest that we are not linked.

(And actually, CS's first request struck me as the reaction of someone new who didn't want to be the first day lynch which indicates nothing of scumminess or not; the second request (as was pointed out by others) is a little bit stranger)

You somewhat defend me and then say that my second post was srtranger. It pretty well asked again for porochaz to reconsider. I'd call it polite, cause if he's town I don't want him to get duped by some scummies on weak evidence.

I am well aware of the fact, I do want to hear from other people. I am voting for you because I, personally, think the evidence is strong enough. However I would like to hear from other people first. If you were at L - 1 I would probably take my vote off to hear from other people before deciding but fortunetly Im not in that situation yet and don't feel the need to mess myself around just at the moment.

The fact the we now have two L-2 bandwagons appears to be a good thing for the town,

Explain why this is good please. Two BWs early is good for town y?

I personally wouldn't call them bandwagons. I'm leading one with yourself, leetonicon who thinks we have some non-sensical plan to vote for each other to keep both of us safe? And Civils one, what was a OMGUS vote and a random vote. (Now only a random vote)

but the fact that both wagons (Noob question: is wagon the appropriate term at L-2 on day 1 or does it have to be L-1 to be considered a wagon?) are unstable in the sense that each wagon contains a vote from the person being threatened by the other wagon and that makes me wonder whether CS's action was designed to look like he's helping the town while not actually helping as much as it would seem.

I'm with porochaz here, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Again, you seem to be reaching too far for some strange reasonings behind not-to-strange behavior. Early in this same post you introduce the idea that porochaz and I have made an early attempt at distancing, then later in the post... I'm turning in a townie? What exactly are u accusing me of here?

I didn't say that but essentially is what Im thinking (not just the bit quoted, the whole post). I am interested in an answer for that last question.

So, I'm keeping my vote on Civil Scum for now, FOS'ing Porochaz and hoping one of the other uncommitted people either starts a 3rd bandwagon or pushes one of these two to L-1.

Before we've heard from anyone else, you would like a 3rd bandwagon (how does this help the town? There's only 2 scum) and/or you'd like either/or/both me and porochaz pushed to L-1. You created some strange explanation and planning that "are" behind my voting patterns, and then FoS porochaz (asking and hoping someone L-1's) soley on the basis that porochaz and I could be distancing.
This is the scummiest post on the whole page, but hey thats just my opinion.

Its an interesting one, Im not sure what to make of it. It certainly makes me think, whilst I could (but won't) mistake Civils reaction as noobishness (not going to, because I don't think it is), yours doesn't feel like newbie thinking it's frankly, just weird. So

FoS: leetonicon

but until you post again thats the way it'll remain.

[leetonicon]

I'll have to keep this short, which will hopefully as a side benefit keep it readable:

1) I may have made a mistake by FOS'ing Porochaz; I still think there's the possibility that Porochaz and Civil Scum are working together under the premise of Porochaz throwing Civil Scum under the bus, but the more I thought about it, the more it got into them having to have decided to try it right off that bat under the theory that it wouldn't look suspicious by looking suspicious... in other words, like I think I put it, it's more likely that i had a serious case of Wine-In-Front-Of-Me-ness and in hindsight, I should have tried probing someone else.

2) I'm rather concerned that Porochaz, Civil Scum, and myself have all gotten wrapped into a discussion and it's been quiet from everyone else... especially at our IC brethren who I would have thought should have stepped in (or will step in shortly since this has been the weekend) to ensure that the town has some potential information to work on for day 2.

Lastly, I've gotten wicked spoiled by Gmail apparently; is there any way to start a reply and save it as a draft or should I just cut and paste what I started to write and save it somewhere else (possibly gmail to deal with the fact that there are about 4 computers I use in any given day and if I save it to one, Murphy says that I'll end up spending all my time for the rest of the day at the other 3)

[Porochaz]

I'll have to keep this short, which will hopefully as a side benefit keep it readable:

2) I'm rather concerned that Porochaz, Civil Scum, and myself have all gotten wrapped into a discussion and it's been quiet from everyone else... especially at our IC brethren who I would have thought should have stepped in (or will step in shortly since this has been the weekend) to ensure that the town has some potential information to work on for day 2.

Ill keep it short as well... agreed. Ive made my thoughts on both of you clear, now I want to hear from someone who hasn't spoken much yet...

[Ripley]

I'm rather concerned that Porochaz, Civil Scum, and myself have all gotten wrapped into a discussion and it's been quiet from everyone else... especially at our IC brethren who I would have thought should have stepped in (or will step in shortly since this has been the weekend) to ensure that the town has some potential information to work on for day 2.

You have a misguided idea of what the role of an IC player is if you expect them to "step in" every time newbies get involved in a debate. And why would you expect such "stepping in" to be necessary to ensure the town has potential information? Don't you think that useful information has been gained from the discussion anyway? If that's not what you meant by "stepping in", what did you mean? I don't try to steer the course of a game, or to take control, nor have I seen another IC do so other than in my very first game here, where the IC who did so was scum.

Also, you probably aren't used yet to the pace at which games move here. This game is moving along just fine. There may come a time when we have to put pressure on lurkers - people who aren't posting, or who are avoiding posting useful content. This happens in almost every game on Day 1, whether it's a newbie game or not. But we've only been going for two days. It's nothing.

Finally, not everyone will always have an opinion about everything. An argument or debate in which you, personally, are involved will always seem far more interesting and significant than one in which you're not. In this game, I still think CS's uneasiness at receiving a second vote was more interesting than anything that's been said since.

I've gotten wicked spoiled by Gmail apparently; is there any way to start a reply and save it as a draft or should I just cut and paste what I started to write and save it somewhere else

You could try the Notes feature (at the top right of the page), though I've never used it myself and don't know exactly what it does.

Can I suggest that people try to include the quotee's name in quote tags? It's already becoming really difficult to follow some posts, for example CS's post 25 where his quotes are from posts by a number of different people, and Porochaz's Post 27 which contains some nested unattributed quotes. This isn't meant as criticism. I had problems with quotes myself when I started here, but it's really worth doing properly for the sake of clarity. If you didn't know, this is the structure:

Code: Select all

 [quote="Ripley"]

Porochaz: you said on page 1 you were "sure" Civil Scum was scum. This seems remarkably early to reach such a decision. Has your opinion wavered at all?

[Porochaz]

The "sure" comment was A. To keep the pressure on Civil and B. a slight mistake on my part showing my over keenness in the game... I believe that him asking me to take a vote off is suspicious and I think that his OMGUS vote confirms that I should be voting for him currently, but no, to be honest, I'm not sure. I would be very foolish of me to be so. Only 3 people, myself included, have talked in depth, in this game, 33% of the suspects (viewed from me). I am uneasy of leet but feel I need a few more posts/pages before I can say he scares me with that AK47 he's holding... As for Zeet, I think he's ok, he is the only other person I could give a guess about but not a well educated one (a very dim one).

[Civil Scum]

2) I'm rather concerned that Porochaz, Civil Scum, and myself have all gotten wrapped into a discussion and it's been quiet from everyone else... especially at our IC brethren who I would have thought should have stepped in (or will step in shortly since this has been the weekend) to ensure that the town has some potential information to work on for day 2.

This last part bothers me. Why are you thinking Day 2 already? You seem incredibly secure with how the game is going. I don't know what to make of that exactly, but it is quite odd.

?'s- How was my L-2 of porochaz a pro-town ploy, while not helping the town as much as it seems?
-Why are two BW's good for town on page 1?
-Why would you want a 3rd wagon?
-Why did you want someone to L-1 porochaz (on null-reasoning u retracted at the slightest pressure) or me BEFORE you heard from them (which you said you wanted)?

In this game, I still think CS's uneasiness at receiving a second vote was more interesting than anything that's been said since.

Soooo, cornered/worried scum, or panicky noob? I guess I don't see how any of this is evidence.

[Porochaz]

leetonicon is saying that its setting us up for Day 2 not that it is Day 2

[pablito]

Vote Count

Civil Scum (2): leetonicon, Porochaz
Porochaz (1): peapod
ZeekLTK (1): Erg0
peapod (1): Ripley
Ripley (1): ZeekLTK
leetonicon (1): Civil Scum

Not Voting: no one

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch!

[leetonicon]

Responding to Ripley's comments:
I agree that I'm probably being a bit impatient (reading through other games prior to playing this one really doesn't get across the time delay between postings). By stepping in, I just mean I expected one of the IC's to act as the voice of reason and point out that having only 3 people talking in a circle isn't getting us very far and maybe this was an unreasonable expectation on my part.

In response to Civil Scum's questions:
I was under the impression that having two competing bandwagons is normally how day 1 normally proceeds; looking at who joins which one and who switches between them gives more potential information to work from. The issue being that with the two bandwagons being mutually exclusive means less information is available than if the two bandwagons were separated. This is why I'd want a 3rd wagon that was independent from these two (which would hopefully lead to one or more people leaving one of these wagons).

As far as the putting someone to L-1, I'm not sure I was right there. I was thinking that being at L-1 at day one was pretty safe but am now realizing I'm not sure on the tradeoffs for setting up a 1 for 1 trade. I'm also not sure what you mean about wanting you or Porochaz to be be at L-1 before hearing from them... I was assuming that being at L-1 would still leave you plenty of time to respond and also having someone at L-1 would hopefully stimulate conversation (see above bit of me being impatient).

? for the IC's (mostly): is doing 1 for 1 trading good or bad for the town (to be specific, if someone were at L-1 and someone cast a vote on them, odds are that the last vote was scum so scum gets killed on second day, but this means that on day 3 (assuming no doctor saves), there are 2 townies and 1 scum which means that it's lynch or lose and no useful information can be expected on day 2 (unless we have a cop role claim or I'm forgetting something)... this strikes me (now; hadn't thought it through earlier) as lowering the towns' winning percentage but I don't know if the chance for a doctor doing a night save or a cop doing an investigation counter balances this.

[Porochaz]

I don't think its a risk that should be taken. We have the ability to work it out now by killing someone townie off now we make it very hard for ourselves

[peapod]

L-1 should be avoided in early game because L-1 possibly = an early lynch = little information = disadvantageous for the town.

Unvote

for now because I don't see any point in keeping it there.

Will be back later with something more meaningful, 'cause I'm not feeling too hot right now.

[Erg0]

First off, y'all need to get avatars so I can tell you apart.

Numbers-wise, 1-for-1 trades in these games always benefit the town. In my experience, it's unusual for a newbie game to finish without going to LyLo (lynch or lose) at some point, so anything that gets us a scum lynch is good for the town. For a person to be in a position to be hammered by scum on day 1 they'd have to have at least two townies voting for them, so they're probably already under suspicion, in which case we're losing one suspicious townie and gaining one dead scum. Sounds good to me.

Having said all that, there's no guarantee that the person hammering a townie is scum, so we shouldn't try to play to that situation. More than once, I've seen newbie townies drop a quick hammer on day 1.

This game does have a slightly more action-packed first page than many (barring the ones where someone gets lynched), which I like.

Casting around for some other topics of conversation, I don't really like Zeek's second post:

[quote=""ZeekLTK"]

No just me...Porochaz, you might want to reconsider that vote, cause I'm so civil it's disgusting. I'm starting to wish I had chosen a different name, but since we are rolling, here's my obligatory point-back. vote: leetonicon

So first he panics and asks that a vote be reconsidered (and why is he only asking one of the two people voting for him to remove it? Why would you not ask both people? Why is he "okay" with leetonicon voting for him but not Porochaz??), then he casts a vote that for some reason he feels he has to justify, so he tells us he is "obligated" to cast an OMGUS vote (which he most certainly is NOT obligated to do... I don't think anyone else did).[/quote]

Zeek's points seem like a bit of a reach - I assumed the reason that CS asked Porochaz in particular to unvote was that he was the one that had just put on the second vote. If he'd asked leetonicon to unvote, that would be a different story. Also, it seemed fairly obvious to me that CS did not literally mean that he was obligated by the rules to vote for Porochaz. Coming after a few people had already expressed suspicion of CS, this looks like either overeager scumhunting or scum trying very hard to look like town.

[Porochaz]

May post when I am totally sober but I feel its hypocritical now for me to say Zeek is guilty in fact I disagree basically because I was thinking around about the same area as Zeek, Zeek was explaining his suspicions and I dont think that his are "way out field" however I feel you maybe grasping to find someway to take the heat off CS...

...So I ask you and NOT Civil Scum what was CS meaning if he wasn't meaning it? Why can other people post there suspicions and not Zeek?

[Erg0]

I think he was half-joking - using the word "obligatory" to indicate that he was making an OMGUS vote, but not to say that he felt he was bound by the rules to do so. I often use the word obligatory in a more casual sense, meaning something that is expected, as opposed to required.

One thing I have learned is that analysing the exact wording of someone's post and trying to divine their alignment from it is an extremely unreliable approach. Intent is far more important than precise phrasing.

[Ripley]

? for the IC's (mostly): is doing 1 for 1 trading good or bad for the town ...

I don't think there's a simple answer to that; so much depends how things go. I'm assuming the situation we're talking about is the one where a scum gets the opportunity to quicklynch a townie early on a Day 1 and goes for it, and the scum is then promptly lynched Day 2. I agree with peapod that the lack of posting brought about by two quick days is a big disadvantage. You can so easily end up on Day 3 in a lynch or lose situation with almost nothing in the way of information, and both surviving townies have to get it right. On the other hand, you do at least definitely get to Day 3. All too often in a newbie game you're faced with the lynch or lose situation on Day 2. And of course you may have power roles who manage to survive and get useful night choices in.

There's also the fact that a game in which four out of seven players are eliminated rapidly isn't a very interesting experience for those players, and doesn't give anybody any kind of a feel for how Mafia is usually played. The importance you'd give to this factor really depends if you think the result is what matters above and beyond the experience.

In this game, I still think CS's uneasiness at receiving a second vote was more interesting than anything that's been said since.

Soooo, cornered/worried scum, or panicky noob? I guess I don't see how any of this is evidence.

This strikes me as a really strange remark by CS. He seems to be saying "You can't tell whether I'm a worried scum or a panicky newb, so that's an end to it; move along, please." What, exactly, do you expect in the way of evidence on Day 1? Nobody except the scum knows anything beyond their own role. It's basically guesswork, guesswork that's as intelligent as possible, based on what we can figure out from people's posts. The posts are the evidence. We have to interpret it as best we can. If we discarded everything that couldn't be proved, we might as well give up.

[ZeekLTK]

Zeek's points seem like a bit of a reach - I assumed the reason that CS asked Porochaz in particular to unvote was that he was the one that had just put on the second vote. If he'd asked leetonicon to unvote, that would be a different story. Also, it seemed fairly obvious to me that CS did not literally mean that he was obligated by the rules to vote for Porochaz. Coming after a few people had already expressed suspicion of CS, this looks like either overeager scumhunting or scum trying very hard to look like town.

I don't see how it's a reach considering I never tried to make much of a case - I was just pointing out how I saw the situation and asking a lot of questions about it. I didn't even change my vote, so to me it seems like you're the one making a reach by trying to divert attention away from CS onto someone else (me).

Why can I not wonder why he only asked one person to remove their vote rather than everyone who had voted him? That doesn't seem strange to you? If he is genuinely concerned about being at L-2 you would think that he'd say "you guys are making a mistake voting for me, could you guys reconsider your votes?" instead of only asking one person.

What I really want to figure out is WHY is CS completely ignoring leet's vote, but making such a big deal about Porochaz's? This is basically what happened (as I saw it at least):

Both leet and Porochaz vote for CS with their random votes.

CS "panics" and asks Porochaz to remove his vote, while barely acknowledging leet's vote and only doing so with an "OMGUS" vote at the end of his post that he spent talking to Porochaz.

The next post completely ignores leet's vote and again asks Porochaz to remove his vote.

Later, while still ignoring leet's vote, CS makes another somewhat "panicky" move by basically saying "well if you aren't going to take me off L-2 I am going to put you on it" and votes for Porochaz.

Does this series of events not seem suspicious? Especially the fact that two people voted for him for basically the same reason and he is treating each vote extremely different (he is very upset that Porochaz is voting him, yet doesn't seem to notice/care that leet is doing the same). It seems very odd to me.


Also... "obligatory" was not even a main point of my post either, so I don't know why you are attacking me about that. I mentioned it once, at the very end, as kind of an after thought of "he did all this... and oh yeah, he said something odd as well..." wasn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. Seems to me you are the one being picky and attacking people about insignificant specifics.

[Erg0]

Pretty simple, really: leet was the first vote, Porochaz was the second. If I put you at lynch -1 you're going to go after me, not the guy that made the first vote. I agree that the entire situation was an overreaction on CS's part, but I don't see this particular point as strengthening the case.

As far as the "obligatory" point - half of your paragraph was devoted to that, so I didn't see it as a minor point. I don't see how I'm supposed to get that from your post.

[Porochaz]

If I was at L - 1, I wouldn't be puting across my arguments as to why Im not scum to just one person... I woud put across the arguments to all the people who are voting to me.

[Erg0]

I probably didn't phrase that very well - my basic point is that the greater the number of votes on a player, the greater the burden of proof on the next voter, especially early in the game. If the guy that puts me at lynch -1 doesn't make a case, I'm going to focus on him specifically as someone who made a bad vote. In this case it's lynch -2, but CS reacts like it's a lynch-1 vote.

Anyway, I dislike theory discussions in place of actual talk about players. What I'm saying is that I think people are reading too much into that specific point. CS's phrasing was half-joking (he referred to Porochaz's random reasoning regarding his civility) and his OMGUS vote was on the first voter, not the second. It's not like he didn't mention leetonicon at all in the post.

[Ripley]

I agree that if CS's concern was, specifically, that he didn't want to be on two votes, there was no logical reason to address one voter in particular. An unvote from either of them would have been just as good. Obviously people often don't behave in a perfectly logical fashion even when they're town, but I think it was a worthwhile observation by Zeek.

CS's phrasing was half-joking (he referred to Porochaz's random reasoning regarding his civility) and his OMGUS vote was on the first voter, not the second. It's not like he didn't mention leetonicon at all in the post.

Yes, but he subsequently told us the vote on leetonicon was an automatic vote arising from a self-imposed obligation, which makes it pretty much meaningless. (How far does this obligation go? Suppose somebody had stuck a third vote on immediately after Porochaz's, accompanied by another witty crack about Civil Scum's civilly scummy name. Would CS have stuck to his rule and OMGUS voted the first voter rather than the

third

?)

[Erg0]

Ok, quotes:

vote Civil Scum

I have reason to believe he's not civil at all!!!

No just me...Porochaz, you might want to reconsider that vote, cause I'm so civil it's disgusting. I'm starting to wish I had chosen a different name, but since we are rolling, here's my obligatory point-back.

vote: leetonicon

Do you see how he was responding to Porochaz saying that he wasn't civil? It looks to me like a play on words or somesuch. He addresses one of his voters, and then the other. I really think this specific point has been seriously blown out of proportion, and is receiving far more attention than it should. The reason this came into focus was that Porochaz responded to CS's post with a comment about reconsidering his vote, while leetonicon didn't.

Your second question is just speculation. We can't judge him on scenarios that did not occur, nor on actions that he did not perform. If he was at lynch-1 we'd be having an entirely different discussion.

[ZeekLTK]

Ok, quotes:

vote Civil Scum

I have reason to believe he's not civil at all!!!

No just me...Porochaz, you might want to reconsider that vote, cause I'm so civil it's disgusting. I'm starting to wish I had chosen a different name, but since we are rolling, here's my obligatory point-back.

vote: leetonicon

Do you see how he was responding to Porochaz saying that he wasn't civil? It looks to me like a play on words or somesuch. He addresses one of his voters, and then the other. I really think this specific point has been seriously blown out of proportion, and is receiving far more attention than it should. The reason this came into focus was that Porochaz responded to CS's post with a comment about reconsidering his vote, while leetonicon didn't.

It could be a "play on words" if that was the only time he brought it up, but it's not.

Post #12 he again asks Porochaz (and only Porochaz) to reconsider the vote.

Then Post #20 he basically says that since Porochaz wouldn't take his vote off, he is going to vote for Porochaz to put him at L-2 as well.

During these two posts he says nothing about leet's vote. So again, WHY is he so concerned about Porochaz's vote but doesn't seem to care about leet's?? And why are YOU trying to defend him so much?

[Erg0]

Post 12 is in response to Porochaz's post 10 - why would CS talk about leetonicon in that post?

I wasn't defending him, I was attacking you. Subsequent responses have required me to justify my position. As I've said a number of times, I still think CS overreacted to having tw ovotes.