I've seen scum push no-lynch day one. The same discussion came about (no scum would be this stupid!) but then the scum did a variety of other stupid things and got himself lynched. No-lynch is beneficial to scum. PUSHING no-lynch hardly ever is.
I voted for egruntz in the first place because I felt it would underscore my seriousness about not wanting this discussion to become the primary focus of day one. I did not do it because I thought he was scum. (He may be scum. But I did not have sufficient evidence then, nor do I now, to lynch him.) Nonetheless he continued to push this, and we're still discussing it. The discussion is not helpful to town, and actually provides a lot of opportunities for scum to look "pro-town" by objecting to it, while not risking much in return.
We're not going to no-lynch. Egruntz arguing for it is not pro-town, but neither is it scummy necessarily. We need to get past this.
On a reread, Mills strikes me as extremely inconsistent on the whole. I disliked his bringing up of another game in order to attack Disciple Slayer (I think I said that already), provoking a nasty interchange that really gained town nothing. Bringing up other games is bad play, and has nothing to do with a player's alignment in THIS game.
Does some role speculation. Agrees with Xylthixlm that some players are posting without giving any opinions. Argues with me that he wasn't attacking Disciple Slayer because of another game. although Mills brought up the other game as a reason to do so in the first place. Complains because I didn't address his post regarding this (short answer, I didn't believe Mills, and I wanted to see what other people thought of his self-contradiction).
Attacks CKD for "gut" voting for him, saying "I didn't particularly want to bring it up since it would probably just be viewed as OMGUS" -- why would town care about how they were viewed, if they had a valid concern? Then when CKD responds, says:
Mills wrote:ckd, I know a lot of people have problems with gut votes, but I certainly don't. I like to make them too. Often I will give the reason and people will call me stupid and more often than not we will later find out I was correct. I know that the reasons are often a 'stretch' but I think it is important to give one anyway.
Which is oddly conciliatory considering his previous attitudes on the vote.
Attacks Dark Ermac for suggesting a random lynch (paraphrased heavily, but that's the gist of it). Then, when Dark Ermac is attacked for stating someone is definitely a townie, says this:
Mills wrote:Don't get me wrong - I think I was the first to jump on DE for some earlier post with the same problem - but I'm just not feeling it here. I don't think he's unequivocally saying that he knows that egruntz is town. I think he is saying that he knows (for lack of a better word). It's just something deep down inside that he knows to be true (or something he thinks he knows). He's just using the wrong word but its more the fault of the English language than his own.
I don't think anyone except Dark Ermac can know exactly what Dark Ermac meant there. Certainly in my view the second case against DE is less of a stretch than Mills' first case, but Mills defends him here, while attacking him fairly strongly in the first, less strong case. Asks for the town's input on top suspects, without giving his own (generally this looks to me like scum looking for ideas), and now we're up to the end of the thread.
Something isn't adding up here. So I'm going to
unvote; vote Mills
.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
