GIEFF wrote:Meaniehead liarface wrote:As for the other post I am promising, I will get to that this evening -
I promise.
Ah, heh, well, promises are made to broken
I still only have pockets of time, but in the interest of keeping things moving, here goes:
OK, I'm going to start with my impressions of hambargarz. This may take multiple posts to complete.
First off, the things I've found scummy from his posts (this will be followed by any townie things I pick up, in later postage):
Why he's likely to be scum:
First off, hambargarz tag teamed with ClockworkRuse to get the wagon rolling on militant and pushed it hard from the beginning. I had forgotten most of the early stuff from Day 1, but it is pretty remarkable how deceptively ham and CR appear to be working together. This particular post stands out as an example:
hambargarz wrote:ClockworkRuse wrote:Unvoting to make someone happy?
Backpedaling like that is a bit scummy looking.
GIEFF wrote:Because there was no reason for it in the first place? I fail to see how that is scummy - you guys attacking him actually looks scummier in my eyes.
This strikes me as very scummy. He's defending GIEFF which implies a scum buddy relationship. But moreso he is saying guy's attacking him look scummy, why do they look scummy? is it simply on the basis that they are attacking militant? why is militant the innocent one in your eyes considering his scummy behaviour?
FOS: GIEFF
This is regarding militant's unvote and why it was scummy, which was an argument that both hambargarz and CR supported from the start. With the perspective of CR as scum, this tag-team operation becomes much more apparent. Then, he throws out an attack on GIEFF for spotting the scumminess of his and CR's attacks, which is just OMGUS.
Next, hambargarz's FoS of CR for self-voting looks like clumsy attempt at bussing:
hambargarz wrote:self voting, to me at least, is generally an anti-town play.
There are some instances where it is good though (ie. gambiting).
At this point in the game, I see you're self vote as neither one or the other because it doesn't escalate much.
In my last game 2 people self voted. The context was much more significant than here however. (Though the behaviour was seen as anti-town rather than scummy).
Asking stuff like this strikes me as a bit scummy. You want the town's position on your behaviour? That only helps you if you're scum in my opinion.
FOS: ClockworkRuse
He admits that, from his past games, self voting wasn't scummy, but he manages to FoS CR for asking the town's position on self voting. After he gives his own opinion on it. If ham were really concerned about that information only helping scum, then why would he have given it? Could it be because *gasp* he's scum himself? hmm...
Next, part of a larger post that became a springboard for attacks on militant:
hambargarz wrote:militant wrote:I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.
Why are you interested in me particularly when you haven't found anything? Are you rereading with a particular preset bias to me? Why would I be more "interesting" than any other person here?
The only answers to these questions I can think of is OMGUS. Which is also a bit scummy
At the time, I thought ham made an interesting observation, but I wasn't reading closely enough, and obviously not with the knowledge of the dead players' alignments. To me, this appears to be ham's attempt to ward off a case on himself by portraying himself as an unjust victim of future attack. It really looks like ham is trying to keep suspicion off of him at all costs - he is discouraging militant (and, indirectly, other players) from going back and reading his posts again.
OK, that's really all I have time for this morning, and that's only up to ham's isopost15. I don't like breaking up posts like this, but it seems it's for the best. Hope to keep a flow of these posts coming. I may alternate between posting about you and hambargarz - I'll see what will make this easier to finish.
