Newbie 595 - Game Over!

[Muerrto]

Scum don't care who dies as long as it's not them. They try to convince everyone that everyone else is scummy. Causing paranoia is an excellent scum tactic. If everyone's acting scummy for one reason or another, votes will be flying more.

Town very much cares.

Huh. That does not compute for me. A townie never knows who is the real scum; he has only suspicions to act on. There's no way he can be sure. But a scum does know who he points at is or is not scum. If you're townie, I'm certain you wouldn't know who the mafia is, because your reason for voting snafoo is weak (which I will discuss below).

Indeed casting about paranoia is a scummy tactic, but this does not mean townies should not analyze. It's really quite WIFOM, but as far as I know, townies hunt down whomever they suspect, and mafia hunt down whomever the townies suspect, or don't help hunting at all. Townies will definitely help the hunt because they don't know who is mafia or not. You keep seeming to know.

Incorrect. I suspect, not know. If mafia hunted down who the town suspected they'd be lynched, jumping on wagons etc.

In fact, tunnel vision is also scummy tactic.

Tunnel vision is more of a newbie tell. As I said above, scum don't really care who dies, they just want someone dead. Town cares. Is it tunnel vision if I'm pretty sure I've found the mafia? I don't think so. If I was scum, why would I pursue a vote on Snafoo when it appears to be going nowhere? Seems I could find an easier target.

Okay, now about the whole "voting off an IC" thing, Muerrto... I see it this way. snafoo voted an IC as the primary basis behind his very first vote, which was basically random. He never relied on the argument again - except he pointed towards your reluctance to accept the vote.

My reluctance to accept the vote? His reason for voting was because I'm an IC. Now you can call that random but then again, you're not Snafoo, so you'd be speaking for him. Do you feel the need or ability to do that?

If it was random then why'd he keep it and pursue it? Because it got backed up by a few others. He successfully started this idea that lynching IC's is the way to go. And yet has still not told me what difference that makes in whether someone's scum or not.

The first random vote. The entire thing is full of randomness. True, he stuffed it with a bit of logic, but I like the logic.

How is 'lynch an IC' logic in any way shape or form? It's either random or it's not. Saying his reasoning was logical makes it non-random, yes? Make up your mind.

This is no longer his case in his suspecting you. If this was his case there were two more people he could've voted. But he voted you. He had other suspicions, which you have completely ignored up to now. Also, again, first random vote, it's better not make the newbies (such as I) feel too bad about being random voted.

You're again speaking for him and his motivation in voting. Careful there, you're creating a pretty strong link. His only other suspiscion of me revolves around Demon, who was/is acting scummy, period.

You're saying his entire campaign is to "vote out the ICs"? That doesn't make sense at all. That's not his purpose, since it just plain makes no sense to be a purpose at all, but you're trying to make it sound as if it is.

How many times are you going to claim to be inside his head in one post? Post what YOU think, not what you think others think. That's my whole point in voting him, his vote makes no sense. So it's just coincidence he suspects both me and massive then? Even you found that strange as noted below:

I do want to know one thing, however, snafoo... why are you pairing Muerrto with massive? I cannot understand your argument. Keep in mind that you said that in post 60, so please use material before post 60 to convince us.

So why are you so convinced he just happens to suspect 2 IC's and it's nothing to do with his 'lynch an IC' idea getting acknowledgment? He may have mentioned it once but when others latched on he rode it.

Official Vote Count

Demonking - 1 (Litral)
massive - 1 (Demonking)
Litral - 1 (Walnut)

snaoo - 2 (massive, Muerrto)

Muerrto - 1 (snafoo)

Not Voting - 3 (mike4876, starkmoon, Super Archivist)

5 to Lynch

[Litral]

Incorrect. I suspect, not know. If mafia hunted down who the town suspected they'd be lynched, jumping on wagons etc.

Is it tunnel vision if I'm pretty sure I've found the mafia?

I was basically wondering if you're really suspecting, or just plain knowing. You seem extremely confident who the mafia is. The fact that I share none of your confidence is strange to me. I wanted you to explain. You are not doing that, you're just playing with my words instead of any debate that is going on.

The part about mafia hunting down who the town suspected is WIFOM at best and can often go unnoticed.

My reluctance to accept the vote? His reason for voting was because I'm an IC. Now you can call that random but then again, you're not Snafoo, so you'd be speaking for him. Do you feel the need or ability to do that?

I do feel the need to speak for someone else. Why not? I observe your little argument, I find flaws in your logic, I want you to answer me as well. You're convincing all of us, because no matter what, you want us to vote.

In fact, you're doing the very same thing. You're interpreting his words in your own little way. I do so in my own little way. Do you have the ability to do that? Yes? Then why not me? Because I'm a newbie?

If it was random then why'd he keep it and pursue it? Because it got backed up by a few others. He successfully started this idea that lynching IC's is the way to go. And yet has still not told me what difference that makes in whether someone's scum or not.

You have not shown that he kept the idea and pursued it any more. Again.

How is 'lynch an IC' logic in any way shape or form? It's either random or it's not. Saying his reasoning was logical makes it non-random, yes? Make up your mind.

Part of it is random and part of it is not. Why can I say this? My logic is thus: he limited his choices to ICs, and he then chose you. The first part was not random, the second part was random.

It is logic behind a first vote, as Walnut has explained, but it is not the way to find scum.

That's my whole point in voting him, his vote makes no sense. So it's just coincidence he suspects both me and massive then? Even you found that strange as noted below:

Say again? His vote makes no sense, so you're voting him? Are people who make no sense necessarily mafia?

I'm saying you're trying to make it sound as if he's pursuing a certain campaign, but he's not, because if he was, he would make no sense. So he is then not pursuing that campaign. Everyone makes sense, more or less, but the fact that "voting ICs" being one's main campaign makes so little sense that the fact you thought it was his idea intrigues me.

In other words, it makes so little sense I highly doubt it's his method.

So why are you so convinced he just happens to suspect 2 IC's and it's nothing to do with his 'lynch an IC' idea getting acknowledgment? He may have mentioned it once but when others latched on he rode it.

Why are you so convinced that the "lynch an IC" idea is what he's pursuing at all? From the beginning till end you have not successfully persuaded me of this:

Now quote the posts where I was pushing the point. Then we'll talk.

If you can't, that proves my point that you are trying to bend the truth.

I challenge you to do this as well.

How many times are you going to claim to be inside his head in one post? Post what YOU think, not what you think others think.

I'm not inside his head. I've read all of those posts, and I believe you misunderstood his intention. That was exactly what I THINK: YOU MISUNDERSTOOD, either intentionally or not. If you're offended, too bad. But that's what I'm sticking to.

You're again speaking for him and his motivation in voting. Careful there, you're creating a pretty strong link. His only other suspiscion of me revolves around Demon, who was/is acting scummy, period.

You were as well speaking against him and his motivation in voting, and I find no difference between our behavior. If it is generally not acceptable behavior to defend someone who you found to be unjustly accused, then tell me, but I don't think this is true.

He has many suspicions of you, and I want to point out some of my own as well, because you're focusing too much on this "vote off an IC" thing and avoiding some of the much larger suspicious points.

1. You have not suspected anyone except those who you voted for. Call it confidence, I think unless you're some sort of super-oracle, you would never know, and would at least point to several other players being suspicious in the game. While voting for Demonking you never questioned anyone else.

2. snafoo's "vote off an IC" idea was on the very first page, and you have clearly posted so many times after that. Why didn't you suspect him then, but only now? He did not, in fact, push the idea any more. I know this because I read his posts, not because I'm in his head, thank you very much.

3. A little lurky until snafoo pointed you out.

4. You keep saying that his strategy is "vote off ICs", which even you admit, makes no sense at all. I am unwilling to believe that he is that senseless, and more willing to believe that you're twisting his words.

You will notice I haven't voted you, because your behavior is only suspicious to me, but almost everyone else's is But I felt the need to point out that your accusations against snafoo are weak.

[Litral]

Incorrect. I suspect, not know.

Actually, all of your behavior points to you "knowing", which is what I want you to explain: either you have some really good logic going on there which my feeble mind cannot grasp, or you're just mafia finding someone to lynch.

[Litral]

Very sorry for triple posting.

Muerrto, my entire point of arguing against your accusation of snafoo can be best summarized by observing your logic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire logic is as follows:
1) snafoo is pursuing a "vote off ICs" campaign.
2) Therefore, snafoo must be voted off.

For point 1, snafoo has asked you to show how he is doing so and I would want you to do that as well. It makes too little sense to be his strategy.

For point 2, I'd like to see how you derived that. Do you think he's scum? Do you think he's just a bad townie? Clarify yourself, because you seem to accept both points.

The entire logic is so convoluted that I cannot understand why you're so determined to vote him.

[Muerrto]

I've already responded to all those points and you keep saying basically 'No it's this'. This kind of back and forth mess is what the mafia likes to see because it creates a smoke screen they get to hide behind.

As for the difference, I posted what I thought about his posts. You posted what his motivations were and his reasons for voting and saying what he said, not what you thought. You posted as fact.

Case in point, obviously pursuing just the IC's makes no sense so obviously he's not doing that. Obviously voting to lynch an IC made no sense so his vote was obviously random. What you're doing there is simply giving him an out for anything he does or says. That's why you need to let him speak for himself and not defend him. That's why I say you act like you know why he's posting what he's posting.

If he turns up scum, how will that reflect on you?

This has nothing to do with IC/newbie other than IC gaves me more experience to have seen things like this before. Why do almost all newbies have to turn it into that? You want us to answer questions and give advice but when we disagree you turn it on us and say 'why because you're an IC?'. Did I ever even mention being right because I'm an IC?

Yes. As I said on another thread, if Emeril told you how to cook something, you'd listen, yes? Disagree, fine, but don't turn this into a superiority contest. You have your opinions, I have mine. And don't worry, while you're frustrating I'm certainly not offended.

[Litral]

I've already responded to all those points and you keep saying basically 'No it's this'.

Care to point me to where you responded? I don't see it. Your best argument against him is that he's not playing as a good townie.

This kind of back and forth mess is what the mafia likes to see because it creates a smoke screen they get to hide behind.

So not posting is the way to find mafia? As far as I know you could be one.

Case in point, obviously pursuing just the IC's makes no sense so obviously he's not doing that. Obviously voting to lynch an IC made no sense so his vote was obviously random.

This is the sort of argument I wanted to see, and you have given one. Let's see what you're trying to say, shall we? You're saying that his entire vote was random, and he is clearly not pursuing a campaign against the ICs. This contradicts what you have said. Previously you have said that his two top suspects are both ICs because he is "voting off ICs". Do you still believe that?

Is he trying to vote off the ICs or not?

And if he is voting randomly, why are you voting against him? Is it not permitted to vote randomly on the first page?

As for the difference, I posted what I thought about his posts. You posted what his motivations were and his reasons for voting and saying what he said, not what you thought. You posted as fact.

There is no difference. I can say this as well. You posted what his motivations were: he wanted to vote off an IC; and I posted what I thought: this is not his motivation. I never claimed to know the Ultimate Truth, I gave my explanation of what I saw.

If he turns up scum, how will that reflect on you?

If he doesn't, how will that reflect on you? You're acting so certain.

This has nothing to do with IC/newbie other than IC gaves me more experience to have seen things like this before. Why do almost all newbies have to turn it into that? You want us to answer questions and give advice but when we disagree you turn it on us and say 'why because you're an IC?'. Did I ever even mention being right because I'm an IC?

I do not mean to start a superiority contest with you. I just felt it unfair that you said I had no ability to interpret his posts.

That's why you need to let him speak for himself and not defend him. That's why I say you act like you know why he's posting what he's posting.

I don't act like that. I act like I know what he's posting what he's posting. My main motivation here is not to defend someone, but to point out that your accusations are weak, or at least I don't understand them.

You're supposed to be convincing me here. I was hoping that you'd explain your accusation further, and not tell me to just keep quiet and wait.

[Litral]

Oops, I completely missed out the words "Case in point". Screw that.

[Walnut]

Ah, good to see some action here!

We may not have got 3 of the players into the game at all, but somehow it feels like we have wandered into a discussion of whether ICs are kindly serving the community by donating their time to patiently coaching in a newbie nightmare or hanging out around kindergartens boosting their egos by beating up small kids. I think the former is likely to be far more common, and while Muerrto may be giving the hard word about those frickin carebears, he sounds more upset that his efforts and his honest, logical approach to the game are potentially being slighted than particlularly anti-newbie. I would actually say that this game is pretty newbie friendly, both as the ICs are willing to offer advice etc and that often newb tells and scum tells are hard to tell apart. Unlike Litral I would say that it is fine to play the newb card here- this is the Road to Rome (newbie) thread, after all. However, first and foremost, this is mafia, and your newbie play will be judged as to whether it is hiding a mafiascum.

Unfortunately, in following the approach of looking for inconsistencies, the waters are getting a bit muddier:

As for snafoo, he did at one point claim it was newbie-friendly to lynch an IC.

I don't know whether I should be apologising for my elaborate explanation for a random vote, but unless he is talking about snafoo's very first post, it does seem that muerrto has attributed my post to snafoo, whether deliberately or not. If you take this away, I find it hard to agree that snafoo is pushing the voting an IC thing way too much.

Um...you just replied to a post ONLY about me and ended with a vote for me and a thrown in FoS for Massive...

Where exactly did he come up?

One post earlier, where snafoo finds it suspicious that massive says that he was going to vote for muerrto but then couldn't (presumably as there was a random vote already on him). I don't find this behaviour particularly suspicious- I think he just wanted to make a clearly random vote, which makes sense if you look at what happened to Demon when he made a less random seeming vote.

For me, what makes massive more interesting is

post 53:

All right, I'll get more involved. I'm going to go ahead and

vote snafoo

. His response to my question basically said "I'm willing to go ahead and vote for any person, even if no reason is given for said person's bandwagon." That to me is not how a townie would play.

then in post 61:

Walnut

: You ask if it's common to pile votes on people to see reactions in the early stages of games. This IS common. It can be done for a variety of reasons, as well -- townies want to stimulate discussion, mafia might want to get roleclaims or mislynch. Ultimately it's a null tell. Everyone has a reason to vote because everyone has a victory condition.

Massive says that he is voting for snafoo for jumping on a bandwagon, then shortly after says that everyone does it and it is ultimately a null tell.
The bit where he comes back and says that Snafoo's side comment about being "spineless enough to kick a defenseless kitten" some other time is a clever defence against later vote analysis made me genuinely laugh out loud. Either Snafoo is a criminal mastermind who has been brilliantly unmasked (phew!) or that was a wonderful piece of misdirection.

Jumping back to the difficulty of separating newbie play from scum play, it will be interesting to see how Demon King or his replacement takes it from here. My read is that despite all of the backwards and forwards in the last day or so (realtime) most of the people here still retain their initial suspicions about Demon. The other bit to not forget is that there are two other players, who statistically could be both of the scum, and we are just happily marking time until they show up

[starkmoon]

Back from my holiday, feeling 100% healithier than before and going to read up and post asap, just gimme a day to unpack and do all that post-holiday crap.

[Litral]

Welcome back, starkmoon.

In case it is not clear to you ICs, we newbies are definitely grateful you're helping us.

I'd like to know why you, Muerrto, insist on classifying my posts as "defending snafoo", while my main intent was in fact to point out the irregularities in your accusation.

Until Demonking or his replacement arrives I'm content with viewing the debate as of now.

[snafoo]

Let's see, Demon's last post was on Friday 11 (post #19), my vote for Demonking was on Monday 14. So you're suggesting I knew that Demonking was not in the game less than 72 hours after his last post? That doesn't add up, even more so when you look at the slowness of this game so far.

There were 24 posts between his last post and your vote, 10 of which mention Demonking by name. That's not slow. There was plenty of discussion. There were plenty of people calling for Demonking to explain. He wasn't. He hadn't posted anywhere on site after that last post. So yeah, I think one could have easily guessed that Demonking was not in the game at that point.

You're saying the game wasn't slow and there was plenty of discussion. I don't agree with you there. There's no point arguing this beyond this. All other players have their own ideas about the activity of the game, so they can use their own experience to value your and my remarks.

My interpretation: "I'm willing to go ahead and vote for any person, even if no reason is given for said person's bandwagon."

My long-winded interpretation: "In this specific ocassion, I did not change my vote simply to vote for someone who cannot defend himself, be it due to his or her absence from the game, or due to the fact that the evidence stacked against said person is either irrefutable or complete and utter garbage. But I withhold, for the future, my ability to do so, and consider yourself warned that I am willing to do so. I am willing to bandwagon onto trains that have no meaning, I am willing to vote for people who should be replaced, I am willing to pretty much just vote my whim. Remember this in the future when you try to lynch me for my voting habits."

All right, so maybe my interpretation is a little short and a little focused on one area. I like the long version better, actually. =]

This really made me laugh. I mean not as in being offended or something. But as in being really funny. Gonna love mafiascum.net.

When I wrote this, I thought of using a smilie - since the remark was obviously an attempt at a witty repartee to your kitty remark. But I didn't. And if you think I meant this as some kind of threat, well, whatever.
But we you're fishing here.

[snafoo]

I do want to know one thing, however, snafoo... why are you pairing Muerrto with massive? I cannot understand your argument. Keep in mind that you said that in post 60, so please use material before post 60 to convince us.

That's a very good question. The fact of the matter is, my suspicion of massive was more gut feeling than reasoning.

I made the following thought experiment: imagine that Muerrto would indeed be scum, what playing style would complement Muerrto's style up to that point best?
To me, it would be someone who would be more at the background. Just enough posts so he wouldn't be seen as out of the game, passive start, not voting or accusing at the start. I looked at the other players and massive fit the description exactly.
Then I thought about Muerrto's 'tell me this was a joke' remark and the connection hit me. And the massive 'not quite vote' for Muerrto.

But all this is still not much more than a hunch. And I said so myself in post 60, massive was not very suspect to me.
Maybe I was reading too much into the proceedings at that time.
But both massive's and Muerrto's ad-hominem attacks make me think I have hit a nerve with post 60.

The minor suspicion I had of massive has turned into a FoS.
And Muerrto - well to me it is SO obvious what his role is by now.

[Litral]

Dear Modding Vel, I realize it's really unfair to ask this of you right now since you're busy with the kid and work, but can we get replacements for both

Mike4876

and

Demonking

when you're free? The first has never posted, even after picking up his prod, and the second has been inactive for one entire week, even under huge pressure.

Walnut, you seem convinced that Muerrto is misdirecting on purpose, and that Demonking is also quite suspicious. Uh... why is your vote on me, then? You've been very reluctant to change your vote all this time.

That's a very good question. The fact of the matter is, my suspicion of massive was more gut feeling than reasoning.

Well, it seems that your logic was only to find a possible pair for Muerrto.

But I do want to give a

FoS: Muerrto

. His reasons for voting snafoo are weak and generally fabricated. He has refused to show how snafoo was pushing it, even after snafoo asked him to do so, and me again. When I started attacking his accusation, he told me to stop defending snafoo, but that was clearly not what I was doing. And that "I have responded to all of your points" comment sounded like clever dodging...

[Muerrto]

Case in point, obviously pursuing just the IC's makes no sense so obviously he's not doing that. Obviously voting to lynch an IC made no sense so his vote was obviously random.

This is the sort of argument I wanted to see, and you have given one. Let's see what you're trying to say, shall we? You're saying that his entire vote was random, and he is clearly not pursuing a campaign against the ICs. This contradicts what you have said. Previously you have said that his two top suspects are both ICs because he is "voting off ICs". Do you still believe that?

Is he trying to vote off the ICs or not?

Do you read the posts or just respond to them? I was saying that's what YOU'RE saying. You're saying it was obviously a random vote because if it wasn't random it makes no sense. That's wrong. It was a BAD play if it wasn't random and I think that's exactly what it was. The quote from me above is what YOU'RE saying not me.

[Muerrto]

Oops, I completely missed out the words "Case in point". Screw that.

Hehe then ignore my response as well.

[Litral]

I did apologize for that in the very next post. I'll do so again. Sorry.

[Muerrto]

Shrug kill me then, lately almost all my newbie games have been newbies trying to teach ME how to play...and being wrong.

Analysing posts is great, doing so correctly is better.

[Walnut]

Walnut, you seem convinced that Muerrto is misdirecting on purpose, and that Demonking is also quite suspicious. Uh... why is your vote on me, then? You've been very reluctant to change your vote all this time.

@Litral I believe I said Muerrto had done something "... whether deliberately or not", which hardly translates to being convinced that he is misdirecting on purpose. This little snippet is the kind of thing which is enough for me to be calm about leaving my vote where it is. Right now I think Demon king would be a better lynch than you, but there is no need to add to his vote count at this stage, as he (or his replacement) will soon be shedding more light on that.

Muerrto's meta defence about newbies trying to teach him how to play and being wrong might sound better in other circumstances, but as Litral had already explained that he had missed it, if taken with the out of proportion attack on Snafoo, sounds increasingly dodgy. FOS Muerrto for me.

[Muerrto]

Muerrto's meta defence about newbies trying to teach him how to play and being wrong might sound better in other circumstances, but as Litral had already explained that he had missed it, if taken with the out of proportion attack on Snafoo, sounds increasingly dodgy. FOS Muerrto for me.

I responded to his first post, then kept reading and saw his second. By the time I'd replied and said forget it he'd replied already and said he'd apologised. Check the post times.

[Walnut]

Yep, I got that bit and had noticed the times, as it did read a bit disjointedly. The way I understood it was that:

1) Litral had misread your post and responded mistakenly (post 80).
2) He realised his mistake and apologised (post 81).
3) You read his first post and responded in frustration (post 88).
4) A minute later you read his next post and apologised (post 89).
5) At the same time Litral apologised again (post 90).

At this stage it looks like you have each made a mistake (Litral misread a post, Muerrto failed to read all the posts before replying), you had each apologised and then we were ready to move on. But then you came back with the next post which was hard for me to see the sense behind.

Can you a) point out where the above summary is wrong; or b) explain what post 91 meant, and if the summary is right, how it made sense to say it at this time?

[Muerrto]

The next post was aimed at Snafoo and Litral both and shows my frustration. Call it an appeal to emotion if that helps but I'm in 6 newbie games and if I'm getting grilled on semantics here I'm definitely gonna put less focus in this one.

Analysing posts too deeply leads to mislynches. You have to know/figure out with experience what's a scum tell, what's legit, and when to argue a case and when to not.

I try to impart that knowledge to the people I play with but most newbies, like the ones here, are more interested in assuming they know better and questioning the IC judgment. Frustrating to say the least. Think I might lay off newbie games for a bit after these 6 end.

Also, I was serious. Because if I'm lynched I've proved myself right and that's worth it to me. It's the only way I can prove myself.

[Litral]

@Walnut:
I went bonkers. I meant massive, not Muerrto. You must admit there are certain similarities between their names ...

Massive says that he is voting for snafoo for jumping on a bandwagon, then shortly after says that everyone does it and it is ultimately a null tell.
The bit where he comes back and says that Snafoo's side comment about being "spineless enough to kick a defenseless kitten" some other time is a clever defence against later vote analysis made me genuinely laugh out loud. Either Snafoo is a criminal mastermind who has been brilliantly unmasked (phew!) or that was a wonderful piece of misdirection.

The last sentence seems to suggest that you believe either snafoo to be criminal, or massive to have misdirected on purpose. I was wondering why you put your vote on me, while you haven't even mentioned anything suspicious I've done for all this time.

Keep in mind I'm not at all convinced massive is scum, but I just wanted to see you vote. Because I find it strange that you're picking apart everyone's arguments while voting no one in particular, well, except me. That could be scummy, for two reasons: one, since if we accidentally vote out a townie we'd definitely start analyzing votes on the next day - but you'll come clean since you're not even on the bandwagon, and you could definitely know we're going to mislynch. Two: you're suggesting everyone's made mistakes, but being reluctant to actually suggest who's scummy. Of course, that's all WIFOM, and currently Demonking and Muerrto are much more suspicious.

I guess I just wanted you to explain why you're still voting me... it would be very nice to receive a list of my suspicions so I can try and convince you otherwise.

And about your post 94, uh, it's basically a huge screwup, ignore it. Or read Muerrto's explanation. Page 90 should precede page 89 in time, the rest is all misreading (big error on my part, tiny error on Muerrto's).

I try to impart that knowledge to the people I play with but most newbies, like the ones here, are more interested in assuming they know better and questioning the IC judgment.

Playing the IC card now? It's ten times worse than playing the newbie card. And in any non-newbie game being thoroughly defeatist would've led to a lynch already, or at least that's what I've read.

@Muerrto: another suspicious point. The Demonking bandwagon was clearly a good one. This is because he has acted completely suspiciously in three different posts, and that's all of his posts. Keeping pressure on him would have been good. This is the consensus in this game.

You abruptly abandoned that bandwagon to latch onto snafoo, who was only slightly suspicious at best, and your reason for voting him was "pushing something way too much" - which sounds more like gut feeling to me. Whatever you said later, that's your reason for abandoning a bandwagon and voting someone.

A townie has no reason to abandon a good bandwagon for a weak one.

If you were scum, there could be many reasons.
1) Causing confusion.
2) Since snafoo hasn't voted, quickly voting him to make him look OMGUS when he votes back.
3) Directing attention to someone else.

There. Not semantics at all. Want to respond?

[Litral]

*shakes head* Walnut, I just realized I'd completely dropped you from my radar because you were being a very friendly player and helping us have fun.

Time to reset the radar.

[Muerrto]

There. Not semantics at all. Want to respond?

Not particularly.

[Litral]

Didin't think so.