I read it as fire in a metaphorical sense meaning carnage or aggression.
I said a defense of another player with little evidence is more suspicious than a vote for another player with little evidence. It’s a statement weighting the relative suspicion of two different behaviors. It’s not a statement that you can never defend someone. Someone voted for me for making a vote with little evidence and I was pointing out that my vote shouldn’t be suspicious for that reasoning because (a) all votes have little evidence behind them and (b) defending someone with little evidence is a more suspicious behavior.
You vote for someone, people react to the vote and you can get information by how they react. It might not be the best way of getting information. I made the choice of doing it by voting and my choice could be wrong. I’m not perfect.
I don’t believe most of the analysis on day one helps anyone. I think scum have the advantage on day one because they have much more information and they are more likely to use analysis and what you call contributions to confuse people.
Also, pointing the finger at many individuals is a good way of getting killed at night if you point it at the wrong person. It’s better to start analyzing once you have better evidence to support your theories.
It was a vote to gain information and also a very misinformed vote as I later realized. I can’t really defend it at this point.
On Day One I think contributing too much could do more harm than good because of the reasons I mentioned above. I’m left with defending myself because I’m gathering votes.
I was uncertain how uncomfortable I was, decided to do it regardless, since I’d already started. By the way, I didn’t find the mention of those games uncomfortable, only the linking. I indicated a certain level (kinda creepy, as in Biotop “stalking” his “prey”, unsure if I’m crossing a line or not) of uncomfortability, because I felt slightly uncomfortable doing it.
You sound like you are making up things now that you are under the gallows
and you have not addressed how you decide if it is defending a player, or questioning another’s logic or methods.
interacting with them is ever so much more effective
Scum have the advantage if Town all think like this they do
You are not willing to ‘ruffle any feathers’ or ‘take one for the team’ early in the game. Do you have an exclusive win-con?
" note to self, don’t make uninformed votes. Do your own homework."
See MY comment above. This does not sound like a team player.
If my vote was not already here it would be.
My bold. Doesn’t that depend entirely on context? Why all these blanket statements[not directed at just you]?
Why one or the other? Why not vote and interact both?
And you don’t see how that could be helpful later down the line? Seriously? Posting creates a permanent record, to be perused and analysed later Days, no matter what knowledge scum has Day 1. And in this game we have two scum teams and third parties to boot!
:smack:
What information did you gain from your vote, other than your vote being lazy and uninformed and that abviously people would take notice of that?
Yes, the Game. Although I sense we could someday happily bond over discussions of catholic tastes and the real meaning of the terms romantic and gothic. I’ll stop before I get completely lost in the weeds.
Noted, but not my intention. Thanks for pointing out the potential for abuse.
Really, it was the shenanigans/last minute fury of activity angle I was getting at, which you answered.
Yes, yes! Absolutely what I wanted to know (and what I meant by shenanigans).
What? You don’t read our posts I guess. :mad:
I like the dark blue. There I go, posting in game. It’s the game. I am becoming trained. All must be on public record.
Here’s my current thinking: from what everyone says Colby is frequently lynched for being scum when he is not scum. This usually happens the first day. I cannot move a vote off of Colby, but if I could I would. We can lynch him later, but I say let us give him a shot to actually play the game. He’s been the lynch leader all week/Day 1 and has undoubtedly a) felt pretty screwed and therefore b) not really contributed. I say let’s see how he does when he’s not got the rope around his neck the entire Day.
I have no knowledge that he is or is not scum. I may be an idiot softie on this. This may be the one time he actually IS scum, but that’s my argument. Move your vote to ToeJam (my pick) or Lakai (a current favorite) and give Colby one chance to show us his game.
Earlier I said that Lakai, ToeJam, and **AngeloftheNorth **were all being voted for having “too many posts with too little actual content”. More than one person has told me that I’m dead wrong in that interpretation.
Lakai’s recent posts have begun to help me clear up my confucion there…though I’m not sure I’m willing to make a vote that swaps lynch-leaders just at the moment…so tell me why you think I should vote for ToeJam.
I see the case on him more than the case on Colby.
His post voting me is incredibly scummy. I hate posts that make a vote and then excuse themselves from the possible consequences of that vote.
I am not scum and so I can easily see an alternative lynch swing on to me if things are going poorly.
The people who agree with me that Boozahol Squid is scummy aren’t voting him. That’s suspicious in itself so now I have to go back and see who they are.
For me, I think Shenanigans has a slightly higher level of covertness, or ulteriorness (is that even a word?) than public at face value… Bees buzzing around the outside of a hive.
You can add Lakai to that list too.