So. I need to talk a bit about someone other than me.
Three players have sort of spearheaded the pursuit of me: sachertorte, fluiddruid, and Alka Seltzer. First: I consider it wildly unlikely that all three are Scum, and extremely unlikely that more than one of them is. For two (more more!) Scum to engage in parallel pursuit like this would be a big risk. I also think it’s no better than even money that even one of the three of them is Scum. That said, because I’ve spent the better part of my time in this game interacting with those three players, I’m going to start with them.
Alka Seltzer is a huge problem for me. I don’t think it’s going to shock anyone if I say aloud that his playstyle and my own do not mesh. This is the case regardless of our respective alignments, and my frustration with that colors my ability to intelligently judge him. For this reason - and in spite of knowing that this is going to sound like a cop out - I defer to the rest of the Pond to consider him more closely. I have a bias that I cannot overcome, at least, not right now.
sach, well, who knows? Nothing about his approach to me has struck me as particularly Scummy except for one thing - he has still not articulated what, exactly, he thinks is the (potential) Scum motivation underlying my actions. He has explained why he disagrees with me, and why I have frustrated him, but he hasn’t really made the connection that would explain active suspicion.
But this is even more true of fluiddruid.
Here’s the thing. The Scum player needs one thing during the Day: an argument that seems reasonable, that can support a vote, that won’t draw too much fire for being a bad argument. It doesn’t even have to be an argument that actually gets its target lynched; it just has to give the Scum player a chance to vote without looking bad.
Now, there’s obviously a problem in most cases. In the majority of cases, Scum have to manufacture an argument. They have to argue something they don’t believe (that Player X, who they know to be Town, is actually Scum). It is far easier to argue something you actually do believe (which is why voting for your fellows is an easier way to blend in than voting for Townies).
But this double-lyse issue has given a great opportunity to the Scum. Most of them probably feel (as most of the players in this game appear to) that double-lysing would be anti-Town. So if they argue against me about this, they can argue their actual beliefs, rather than having to make something up to argue that they don’t really believe. So here we have fluiddruid. I feel like she still doesn’t really know what she’s accusing me of. She’s floundering, trying to turn a strategy disagreement into a legitimate case. And it has the appearance of a good case, because she can nitpick every point I make and post two encyclopedic posts doing so. And it won’t be a controversial case, because most players disagree with me and it’s not hard to wave your hands around a little and create a connection in their minds between “I disagree” and “he’s scummy.”
But still missing is any kind of Scum motivation. If you believe that I argued against my own true belief, then why? Why would I do this as Scum? What do you think I was trying to accomplish? fluiddruid has tried to handwave a couple of psuedo-explanations, but the motivations she’s trying to impute just make no sense. I’m arguing against my own beliefs on Day One so I can say I argued for this on Day One? What? Why? What is the master plan under which this makes any sense at all?
And of course, if you think I believe what I’m saying - that double-lysing can be pro-Town under certain circumstances (a point fluid has explicitly conceded, by the way), and that Day One constituted one of those circumstances - then the case against me really falls apart.
I think fluid had a slam dunk - argue against an unpopular idea, sprinkle a little pixie dust, and POOF, you have a vote that keeps you out of trouble (and maybe a vote that can bandwagon a Townie, but that’s incidental). But she didn’t really think it through, didn’t really figure out what she wanted to accuse me of doing, exactly, and now she’s floundering trying to invent a motivation where no rational one exists.
And so:
vote fluiddruid
and, for now
[color=bluevote Spawn[/color]
Regarding everyone else: I’ve been far too caught up in my own stupid stuff here, and I need to re-read for comprehension everything else that’s happened. More in the morning, if I’m not buried in the snow.