Although I see the points made for and against those who’ve been mentioned, I guess I still can’t get past the fact that Dio’s behavior comes across as the most egregious. So that said and lacking any more belief in other’s wrong doing-ness, I’m voting that way.
Vote Dio
You realize that if 8 people don’t vote for the same person, we don’t get a lynch right? People, put your grudges aside for a little while and let’s see if we can get a concensus vote. Not lynching is just not a good option, and anyone with a throw-away vote at the end of the day is going to get a hairy eyeball from me.
So far now it seems like it’s either lynch brewha or lynch no one. What I dislike about the majority rule is that I feel like I’m voting for someone just because it’s pragmatic and we need to make some kind of progress. Joining the bandwagon is just that much easier. I’m willing to change my vote if it’s really out there and a stupid vote, but I do think that this system makes it a little tougher on us.
I know majority rule sucks sometimes, but that is the ruleset we are playing in. It’s part of the game dynamic. Would it be fairer for **brewha ** to get lynched with only 3 votes? Not really. There are pros and cons to the system. If anyone brings a valid case for someone else to be lynched today, I’m all ears. Voting for someone because they are annoying you is anti-town.
Now let me see if I understand you correctly… you encouraged us to vote because the hour is growing late. I laid out my reasons for why I was behaving thusly and in essence said I couldn’t vote for anyone else in good conscience. I have no grudge against Dio whatsoever. I honestly believe his approach signals disgruntledness. I didn’t think it would be fair to back the majority just to cement a lynch. Especially when I’m not completely convinced of the evidence thus far.
Or does that not matter?
Wait…What?!?
My desire to point the finger at anyone and everyone? That’s just BS. I did point the finger at Zuma at the beginning of the game just to get conversation going and to see his reaction.
I offered a situation where my dossier doesn’t look so scummy, but I never FOS, accused or voted for Pleonast.
By my count - and I’m no mathematician - that brings the grand total to 1. Hardly anyone and everyone. And I really don’t like your tendency to put words in my mouth.
unvote Kat
vote Hawkeyeop
Sometimes it’s better to go with the majority to get the goal accomplished. Fair? No. Necessary? Yes.
This is your case? What exactly is **Dio’s ** egregious behavior? Voting for you?
Okay, then. In the interests of putting this to bed on time and actually having a lynch of someone who may be scum as opposed to a no lynch, I’m going to change my vote.
brewha has seemed suspect, but I can’t tell if it’s out of true scumminess. But like you, Hockey, I’d like something to happen. I don’t want to just throw out a meaningless vote that I believe but that will get us nowhere.
**unvote faithfool
vote brewha**
I disagree, otherwise we’ll have a really hyper sped up game with a ludicrous outcome.
Never mind. After having gone round and round with Dio, I have no desire to get into doing that with you or anyone else. I explained myself already and I apologize if that’s not good enough. My vote for him is at least that much more concrete than how I feel about any of the others thus far. I have no grudge, but you’re more than welcome to use that as my excuse. Think of me and my decision as you will.
Brewha,
You claim to never point a finger at anyone except Zuma in a post that you unvote Kat. Consistent your logic is not.
How do you think that? I’ve played a couple of games with this rule-set and it has never resulted in hyper-speed.
I think you are taking your interaction with **Dio ** too personally. He hasn’t acted any differently toward you than he has anyone else he ever thought was scum. This is only a game. Part of this game is being called a liar and having to defend yourself…no matter what side you are on. The only person you can trust is yourself. It’s a breeding ground for paranoia. If you have crappy logic, you are going to get called on the carpet for it. If you have great logic, you are going to get called on the carpet for it. It’s just a freaking game, faithfool. Nobody thinks any differently of you as a person because of this thread. Now please quit being a martyr and bring some logic to the table to support your vote.
It’s not, in my humble opinion, the rule-set that’s the problem but the response it garners. However, I have no idea what I’m doing, so I’m sure I’m wrong.
Nobody is saying any of that but YOU. As I’m certain I’ll end up doing ad nauseum, I have no grudge (read: take nothing personally) against Dio. From what I’ve experienced, I feel his behavior is the norm. Regardless of the atmosphere engendered by the game or not, we can only base our perceptions on that which we believe. I believe, independently of what I’ve been called to the carpet on, that his actions have been suspicious. That has nothing to do with how I view him as a poster. Which I’m sure he’s a fine bloke.
All that said, it does sound personal to be accused of being a martyr. However, you surely wouldn’t stoop to such a thing so I’ll file that under the same category as my interactions with Dio, just part of the proceedings. Finally, in support of my theories, you can take what I’ve posited or not. I fail to see how I cast my vote (thought out to the best of my limited ability) is any worse, for lack of a better word, than someone who hasn’t participated at all. I’m trying. I don’t know what else to do.
faithfool~
[re-considering sending out her martyr application]
Apologies for my quietness. It’s mainly that, people are tossing out accusations, and I’m left going “Bwah?” and deciding to hold off, come back later and reread.
sachertorte’s analysis against brewha, for one example. Going back and rereading the posts that sach quoted in context, I didn’t have much difficulty figuring out that brewha must have meant the “2 Truths and a Lie” thread when he talked about finding dossier traits in the “other thread”. But does that mean sach is deliberately trying to spin brewha’s post in its worst light, or does that mean that I was just better at picking out the meaning (or maybe it means that brewha has manged to pull the wool over my eyes)?
I feel like I’m straggling along without a map. I think I suck at this game.
I agree wholeheartedly with Kat.
At least you have the excuse of being a first-timer.
Christ, I’m tired. I tried to re-read and didn’t come up with much. One thing that did strike me was ShadowFacts’ death. ShadowFacts was riding brewha every day. Here’s his case from Day 1. Is this a case of a silent pig silencing his biggest critic? The hell if I know, but I can’t see any other reason for ShadowFacts to be killed and I don’t see anything stronger against anybody else.
Vote brewha
BTW - I’ll be traveling tomorrow, so this is likely my last post before Nightfall.
Phond post sorry. i do not like this brewha pile on at all. his explanations make sense. the votes for hhm do not. i will not vote to lynch yet another noisy townie. more tommorow. i have no brackets. someone allerert naf that i vote faithfool if i dont get to a computer in time.
Vote faithfool
Quick hit thoughts for the moment, bearing in mind that this is coming from someone who took three hundred words to reach a totally erroneous conclusion in his very last effort:
-
I have continuing suspicions regarding brewha, for the reasons outlined in my last post. There has been a bit of a pile-on, especially recently, but that does not mean he is not scum.
-
My biggest suspicion right now is of Diomedes, who triggered my radar early in the game. Once again, my very long post will explain my subsequent reasons. I am especially interested in the fact that no one has really picked up on my various nudges in the direction of Diomedes. If he were a regular associate, I would expect the Disgruntledites to jump on my genuine suspicion and use it as a basis for their own false suspicions - the better to help spread suspicion to as many people as possible. No one has done so. All the same, at this point I think a vote for Dio is a vote for no-lynch, in practice. I’m not sure about the wisdom of that yet. More in a moment.
Meanwhile…
- Hockey Monkey has pinged me a great deal in the last page or so. First of all, her approach seems designed to bully players into bussing brewha. She’s encouraging not voting for the person one thinks is most likely to be scum, but for the person favored by the majority - coincidentally, the person for whom her own vote has been placed. I think that kind of trying to force an unnatural outcome can be scummy.
More, though, her aggressive defense of Diomedes seems off to me, somehow. She’s defending him with a kind of vigor I wouldn’t use unless I were sure the object of my defense were clean - a certainty she could only have in this game if she is scum herself.
So I’m puzzled here, and I’m thinking. The way this game is designed, a one-time only no lynch will not hurt us, and will help us. After Night One, we began with 18 players, 5 scum (so 13 Regular Associates). That gave us four mislynches to work with: hypothetically, we mislynch Day One (12-5), there’s a Night Kill Night Two (11-5), mislynch Day Two (10-5), Night Kill Night Three (9-5), mislynch Day Three (8-5), Night Kill Night Four (7-5), mislynch Day Four (6-5), Night Kill Night Five (5-5, and game over).
Now imagine that, in the scum best case scenario outlined above, we had chosen to no-lynch Day One. Now things are different: after Day One it’s (13-5), after Night Kill Night Two (12-5), after mislynch Day Two (11-5), after Night Kill Night Three (10-5), after mislynch Day Three (9-5), after Night Kill Night Four (8-5), after mislynch Day Four (7-5), after Night Kill Night Five (6-5). In this scenario, we would still need to mislynch one more time in order to lose.
Thus, inserting one no-lynch into the process does not change our situation in the least - we still have exactly four mislynches with which to work.
Ordinarily, no-lynching would be problematic because we’d wake the next morning with no additional information. But in this case, if we no lynch on a Day when we are not comfortable with a consensus target, we will get a little extra info (dossier info) tomorrow Morning. Now, we can only use this tactic once - a second no-lynch actually shortens the game in favor of the scum. But if we are having enough trouble deciding on a target that we’re still struggling with a majority this late in the Day, it is clearly to our benefit to lynch no one rather than to toss someone off the cliff nearly at random and hope we get it right.
Thoughts?
i went tn top dog when i was in berkeley last night. it was incrdibly delicious.