|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 13:48:12 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 16, 2010 13:48:12 GMT -5
Good job scum. Twist my words to mean whatever you want. I'm your doctor town. Lynch me if you will, it's your loss, and I guess mine as well, but right now I don't give a flying fuck. Look at story/homicide and nphase after I'm gone. Mr homicide can twist anything to mean anything he wants and nphase jumped right in after first trying to go with a smudge. Oh, whatever. You made a bad vote and you're mad that you got called on it? Doesn't change a thing: it was a bad vote supported by reasoning that didn't hang together - still doesn't. I didn't twist anything, and I'm tired of the constant boogeymanning I get. I didn't twist your words; I expected you to mean your words. I'm happy to stand by my argument and be "looked at" on the basis of it; I think you'll find that the only person who thinks it constitutes twisting is you. That said, unvote sinjin/Eleanor, absent additional evidence or counterclaim.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 13:49:44 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 16, 2010 13:49:44 GMT -5
Did you just make a Scum wouldn't do that argument? SQUEEK (No! I said I thought it was more likely Scum would do one thing than the other thing. Which is not the same as saying 'Scum wouldn't do that' at all.) /me is offended The 'gender issue' is really confusing me. It doesn't matter to me directly, but as it relates to Dr. Raj it isn't insignificant...since it apparently matters who is male and who is female, and the gender of the player does not necessarily match that of the character (and in some cases is uncertain, at least to me). SQUEEK! (Based on Dr. Raj's list, it's based on the little "Gender" note in your profile box. I have mine turned off, so I am effectively genderless. Yours is set to Male. Buddy Christ's is set to Female.)
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 13:50:06 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 16, 2010 13:50:06 GMT -5
As for Pust, by the way, I am regarding her with a jaundiced eye. I know well that she's a great player to have on my side... but a very, very dangerous enemy to have if she's Scum. That said, I see nothing particularly suspicious in her arguments regarding your vote.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 13:53:51 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 16, 2010 13:53:51 GMT -5
For the record, I don't have a post restriction. I do plan to talk in character as much as I can, because it's fun and this is a Halloween costume game. I don't understand what talking in character (post restriction or not) has to do with being scummy.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 14:07:22 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Sept 16, 2010 14:07:22 GMT -5
Oh, whatever. You made a bad vote and you're mad that you got called on it? Doesn't change a thing: it was a bad vote supported by reasoning that didn't hang together - still doesn't. I didn't twist anything, and I'm tired of the constant boogeymanning I get. I didn't twist your words; I expected you to mean your words. I'm happy to stand by my argument and be "looked at" on the basis of it; I think you'll find that the only person who thinks it constitutes twisting is you. That said, unvote sinjin/Eleanor, absent additional evidence or counterclaim. Again, bullshit. It was a day one vote and I still don't think it was a bad vote for DAY FUCKING 1. Scum have faked post restrictions in the past. I thought it was bullshit that 4 people had silly post restrictions so I voted for the silliest. When the second silliest turned out to be true I removed my vote.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 14:53:57 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Sept 16, 2010 14:53:57 GMT -5
SQUEEK! (Paulwhoisameeko's restriction is no sillier than mine.) :: Points to the mini-death and nods :: Nor is Paul's restriction any sillier than mine.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 14:58:22 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Sept 16, 2010 14:58:22 GMT -5
Good job scum. Twist my words to mean whatever you want. I'm your doctor town. :: Gulp :: I don't think a translation is needed.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 15:02:45 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Sept 16, 2010 15:02:45 GMT -5
I'm re-reading trying to find the start of the post-restriction discussion and see post 92 from Eleanor/sinjin quoting Nordrom/Natlaw on a possible self-outing as non-vanilla. I have to say I buy Nordrom's explanation from a couple posts later that this was not a self-outing, but judge for yourselves. I give Eleanor a sidelong look, not enough so she notices. This is the second thing, after the post restrictions -- or the first, hah! -- she's commented on that is game-related but not scum-hunting related. A pattern? Or is there scum-hunting in here somewhere? We'll see, we'll see! Nice smudge there Iskral/phase. So if you believe Nordrom/Natlaw was not outing himself as vanilla what exactly was he doing? While you're at it please supply me with your list of acceptable scum-hunting techniques, especially those that are good day one. This early in the game I usually look for things that seem odd or off. Nordrom's statement seemed odd to me so I commented on it. The multitude of posting restrictions seemed odd to me so I commented on them and voted the one that seemed the silliest. (I'm having a really hard time responding to your tone in this and the following posts, sinjin. If you are the town doctor, I'm sorry you're angry, but I'm just trying to play the game. If you are not, I don't know what to say. I wish you would have chosen a less hostile response as a tactic, because I'm rather upset. I can't manage to make this post in-character.) On Natlaw: I read it (the second time -- the first time I saw it as you did but didn't think it worthy of comment in the context it was in) essentially as "OK, the last game was no-vanilla, and that might come up, but let's not have that discussion here because it might give something away". As something he could have plausibly said as vanilla as well as power role/scum/whatever. I'm not going to bother answering the second question/request because you don't really mean it, you're just sniping at me. As should be more than evident by now, I find a too-exclusive focus on the odd or "off" to be a fairly decent scum tell, because the scum can't focus on the real ones and often have difficulty seeing townie behavior as suspicious even if it is. The "odd" and the "off" are some of what's left when those other things are taken away. I don't know how to respond to the smudge accusation, either. It wasn't. I came in here this morning with the intention to re-read based on the hypothesis that one or two of the scum might jump at the superficial oddity of the post-restriction silliness, and you were always in my memory as one of the people who had done that. When I saw that you had *also* found Natlaw's "non-vanilla slip" worthy of comment, I was surprised enough to find out that was also you to feel like mentioning it before continuing on. You'd be more plausible in calling it a smudge if I had let it at that, at least until someone had called me out or something, but I had always intended to look further into it until I was happy one way or the other, and I did, and you've seen the result. Storyteller' sopinion on you is irrelevant, except insofar as if you ever do turn up scum, I'll be a bit more confident in him. As for both Ed and Natlaw's comments and your response to them in context, it is the pattern that interests me. You say it yourself -- you have questioned virtually every little thing that is remotely odd, whether important, easily explainable or otherwise, and you haven't commented on anything else. That would be enough for a day one vote for me even in the absence of the other indicators that are also present. I doubt you're the doctor at this point. We'll see. But I see no reason to keep my vote on you given your claim; there are other fish in the sea. unvote sinjin/Eleanor[/color]
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 15:15:06 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Sept 16, 2010 15:15:06 GMT -5
I doubt you're the doctor at this point. We'll see. But I see no reason to keep my vote on you given your claim; there are other fish in the sea. unvote sinjin/Eleanor<snipped and bleached> is this the new trend? so you doubt her claim but will unvote anyways. just curious is all.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 15:19:56 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Sept 16, 2010 15:19:56 GMT -5
Okay, forgive me if I sound a bit cranky, but this is starting to be really silly (and I have a IRL headache):
1. I've changed my profile picture to match my role (check) 2. I've had to change a status I really liked under my picture so other would remember who I am in this game (check) 3. Now I have to hide my gender so Ed/Raj/What Ever can quote me? (Did it, been there, I not buying the f***ing T-shirt).
And what we have right now it a non-nilla claim, a doctor claim and a serious problem with almost lurkers, lurkers and a couple of no-shows?
I think the case on Eleanor/Sinjin was based on facts. The reason I didn't follow it was, that I read her vote as a joke-vote (being placed early on and - IMO - not based on anything solid).
But as has been pointed out... she made a very early Day 1-vote. And so often early Day 1 votes don't really tend to be have that much to be based on. A null-tell to me.
A big (a really BIG) part of me wants to just vote a lurker and prove the point that you might as well be dead, if you don't put in the effort. I know - we're supposed to think that a lurker might be a townie, having problems IRL/didn't know the game had started/etc. etc.
But what it all comes down to is this: I need to be able to rely on the part of Town that make it to Endgame. I don't want to see yet again a game turned over because all my team-mates in the End was lurkers or people staying under the radar or players busy off board.
So I'm going to think about this a bit more (and if someone with better logic than mine comes along and convince me otherwise - that's fine as well) - but:
I can't see scummy, scummy behavior this Day. So maybe it better to vote for the weakest link and move on from there...
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 15:38:30 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Sept 16, 2010 15:38:30 GMT -5
so you doubt her claim but will unvote anyways. Yes.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 15:39:04 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Sept 16, 2010 15:39:04 GMT -5
NETA: That was from peeker the curious bhok'aral.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 15:42:37 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Sept 16, 2010 15:42:37 GMT -5
so you doubt her claim but will unvote anyways. Yes. thanks for the honesty. jeez things have change a bunch since i was a kid. we used to look askance at people that claimed something that we didn't believe in. must be the new generation.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 15:48:23 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Sept 16, 2010 15:48:23 GMT -5
I guess we're going to have lynch the lurker discussion Today after all . pro: -removes a non participator from the game con: -provides little way of finding scum as its a policy vote. -doesnt allow the player to claim (because he isn't here) -a vigilante could do it without the down side Last game I played here a non player was lynched at Lylo (2 town vs 2 scum and 1 SK). So I'm definitely leaning to lynch a lurker earlier than later (specifically Twilight Fangirl). On the other hand I already said I expect more power roles than less so it's not unlikely we have a vigilante we could do it. So could wait a Day to see if he shows up or perhaps gets substituted. The third had doesn't have a place to vote for at the moment so what's the fourth one to do?
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 15:49:37 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 16, 2010 15:49:37 GMT -5
A big (a really BIG) part of me wants to just vote a lurker and prove the point that you might as well be dead, if you don't put in the effort. SQUEEK (So far, the only person who hasn't posted at all is Pinkies/Twilight Fangirl. Unless I've confused myself -- and lord knows that's always a possibility -- everyone else has at least one post.)
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 15:50:39 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Sept 16, 2010 15:50:39 GMT -5
It's impossible for me to argue with an uncontested doctor claim on day one, no matter what I think. I'd vote a skeevy detective claim ahead of "I'm the doctor, idiots". I just can't do it.
Who do you think is worth voting for, bhok'aral?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 15:56:19 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Sept 16, 2010 15:56:19 GMT -5
On Eleanor's claim: it's a typical claim scum and I do agree the defense seems pretty aggressive and OMGUS-like. But the claim is somewhat testable and if truthful it coul dbe a major loss so an immediate lynch doesn't seem warranted. Personnaly I don't see how maniac's or Iskaral must be made by scum - it's also towns duty to make a vote with a case. Of course that also what maniac argued about Eleonar - her early, weak vote had to be by scum willing to slip by but there always plenty of talk that town should also vote early and often.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 16:10:28 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Sept 16, 2010 16:10:28 GMT -5
Sorry for coming on strong. I have been playing my role, no post restriction. I'm a Big Sister and I'm pissed. I guess I have no idea how to play mafia anymore. I do not understand DoR's and nphase's insistence that we not look for things that are odd or off about people's posting or behaviour. For Og's sake what the hell else are we supposed to look for, especially on day 1? Scum with a sign saying "Here I am lynch me." I don't even know how to respond to this by nphase:
What else should I comment on? The weather; nice, but hot and humid. My job: love it. My co-workers: love some loathe others. Grandkid: cutest, smartest kid ever.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 16:13:21 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Sept 16, 2010 16:13:21 GMT -5
A big (a really BIG) part of me wants to just vote a lurker and prove the point that you might as well be dead, if you don't put in the effort. SQUEEK (So far, the only person who hasn't posted at all is Pinkies/Twilight Fangirl. Unless I've confused myself -- and lord knows that's always a possibility -- everyone else has at least one post.) I'll admit I'm having a bit of a problem remembering who's in the game and what they're called here. But I can remember the 5-6 people that actually played the game. Made votes, were called for, called someone for a vote and so on. So a "lurker" don't have to have 3 posts to play the game. A "lurker" might have 15 posts - but if they don't say anything. Then how am I suppose to know what they thinking? Low posters can often say a lot. I don't think we can lynch by post-counts. But unless something shows up. I'd rather place my vote on a "non-talker" than to see a great talker being lynched Day 1... just for talking, voting or putting forth ideas.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 16:14:52 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Sept 16, 2010 16:14:52 GMT -5
-+-Deadline approaching-+- -+--Printing vote card And then there's the mime. He confuses me. The majority of his content has been of the form ::Does some things, and thinks about stuff:: That makes perfect sense, as either a mod-imposed or self-imposed restriction. But interspersed with the ::mime-speak:: is a fair amount of 'normal' content. I don't get it. If he's a mime, then he shouldn't speak, right? But he does speak. So it seems that it's not a mod-placed restriction. Now he has never actually claimed to have a restriction, but he seems to hint at one in post 182 <snip> Now, I'm certain that the presence or absence of a mod-imposed posting restriction doesn't mean a darn thing. And the use of a self-imposed restriction for 'color' doesn't in and of itself mean anything either. But when said 'restriction' starts to make things confusing, that means something. vote MarcelI think the post restrictions are based on costume not on alignment. Vote someone for not following a supposed post restriction is a strecth. Especially I don't see how Marcel is been particular on clear or keep the vote when that is pointed out. Vote Mr. Stay Puft
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 16:59:18 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Sept 16, 2010 16:59:18 GMT -5
The large screen, which had been showing the host's welcoming message, flickered. A new display appeared. Current Vote Count. 3 Votes. 1 vote.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 17:25:16 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 16, 2010 17:25:16 GMT -5
-+-Deadline approaching-+- -+--Printing vote card And then there's the mime. He confuses me. The majority of his content has been of the form ::Does some things, and thinks about stuff:: That makes perfect sense, as either a mod-imposed or self-imposed restriction. But interspersed with the ::mime-speak:: is a fair amount of 'normal' content. I don't get it. If he's a mime, then he shouldn't speak, right? But he does speak. So it seems that it's not a mod-placed restriction. Now he has never actually claimed to have a restriction, but he seems to hint at one in post 182 <snip> Now, I'm certain that the presence or absence of a mod-imposed posting restriction doesn't mean a darn thing. And the use of a self-imposed restriction for 'color' doesn't in and of itself mean anything either. But when said 'restriction' starts to make things confusing, that means something. vote MarcelI think the post restrictions are based on costume not on alignment. Vote someone for not following a supposed post restriction is a strecth. Especially I don't see how Marcel is been particular on clear or keep the vote when that is pointed out. Vote Mr. Stay PuftI never asserted that post restrictions were based on alignment. That would make no sense at all. I've stated more than once that post restrictions, in and of themselves, mean absolutely nothing. And my vote for Marcel was not based on him "not following a supposed post restriction". It was based on him having an inconsistent posting style, and being evasive about whether or not he did actually have a posting restriction, or whether he was merely 'adding color'. It wasn't the strongest of arguments, but it was certainly no worse than the other votes that had been placed at the time. I said yesterday that I would be more than willing to change my vote if I found a more worthy target. But until this morning, there wasn't a whole lot of anybody saying or doing anything... But there was something said today that really doesn't sit right with me <snipped a bunch of text directed to Eleanor> I doubt you're the doctor at this point. We'll see. But I see no reason to keep my vote on you given your claim; there are other fish in the sea. unvote sinjin/Eleanorfollowed shortly by It's impossible for me to argue with an uncontested doctor claim on day one, no matter what I think. I'd vote a skeevy detective claim ahead of "I'm the doctor, idiots". I just can't do it. So Iskaral voted for Eleanor because he thought she was scum. Then he says he doesn't believe her claim, which means he thinks she's lying scum. Yet for some reason that means we shouldn't lynch her? Then he says can't argue with an uncontested claim...except he did argue with it... I understand the idea of "don't lynch a claimed Power role on Day 1". But if you don't believe the claim, then have the guts to stand by your vote. Don't come out with "I don't believe you, but I'll let you slide this time"...that's trying to have it both ways, and that's not cool. unvote Marcelvote Iskaral Pust, Magi of Shadow for actions in direct contradiction to his stated belief For the record, I have no idea whether or not Eleanor's claim is true. I'm not saying that we should all vote to lynch her, I'm just saying that Iskaral had no reason to unvote if he doesn't believe her claim, unless there was someone else who he felt was scummier. Since he hasn't cast another vote, I'm guessing that isn't the case.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 18:02:29 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Sept 16, 2010 18:02:29 GMT -5
I doubt you're the doctor at this point. Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Doctors can make badwrongsillylame arguments!
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 18:21:33 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 16, 2010 18:21:33 GMT -5
guess I have no idea how to play mafia anymore. I do not understand DoR's and nphase's insistence that we not look for things that are odd or off about people's posting or behaviour. For Og's sake what the hell else are we supposed to look for, especially on day 1? SQUEEK (You're putting words in my mouth. I never said we couldn't look at odd behavior, and things that are off about people's posting should most definitely be scrutinized and discussed. What I agreed with is that "odd" does not necessarily equal scummy. Not that we shouldn't be saying, "hey, that's weird. You wanna esplain yourself?") SQUEEK (I've been back through the Day twice now, and no one's behavior is really standing out to me as odd, off, or Scummy, except for Joe Bauers/FCoD, and Jack Skellington/IS because as I recall they're both usually fairly high-quantity posters and this time through (unless I've missed some posts) Bauer's only posted twice, and Skellington only once. Now, someone could show up waving a sign saying "here I am, lynch me" -- hey, stranger things have happened.)
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 18:36:04 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Sept 16, 2010 18:36:04 GMT -5
My thoughts and so forth:
- Confused as can be by the costumes even though we have our names under our pictures
- Post restrictions seem to be real and can not be about alignment(would break the game if so)
- Again, I have no post restriction
- Zero idea, as always on Day One, about who is scum. I don't get the case for Stay Puft and the other cases seem weak too.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 18:53:56 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Sept 16, 2010 18:53:56 GMT -5
Sorry for coming on strong. I have been playing my role, no post restriction. I'm a Big Sister and I'm pissed. I guess I have no idea how to play mafia anymore. I do not understand DoR's and nphase's insistence that we not look for things that are odd or off about people's posting or behaviour. ::: Hands Big Sister a Black balloon and an Orange balloon, a bowl of candy corn, and a dripping wet Apple, with a bite taken out of it. ::: This party has everything! Were you expecting a different party atmosphere? [ Is this game not what you expected it to be? What were you expecting instead?]
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 18:58:36 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Sept 16, 2010 18:58:36 GMT -5
My thoughts and so forth: - Confused as can be by the costumes even though we have our names under our pictures - Post restrictions seem to be real and can not be about alignment(would break the game if so) - Again, I have no post restriction - Zero idea, as always on Day One, about who is scum. I don't get the case for Stay Puft and the other cases seem weak too. :: Finds the raccoon and starts running in the opposite direction.:: I don't know if posting my name under my picture will help anything. I don't think I should add or do anything to my current margin info that would associate [ link / group ] myself with that hijacked moniker.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 19:27:30 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 16, 2010 19:27:30 GMT -5
<looks around the room, noticing a lot of empty chairs> This party is a little...quiet...isn't it? Did somebody spike the punch? Or is there a killer game of craps going on in some back room that I didn't get invited to?
Seriously people, there's less than 23 hours left before Dusk, and right now I'm the leading vote getter based on the fact that I had a weak argument a day and a half ago...apparently there are at least 18 people here who can't come up with a better one...
We need to lynch somebody Today. That means people need to cast votes. I don't want to die based on a 3-1-1-1 vote with 18 abstentions. And that means that people need to start talking.
Surely there's someone who's said something that pings your radar...even if it's not a 'strong tell', it's something. Spit it out. If you're the only one who noticed it, then maybe it's all in your head. But if 6 people pipe up and say "yeah, I was thinking the same thing", then we might have something. But if everyone sits around just "being confused" and waiting for somebody else, then we're going to be in big trouble.
I don't mean to be overly pushy, but I don't want to wake up tomorrow morning to find that a dozen people have logged in and thought "Oh shit! The Day is almost over...I don't have time to reread the entire thread, so I'll just cast a vote for whoever is 'in the lead'...'cause there's safety in numbers"
I think that would be a Very Bad Thing, and you should all think so too.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 20:09:05 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Sept 16, 2010 20:09:05 GMT -5
Hooboy. What a mess. I expected a mess, though, just maybe not quite this much of one. I have not seen a single compelling argument for or against a vote, nor have a seen a compelling reason to cast one against someone. Day One straw grasping is about all we have so far. Day ends tomorrow night too. Gah.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 16, 2010 20:14:12 GMT -5
Post by special on Sept 16, 2010 20:14:12 GMT -5
I like this *snipped to holy hell* So Iskaral voted for Eleanor because he thought she was scum. Then he says he doesn't believe her claim, which means he thinks she's lying scum. Yet for some reason that means we shouldn't lynch her? Then he says can't argue with an uncontested claim...except he did argue with it... I understand the idea of "don't lynch a claimed Power role on Day 1". But if you don't believe the claim, then have the guts to stand by your vote. Don't come out with "I don't believe you, but I'll let you slide this time"...that's trying to have it both ways, and that's not cool. unvote Marcelvote Iskaral Pust, Magi of Shadow for actions in direct contradiction to his stated belief For the record, I have no idea whether or not Eleanor's claim is true. I'm not saying that we should all vote to lynch her, I'm just saying that Iskaral had no reason to unvote if he doesn't believe her claim, unless there was someone else who he felt was scummier. Since he hasn't cast another vote, I'm guessing that isn't the case. It was a wishy-washy flop by someone who has one of my favorite quotes, "No mule can match wits with me. Oh yes, many have tried, and almost all have failed!" Now, I also can understand unvoting an uncounterclaimed doctor, but why the "I don't believe you" crap? You unvote because you specifically believe it, or at least because you believe it quite plausible. Not because you don't believe it. Maybe it was a poor choice of words, but it's icky. from someone I expect to not play with such ickiness.
|
|