JoeSapphire: come at me swinging with an argument that I don't think is entirely fair.
agentcarr16: I mean, are you ever going to admit that an argument to lynch you is a fair one?
Yes: Here is a fair argument -
bler144: 1) he's made two references to the prior game (RVS voting scene redux, albeit without caps), and the "HEYWAITAMINUTE" bit, that feel ...tingly. Might be NAI and just bragging about prior success. Might also be mafia replaying greatest hits because of the WIFOM that surely he wouldn't draw maf and do exactly that same thing twice?
It's wrong, but it's fair.
Here are some unfair arguments:
bler144: The misalignment with reads list and votes is notable. At various points he has Ix teamed with both scene and myself (I think everyone universally can agree, if nothing else, that scene and I are not w/w) and yet votes for P1na for...I can't be sure because "I can't give a decent reason now, but I'd hardly expect decent reasons from anybody at this stage." This after saying it is "definitely bler/Ix and...maybe SPF" and immediately voting SPF. Which, hey, I get that's at least partially just staking claim and not real.
But read on Ix is "not much to go on, I think. He suspects me?" so...I'm not clear where that earlier stake came from. The read on me in that moment I get, maybe, though if it's based on my tete-a-tete with scene as it appears to be, Joe presumably knows the game well enough to know which of the two of us was correct and which was not.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I made a connection between Ixamyakxim and supplementscene?
At the time I declared bler, sprim and ixam to be a team, ixam had made a single post, and I hadn't mentioned him. The declaration was preceeded by the word 'trufax', which, I agree is misleading, but does not mean facts that are true, but tends, rather, to mean wild speculation. Which is just what it was. Not dissimilar to RVS, but it's a fun excercise that me and zfr have enjoyed the last few games (and now he snakes me out over it. :( )
It's unrelated, but I have reservations about the suggestion in the final line, that somebody who is factually inaccurate is more likely to be mafia. A very wise man once said "Anybody can be wrong" (and then twaddled on a bit, slightly undermining the majesty of the statement)
PRE-EDIT - apologies, I did link ixam and scene - it's because scene stated that he didn't have any read on ixam because he'd not posted much, which piqued my interest as I'd only posted thrice and scene was all over me. HOWEVER, I was assuming that ixam had posted at least thrice, which he had not. So it was a fair point of scene's and I retract my very-tentative-connection-provided-that-scene-is-scum-which-i-don't-think-he-is.
Ixamyakxim: Vote JoeSapphire I really have no formed opinion on flubb or ZFR yet and Joe sketched me out by "knowing" the scum team... on Day One. I don't like people that "know" things that early - always smells to me like painting people as scummy.
Firstly, that meddlesome 'trufax' misunderstanding again. Please don't think that I had any faith that bler, ixam and sprim will turn put to be the scumteam. I just want to be able to go "see??" if they do. The misunderstanding is my own fault, though.
Secondly, the idea that having three people on two votes means that you are limited to lynch those three people. Hmm, I guess is Ixamyakxim has limited time then the dreadful decision toll would mean that he has to join a wagon... maybe it's not fair of me to call it unfair.
bler144: But compared to P1na or ZFR given what's on the table, yeah, he gets the vote for sure 10 times out of 10.
This one I can argue with - bler surely has more time for mafia than ixam. Why are you restricted only to the players with two or three votes? vote for someone with one vote, and then they are open to consideration by others. If everybody restricts themselves so we create the dreaded False Trichotomy of Lynchees (FTOL)
agentcarr16: Reasons: lack of reasoning for mafia predictions, playing for the crowd, pushing double lynch, and posting IIoA.
Lack of reasoning for mafia predictions - if referring to TRUFAX, see above. If referring to my list, meh.
Playing for the crowd - fair. Although I tend to piss as many people of as I amuse, so maybe it should read 'playing for A crowd'.
Pushing double lynch - Calling it 'pushing' is a bit harsh. I suggested it twice in one post, and haven't posted since. You're the only person who has mentioned any problem with it, and ZFR seemed skeptical of that problem. (incidentally it occured to me that we'd have two lynches but less votes on each, so theoretically mafia have greater control over two lynches, so maybe that's a problem) (tell a lie! bler mentioned that a shorter game makes parity cop much weaker, but took an overall neutral stance on it) ANYWAY I'm sure if I said that I'd gone off the idea now somebody would say "as soon as you got criticism for it you changed your mind", but in fact, I haven't gone off the idea. Bler's summary; If we want a high risk high tension game we should do it; makes me want to do it all the more.
Posting IIoA - I stated the players that I thought were town, and the players that I would be willing to vote for. I would call that sorting players. I'll admit that my reads aren't much, but I don't think much of anybody's reads so far.
Alright, that's enough attempting to defend myself.
I'll post this, and continue trying to address questions and etcetera.
If I don't take too long doing that I might have some time to do scum hunting. Maybe I'm prioritising the game wrong and I should just ignore the things people say to me...
