WW 34--The Slugfest!

[Jowy]

Still didn't like this response from Jowy:

Jowy will you vote for anyone else here ever if I am alive?

Of course I will, it would ruin the spirit of the game if I didn't.

I could be persuaded to lynch at least Q, Jabbz, Lewwyn and Brick today.

I'm still not really feeling like he is actively scumhunting. He doesnt' like Goreripper either, has a bunch of other 'suspects' but no reasoning for it, and it gives him flexibility to jump to any of them. But I don't really know, and he's not in the running anyway.

I pick up on certain tells and type of posts that mafia tends to make. These tells probably don't mean much to those who missed them. To get someone lynched here you need to build a solid case, which is rare on Day 1. For this reason our town often goes for the easy "default" targets early on. Sometimes it works, that's up to lady luck. Point is, I'm hunting scum, and I'm ready to lynch players who I think are scum, but there's not much point to give reasoning when it's not substantial enough to sway anyone. Sometimes the lack of reasoning can even be a strength, when many players individually come to the conclusion that another player might be scum, because it is more likely to be true than if there's one player leading the sheep.

[Rowain]

@novice sorry but there is nothing more than that.

Well you know, when people are voting you solely to get you to answer their questions, a little verbosity won't hurt. In the interest of not stalemating the game I'll treat you as a hostile witness help you along:

* You voted Bob during the random voting stage, in essence for no reason.
* You stuck with your Bob vote for a long time, because you had noone else you preferred to lynch. Even though you found one of Zak's comments scummy you preferred lynching Bob.
* You eventually started preferring Qgqqqq over Bob because Qgqqqqq should have known why you didn't want to lynch Zak.
* You now prefer lynching Jowy due to recent Qgqqqq posts.

Is that your story?

Can you be explicit about why you don't want to lynch Zak? You've alluded to Lewwyn's point E, I believe?

Now getting asked by you of all people to explain my votes smells like hypocrite to me.

But I don't prefer Jowy because of Qgqqq post.
Qgqqq made me lean villager on him.
I then reread the thread and found myself agreeing with Gaz that Jowy win-win post is strange therefor Jowy.

[Jowy]

Why is Goreripper win win?

@Jowy I still don't get how you consider Gore lynch a win win scenario can you atleast elaborate on that before the deadline. I'm going to hold off on voting for Jabbaz until we get another response from him don't want to condem him just yet.

I then reread the thread and found myself agreeing with Gaz that Jowy win-win post is strange therefor Jowy.

Lynch me if you will, I'm in peace.

[BRickAstley]

Question:

Is it right to crucify Rowain for expecting Qgqqqqq to respond a certain way based on his past play, while we overlook a lot of other stuff about how people talk just because it is how they're known to act based on past play?

Or maybe more the question is, who's to say that one of (John Doe is silly, cause he's always silly) and (John Doe should know I'm crabby, cause I'm always crabby) is better or worse than the other?

That's what the argument against Rowain via the Q vote feels liek to me right now, almost a desire to still hang someone based on thinking about past actions, when it's currently a faux pas for hanging someone for merely acting how they usually do, whether it's good or bad.

[BRickAstley]

Lynch me if you will, I'm in peace.

To clarify, is this notion that voting for Gore is a 'win-win' somehow tied to your defense of seeing tells that you don't feel are grounded enough to bring out in public?

Or do you just not like the guy all that much?

[Qgqqqqq]

Because of something I saw in the lurker thread, any votes I make on Goreripper won't count for to-day. I wasn't about to vote him, but just to get it out of the way.

[zakalwe]

Honestly Zak, voting Jabbz there seems rather odd, since you're putting words in HIS mouth.

Your "asking him to reconsider" resulted in him emphasizing that that vote was just the closest thing he's seen to something suspicious, and he's open to there being a reason he doesn't know why Rowain doesn't like Bob.

That seems a lot more to me like he's agreeing that that vote is tenuous than doubling down in defense of it.

I was trying to point out that he might not be reading Rowain correctly, i.e. that Rowain wasn't actually determined to see Bob swing. Instead of considering that, and really trying to understand what Rowain was saying (which admittedly can be hard), he just jumped straight into a defensive stance, pointing out all of his own disclaimers in order to justify the vote. I have no issue with his vote being tenuous, and that was not what I was getting at to begin with.

[Qgqqqqq]

* You stuck with your Bob vote for a long time, because you had noone else you preferred to lynch. Even though you found one of Zak's comments scummy you preferred lynching Bob.

This is the step I'm most curious about - you made a post about halfway through the day about Bob being your favorite lynch candidate. Was there any reason beyond the initial for this?

I don't like Jowy's last few posts. Then again, his lack of defense/trolling is something I'm not sure how to interpret.

[zakalwe]

Based on interactions I would currently prefer to lynch either Jabbz, Bob, or Goreripper.

Second tier of preference would be low-contributors like Jkaen, Sunrise, and Mattimeo.

[BRickAstley]

Aren't you putting words in Rowain's mouth there? I don't see him saying that he's determined to make Bob swing. "At the moment" is an important qualifier.

I mean, I just don't see how that's more 'asking to reconsider' than 'attacking his reasoning', but whatever floats your boat.