Mini #1647: Eine Kleine Nacht-Mord, Game Over

[Onion Bubs]

VOTE: onion

This farm ain't big enough for two vegetables!

[Onion Bubs]

Can I just check something with you Equinox? That comment you made about LlamaFluff probably rolling scum given your history; was that just an RVS reason for your vote or were you actually making that as a serious argument for him being scum?

[Onion Bubs]

See, I'm not sure I buy what you're saying Equinox. Admittedly though, right now there's not an awful lot to go on beyond your hypothesis and I'd have to see something from LlamaFluff before I can come down on either of you.

What I can do, however, is this:

UNVOTE: onion
VOTE: prawneater

I don't know if you noticed, but LlamaFluff already has three votes on him. What makes you think he needs a fourth?

[Onion Bubs]

It's still three votes prawneater. Plus, even if I'm not entirely on board with Equinox's hypothesis, it's still a serious attempt at making a case against someone. I don't believe LlamaFluff would be chillin' like chill in those circumstances but then suddenly feel the pressure to do something when a fourth vote gets put on him.

Then again, so far I've only played in games where three votes = L-2, so maybe there's something you know that I don't.

Anyway:

let the NK speculation begin

Any reason why, after you say this, you don't then go and do some speculatin' yourself or give your thoughts on the speculations of others?

[Onion Bubs]

We want pressure on LlamaFluff. Do you disagree?

Three votes was enough pressure. Four was starting to look like an attempt to quicklynch.

Dear everyone who disagrees with me when I say that three votes is enough pressure:

Sincerely yours,
Bubs

PS: Expect more of these animated gifs in the future as long as I am alive.

[Onion Bubs]

Just please keep in mind that, due to severe limitations on my mobile data plan, I might have images turned off while browsing somewhere without a WiFi network (like when I'm commuting).

In my limited experience, browsing the web on a phone is an exercise in frustration. Ideally I would've worked out how to put mouse-over text on any of the images I post. Since I haven't worked that out, I'll probably put some made-up file name just underneath the picture so anyone who is viewing this thread on a phone can get the message. That last gif I posted I call mindywhy.gif.

But I digress. Onto the important stuff:

How much pressure is enough is a subjective thing.
Personally, I think that unless people raise

very

compelling arguments about why someone is scum, or a wagon grows enough to threaten a lynch if just a few more people join it, accused scum can give staggered, vague, or incomplete answers in hopes that people get distracted by something else before there's any

real

danger.

Three votes puts Llama at only L-3: Enough to know people suspect him, but still some wiggle room.
L-2, on the other hand, presents a very solid motivation to address people's concerns.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but if I saw LlamaFluff giving vague or incomplete answers when he was at L-3, then I would've gotten all up in his grill. If he continued being evasive,

then

I would've put him at L-2 because he would be scummy in my eyes.

Am I the only one who thinks this way? Is running someone up to L-1 or L-2 in 24 hours, possibly before they even get the chance to do anything (depending on time zones), a normal thing around here?

it's called reaction fishing and you ruined it

Reaction fishing? Do explain, especially since you did such a good job explaining yourself with the last question I asked you. Or, if you'd prefer, I can just go with LlamaFluff's explanation.

UNVOTE: prawneater
VOTE: Untrod Tripod

[Onion Bubs]

talk down at me much? I don't have to justify jack

(mindywhy.gif - now used twice in one game day)

While I wait, I'm gonna take a look at LlamaFluff's posts because, like TellTaleHeart, I'm struggling to make sense of them.

So I should vote the player that posted more because they have posted more?

I'm fairly sure that's not what TellTaleHeart was saying. Or at least, if I said the words that she said, this is not what I would've been saying.

The more someone has posted, the more you have about them to analyse, thus the more accurate your read on them can be. So how come, when you have a player who's posted twice and a player who's posted ten times, do you have more faith in your read of the person with only 20% as many posts as the other to the point that you would be willing to vote for them first? Lurking notwithstanding of course. The only thing that makes sense from a townie point of view is that you think the content of the first player's two posts is scummier than the combined content of the second player's ten posts.

The part of what Equinox posted that GIF latched onto makes more sense to make scum feel uneasy than it makes for town to feel uneasy, especially when you pair it that he basically ignored the post otherwise. UT has no real posts that read as scum or town except for trying to leave me at L-1 and immediately shift blame if I was hammered. I don't really care at all about him calling a couple of people town, its not alignment indicative at all.

And this is where my understanding of your thought processes fails me. You don't see the rush to L-1 as being at least as scummy as GuyInFreezer's response to Equinox's hypothesis? I'm sorry, but until I get an explanation (no, Untrod Tripod, a name of a technique and a basic definition of what it is doesn't count as an explanation) of why a townie would do such a thing, I cannot see rushing someone to L-1 as being anything but scummy. I can at least imagine a possible explanation for GuyInFreezer's post: perhaps he supports Equinox's hypothesis but just wants to clarify something he is puzzled about, in which case the post isn't alignment indicative.

UT I would vote because he should know better than to do what he did, but a lot of people just like to do reckless things because they apparently find doing reckless things fun or something like that. If it was someone that is super conservative as a player and takes little to no risks, I would have jumped on it hard. UT is more of a "does whatever" type who will just do scummy things that they think is justified or thinks aren't scummy when a majority of the players will think it is.

Are you saying you'll let people get away with scummy shit because of their past? Are you saying you're OK with his recklessness because it's a thing with him? That you're fine with him potentially fucking things up for the town because it's how he rolls?

(isthatwhatyouresaying.gif - wow, two animated gifs in one post!)

[Onion Bubs]

like, this right here is mafia, guys. figuring out perspectives and alignments based on the types of arguments people make.

And

on the way people behave, right?

[Onion Bubs]

but your motivational/behavior analysis wrt to me is based on a flawed and stubborn understanding of how people play and what motivates them

I don't really care if you learn that until after this game, but just keep it in your mind for later

I just expect townies to help the town and scum to hurt the town (maybe but not necessarily pretending to help the town in the process). I still don't properly understand what townie motivation your L-1 vote had, especially since there were other things you could do to get reactions out of people that didn't have as much chance of damaging the town. If it was specific reactions you were looking for, I don't have any idea what specific reactions you

could

be looking for that you couldn't have gotten by, say, coming up with your own hypothesis of who might be scum or asking a whole bunch of questions.

Right now though, there's something else that concerns me: too many folks have been awfully quiet.

• Futan's sole post so far has been an apology for his absence and a promise of something tomorrow, which I will hold him to.
  
• prawneater and Equinox's last posts in this thread have been essentially asking what certain people think about LlamaFluff's entry to the game, although they posted enough before that I can believe they'll come forward with some more thoughts on more recent developments pretty soon. Plus Equinox did get us out of RVS with his hypothesis.
  
• onion's only posts have been his RVS vote and a proposal to better differentiate between him and me. While it was a good proposal, it doesn't do much to help in our quest to find the scum.
  
• ChannelDelibird's only two posts are his RVS vote and a "if I were scum I would've done this" statement. I don't see why a townie would feel the need to say "if I were scum I would've done this".

I was gonna end this post with an animated gif of the "Do something!" moment from Spaceballs but the only one I found didn't even loop.

[Onion Bubs]

Hello. I've had other priorities this weekend; more from me coming tomorrow. However, I can point out as the post is just above me (PEDIT: not any more; the one from OnionBubs) that I have not made a random vote in this game, and also that in a rare Night-start game, discussing who might have killed who on Night 0 is worth talking about. UT brought up nightkill analysis and I'm happy to be honest about what I would have suggested. It's quite possible that I would have argued against a CES kill and been overruled by buddies... but that's for you to figure out. UT knows me reasonably well, though, so I imagine he's more likely to be able to read a self-meta statement like that from me than you, with whom I've not previously played.

Wait, you say you haven't made a random vote in this game?

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

VOTE: LlamaFluff

What is this? Chopped liver?

[Onion Bubs]

Wait, you say you haven't made a random vote in this game?

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

VOTE: LlamaFluff

What is this? Chopped liver?

The only one calling that random is you. I'm clearly reacting to the CES kill and I voted for somebody whom I thought was likelier than some others to be aware of CES's skill and therefore push for a kill on him. It's not

precise

, sure, and Llama isn't the only one who'd know to be wary of CES, but it wasn't a random vote by any means.

Anyway, I'll read up and stuff over this evening.

"Clearly", right. Because when the first post from anyone other than the mod consists solely of a "BOO" with loads of o's and a vote, it must mean that player is putting serious thought into their vote based on the night kill, even though it is indistinguishable from an RVS vote.

Yeah, I don't buy it. If your only rationale for voting LlamaFluff was that he is a player who would be aware of Cogito Ergo Sum's skill and thus want him out of the picture, and if that reason can apply to even one other player, then:

1. Your vote
   was
   still random. It was just randomly determined from a subset of all living players rather than determined from all living players.
   
2. Why are you only explaining it now? Why didn't you feel the need to explain it when you originally made it?

[Onion Bubs]

OK, so I've got some thoughts about what's been going on in the last ... three pages. However, right now I need some sleep and then I've got work tomorrow, so I'll share my thoughts with you guys after work.

In the meantime, if any of you folks want me to talk about anything in particular, now's a good opportunity for you to ask.

[Onion Bubs]

So it turns out I either had more thoughts than I thought or I had more to say about those thoughts than I thought so it's a lot later than intended and incomplete, but here you go.

Spoiler: About ChannelDelibird's post format in post 144

I hope you don't mind me using that format ChannelDelibird. It looks like a really good way to format a post where you talk about several different things but you want to avoid scaring everyone with a great wall of text.

Spoiler: About post 131 by onion

Firstly, was there a reason for your post numbers not having links? If you're having trouble with the post tag, here's what you need to do:

Suppose you wanted to link to this post by LlamaFluff. You may see it labelled at the top of the post as post #105. Therefore, to make a link to it, this is what you need to type:

Code: Select all

[post=105]The text you click to get there[/post]

Secondly:

I really like everything Derangement and Bubs have posted. They are being useful to the town, and helping us get good reads on them. This is Pro-town and should be encouraged. I really don't like Tripod's playstyle, and i believe he is hurting the town with his antics. This should be discouraged.

I like the sentiment that helpful stuff should be encouraged and harmful stuff should be discouraged, but it would be more helpful if you were a bit more specific about how Derangement and I are helping the town.

Spoiler: Post 133 by Derangement hits a pet peeve of mine

Okay, so I did some background reading.

A skim of several of Tripod's games tells me that he would definitely do stuff like this as town.
As scum, I've also seen him do some risky things, so it's not as clear cut as I'd hoped.

Are you saying that, if Untrod Tripod's previous town games showed him playing more cautiously, then you would've been dead certain that he is scum? Or that if his scum games showed him playing more cautiously, then you would've decided that he must be townie in this one?

(isthatwhatyouresaying.gif - man I need to use some non-Animaniacs gifs soon in this thread or this is gonna get stale)

Look, if someone is scummy, it's because of what they're doing in this game, not because of what they're doing or did in other games. Their behaviour in other games is irrelevant to their alignment in this game. Even if you do manage to spot a pattern where they exhibit one particular behaviour only as town or something like that, how do you know that the game you're currently in with them isn't the game where they (consciously or otherwise) break the pattern?

Spoiler: About post 139 by prawneater

I like TTH's post 71

I like many of Equinox's posts.

I like UT giving Derangement towncred (I agree that Derangement looks town)

I think GIF is more town than not. I don't know GIF, but I think if I were scum in that spot, I'd look up my games rather than ask if I was in that game. If I was town in that spot I think I'd just ask and not bother looking it up.

I don't like LF's attack on GIF. I read it as scum under pressure trying to contrive a scummy angle on someone else.

I don't have strong feelings on the others yet.

(thisdispleasesme.gif - yay, I did a non-Animaniacs gif!)
You make a lot of unconnected statements and yet you do a terrible job of explaining them. No job does count as a terrible job. In fact, this seems to be a recurring theme with you. If I were quicker to get to your posts, we'd be seeing a lot more instances of mindywhy.gif.

Spoiler: A disturbing trend I've noticed

VOTE: onion
I was going to re-vote Llama, but I like this a lot better.

If I had been present soon enough I would've posted mindywhy.gif in response to this. I'm glad you elaborated in post 143 and I like what you had to say in there, but it took post 137 by Untrod Tripod to prod you into explaining yourself. You didn't think to put the explanation in with the vote at the time.

But you're not the only one guilty of this. Take a look at some of these:

• Post 25 by prawneater: OK, by the time this post was made, RVS was definitely over thanks to Equinox's post. I had to vote for you to get you to explain why you wanted to join the LlamaFluff wagon.
  
• Post 34 by Untrod Tripod: Even if I buy that putting LlamaFluff at L-1 wasn't a scum move, it's still a vote that doesn't get anywhere near being explained until later posts.
  
• Post 76 by Untrod Tripod: The only sense in which you don't have to justify jack is that you won't get modkilled for not justifying jack.
  
• Post 134 by Equinox: Firstly, citing a term is not an explanation for a vote. Secondly, I had to check the wiki to remind myself of what IIoA is and I found that what the wiki says about it doesn't actually explain why it's scummy. Thirdly, the post 137 I linked to earlier was responding explicitly to this.
  
• Post 142 by ChannelDelibird: As far as explanations for votes go, this post is functionally identical to post 134. The bit about being about to read the thread in full gave me hope that there would be more of an explanation for the onion vote. As much as I like the formatting in post 144, it didn't elaborate on why the vote for onion.
  
• Post 187 by TellTaleHeart: Yeah, turns out you did this more than once TellTaleHeart.
  
• Post 190 by Derangement: Assistance from a drunken roomie sounds more like the sort of "reasoning" you'd see in RVS. There's not really anything here that would explain why you're switching off of onion and onto GuyInFreezer.

The thing that really grinds my gears about this mess is that, mathematically, the people on this list cannot all be scum unless the mod forgot to tell us we're in LYLO. Therefore there is at least one town-aligned player who has this idea in their heads that they don't need to explain their votes when they make them, only when it's demanded.

OK, I can buy that the amount of votes needed to put pressure on someone is L-2 rather than the 3 I thought it was in the beginning. It's difficult but I can buy that Untrod Tripod is just a naturally reckless player and that the act of placing a L-1 vote on LlamaFluff is not a scum-motivated move.

But this?

(whatiswrongwithyoupeople.gif - yay, I did a Homestar Runner gif and my name is a Homestar Runner reference!)

Where did you get this idea from? Why do you not feel the need to justify your votes when you make them? Votes are things that cause people to become out of the game, we need to make sure it's the right people who are becoming out of the game, we achieve this by observing, thinking and sharing our observations and thoughts, and you think it's perfectly fine townie behaviour to cast votes without stating your rationale for them? Since when does the town benefit from you hiding the reasoning behind your actions?

No no no no no, town benefits from information being in the open. There

is

good reason to hide the contents of role PMs since we don't want scum knowing where the power roles are (or where they aren't), but apart from that, sharing information means we can get different perspectives from each other that we might not have thought of on our own. It's the old adage of two heads being better than one, but amplified to however many townies are in this game. By placing a vote without explaining it, you are withholding useful information that can improve the accuracy of our reads and increase our chances of lynching scum (and, by extension, winning).

It's a good thing then that some folks have been prodding people for the explanations for their unexplained votes, otherwise scum would have an incredibly easy game and we'd be more fucked than 15 prostitutes by the end of their shift!

While the rationales behind my votes were couched in questions, demands and sarcasm when I made them, at least they were there. LlamaFluff was even better about it with his votes in that he explicitly stated why he voted for someone in the posts that he did. Say what you will about the quality of his reasoning, but at least it was there. Only his lack of explanation for why he would also have voted Untrod Tripod in his first post was a problem in that regard.

Why do so many of you find it so hard to be so explicit about your reasoning before someone prods you into giving the reasoning? Why does explicitly giving your reasoning with your vote not come naturally to you? Apart from the contents of your role PM, what could those of you who are townies possibly have to hide?

Further thoughts will come when I'm calmer.

[Onion Bubs]

As a side note, my initial apprehension of Bubs for the things I've asked him in Post 223 is making me not feel good about him taking this long to clarify what should be a simple matter of sharing his reasoning, if he's town.

(rescuewhale.gif)

I'm blaming this delay on the bank for blocking my card when I tried to renew my car insurance because that got me angry and I wanted to avoid having another angry post. So let's see what it was you wanted me to answer.

---

I personally like text walls, but don't mind it when people spoiler stuff to make it easier on the eyes either.
Just make sure that anything really important isn't spoilered, so we'll see it every time we re-read or skim the thread, and you're golden!

I think I'm going to be experimenting with different post formats for larger posts. Perhaps after the game (or when I end up in the thread of the dead), I'll ask some players for feedback.

I'd rather Onion use his time trying to hunt scum, and not explaining the things that most people seem to agree on, unless it is to add something no one else pointed out yet.
Why do you want to hear more about why he thinks either of us is being helpful?

Because when someone is vague about their reasoning, it looks to me like they are trying to

look

like they're thinking about things rather than

actually

thinking about them. When someone does this with a town read like what onion did, it looks like he is scum trying to buddy with a townie in the hopes that, if he gets lynched, you and I will look suspicious because of how favourably onion viewed us despite his posts up to that point indicating very little reason to view us favourably.

I don't town-read someone just because they town-read me.

That'd be silly of me to assume.
Ill only be certain of someone's alignment if they scum-claim, if they fail to do something that'd instantly give one of the factions a win, or when Word of Mod reveals it.

That doesn't mean I won't see certain actions as more likely to come from scum, and others more likely to come from town, and weight my reads accordingly.
What made you imply full certainty in your question?

...

I

don't

know.

Which is why I use meta as a gauge for how suspicious I should initially be, just like I do with a bunch of other unreliable stuff like activity, mood, or even gut.
I then go and look into what everyone's doing, and try to figure out why they're doing it.
I'll look closer at people whom I suspect the most, unless I happen to have enough free time to be super thorough with everyone.

The fact that you referred to someone's previous games told me that you would factor that into your reads. I needed to check how much weight you ascribed to them because at certain levels I would treat use of meta as a scum move. The way you use it doesn't look like it's up to that level at the moment, although maybe if I saw an instance of you determining someone to be initially suspicious based on it, I would get a better idea of whether or not it is.

Now why did I ask that question the way I did? Mainly because I just couldn't resist an opportunity to use that gif again. There was also something to do with style in my thought process, but that thought seems to have up and left. That bastard!

My vote has two uses: figuring out who is or isn't scum (by forcing people to react to being one step closer to a lynch), and lynching those that I think are scum.

If I do not make it obvious why I'm voting someone, then that is because either:

1. I think that sharing my reasons
   at that time
   would alert scum to something that I'd rather they remain oblivious of, so they can keep playing poorly;
   
2. I'm more interested in determining someone's alignment than I am in convincing everyone else of my current read on them;
   
3. I had already voted for this person before, and don't have anything new to add about them. My vote is probably due to a changed read on someone else.

Similarly, if I unvote someone without much fanfare (which will be a large majority of the time), that means I'm still considering, to some degree, that they might be scum after all.
Unless I have an

Eureka!

moment where one of my scum reads does a full 180°, or a town read becomes significantly stronger, I'd rather let each player defend themselves instead.

1. With the exception of night action results for investigative roles like a cop, I can't think of anything that would fall into that category. If you don't want to explain to me what sorts of things you are talking about right now because you still want to keep them hidden from scum, maybe we could come back to this in postgame.
   
2. Couldn't you do this without use of a vote, at least to begin with? Give the players some stuff for them to respond to (such as the questions you asked me), and then if you think their responses aren't as townie as they should be,
   then
   put a vote on them. At that point, you have a reason to believe they deserve the vote, plus you can then compare the way they behave under pressure to the way they behave ... erm ... not under pressure.
   
3. OK, fair enough, although it would be nice if you at least alluded to the reasoning you already had on them or linked to the post with said reasoning to remind people of what the reasoning was. Still, if it was in an earlier post, people can always just check your ISO so ...

---

So since my last post, I've become conflicted on Untrod Tripod. On the one hand, I like how he tries to get people to explain themselves On the other hand, first he was terrible at explaining himself, then he got slightly better, but only slightly. I still don't believe there was any pro-town method behind the L-1 vote madness we had in the beginning and, given the fact that Untrod Tripod's name has a fancy colour, I can't believe that he's just an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. The most generous interpretation I can come up with for it is that he's a smart guy who was having an off moment and he's too pompous to admit that placing that vote was a bad move.

And yet, it could be worse.

I already expressed distaste about post 139 by prawneater, stating that the bunch of unexplained statements was part of a pattern of not explaining things. He's still only about as good at explaining things as the current Untrod Tripod, but unlike Untrod Tripod, prawneater has made only a token effort to get other people to explain themselves. It's as if he doesn't

want

stuff to be explained. As if he'd prefer a game where the town doesn't share reasoning among its members so that nobody can really get a feel for anyone's motivation. Which is a great climate for scum and a horrible one for town!

UNVOTE: Untrod Tripod
VOTE: prawneater

In the meantime, Marquis needs to start making himself useful with some more thoughts about the game besides a town read based on a single post. The fact that he replaced in and therefore needs to do some catching up is enough for me to give him some leeway for now, but apart from post 209 looking like he's expecting other people to do the catch-up work for him and post 231 where he gets a town read from a single post and can't even (be bothered to) explain why he gets a town read from it, he's done nothing but make empty promises.

I will move my vote to him in 24 hours unless he posts something of substance in that time period.

---

(justonemorething.gif)

Note that pro-town doesn't mean town and anti-town doesn't mean scum, it is just a method of defining how a player plays. Tripod plays anti-town and everything might get fucked up because of him, but he might be town and we probably shouldn't policy lynch him for his antics because at least he's active. What i'm trying to say is anti-towns aren't always scum. they are just harder to catch when they are scum, and so should be beaten with a giant stick until they behave.

pro town just means it advances a town wincon

antitown just means it hinders a town wincon

that's literally all it means

I have a question for both of you and for anyone else who agrees with these posts. Scum will try to do pro-town stuff because it makes them look more townie and thus they are less likely to get lynched, right? Well what's the townie's motivation to do anti-town stuff? If you can't answer that, then why, for all intents and purposes, should "anti-town" be treated any differently to "scummy"?

[Onion Bubs]

Lurkers annoy me greatly. day 1's are a great time to lynch all lurkers because it improves the rest of the game, and there's no information day 1 anyway, so they are just as likely to be scum as anyone else. I'm not sure our N0 start changes this. please don't lurk.

As town, it is to our benefit to force an environment in which all players act pro-town. Pro-town players express their ideas and post them in easy to use formats. They show how their suspicions change slowly over time and what changed their suspicions. They vote for people these suspicions point at. This is a healthy way to play as town, and so town should want to do it anyway. Scum don't want to play this way, because it limits their ability to get away with bullshit. By forcing them to play pro-town, it makes it easier to recognize their bullshit, and thus easier to catch.

I've been in enough games to know that there are just some idiot anti-town losers out there who choose to play anti-town regardless of alignment and continuously fuck the town over because they are idiots. We can't really get rid of them, and they are too dumb to learn to play better, and lynching them is only a short term solution because they'll just show up in the next game. Scummy actions are a subset of anti-town actions. Idiots who happen to be town and play anti-town perform, at least in hindsight, non-scummy anti-town actions. it is often hard to tell the difference though.

(agreementnod.gif)

Just one quick question: when you refer to lynching the idiot anti-town losers as a short term solution, how short term are you talking? Are you saying it would be a helpful thing to do for the duration of the current game, or are you saying it's only good for a brief moment of satisfaction when each idiot anti-town loser is eliminated from the game, or are you saying something else?

It also happens that Llama is pretty damn scummy. He keeps making these asserations that he's answered questions when he really hasn't. He doesn't justify his arguments and has seemingly random suspicions and town-reads. he's blendy and blendy is bad.

Not so sure about this bit. LlamaFluff's thought processes are clear as crystal from where I'm sitting and there doesn't seem to be a major inconsistency or anything. Unless there's something I'm not understanding in what I've just quoted.

[Onion Bubs]

so i was really really stupid and tried to go to the gym the first morning after an allnighter and with only starbucks in my system

i took a nap and just woke up and i'm still going back to sleep but this game takes full priority tonight kk? l8rg8rs

OK, I said I was gonna give you 24 hours, and I ended up giving you nearly double that (which I wish was part of a really crafty scum hunting plan), and this is what you give us?

UNVOTE: prawneater
VOTE: Marquis

Give us some substance or get lynched.

In the meantime, how are you getting that information Derangement? Every time I try to find out when someone last came onto the forums all I get is "Last visited: - "

[Onion Bubs]

Oh by the way that was L-1.

[Onion Bubs]

why are you bothering to vote for prawneater when you're expressing an interest to vote for Marquis with the game in its current state?

I'm not necessarily scumreading you, but that point reaaaaaaaaaaaally feels like coaching

I'll second the question, with sprinkles on top:
What was your reason for doing things the way you did, and

announcing

intent to vote later?

If you can, please explain why this is preferable to voting Marquis now, and moving your vote to Prawneater later if Marquis posts something to your liking.

I'm not sure which bit you two are asking about. Is it me placing the vote on prawneater, me being willing to move the vote to Marquis given certain circumstances, or me announcing that I would move my vote to Marquis in those circumstances?

• If it's the vote on prawneater, I viewed him as the scummiest player at the time and I already said why.
  
• If it's being willing to move the vote to Marquis, his lack of substance and his failed promises were iffy up to that point, but it would require him failing to make good on another promise for me to view him as the scummiest player. With the exception of my initial random vote on onion, my vote has always been on the player I think is scummiest and I don't have enough of a reason to change that.
  
• If it's me announcing my intention to move my vote to Marquis, it's partly because I was talking about the reads I was getting on certain people and my vote is relevant to my reads, and partly because I wanted to know if Marquis was actually going to be helpful and I figured applying some pressure would help me find out. I'd like to know why you think I should've kept it hidden.

A few people have argued for townies withholding stuff already but I remain unconvinced that withholding stuff is a good thing to do. Untrod Tripod's vague bullshit about the "long game" is missing the part where he explains how skilled scum would string me along and I checked the other posts in that block, Equinox's little piece underneath his quote of my post doesn't explain how withholding explanations when placing votes helps get a read off of someone, and I already addressed Derangement's post and since nothing was said in response to my response to his point a, I'm guessing he wants to wait until postgame to talk about that.

I'll look at the debate between Derangement and onion some time after my brain stops hurting from the combination of all of this and the passport office rejecting my renewal because of it not being completed in the boxed areas despite the fact that I did the application online so it couldn't have been outside the boxed areas. Not giving a specific time because my track record for that hasn't been good lately. If it helps, I studied propositional logic as a module at university and it was one of my best modules of the entire course.

No, there's no gifs in this post. I don't feel up to it right now.