GC's Big Post of Fun Time Goodness
(Aka: Why aren't you voting Xdaamno yet - with limited GC vs. X textwall bullshit!)
I'm tired of people continually pointing out suspicious things Xdaamno is doing but not putting a vote on him. The current deadline is five days from now and I want people to start thinking seriously about a X lynch. These are the three main issues I have had with his play. I've tried to trim this down to be as least eye bleeding as possible.
Point One: Bad Patrick Attack
His initial post was crap and he was called out by Yos on his lack of contribution. Solution? Come up with a completely
contrived point of suspicion against Patrick!
Synposis of attack
(feel free to check his original post and determine if you disagree with me):
Patrick is making stuff up that doesn't actually interest him (I think the assumption is because scum don't get interested in things?) because 1. Patrick operates differently than X and 2. Patrick's natural phraseology is suspicious. (Did you just throw up in your mouth a little bit? Because I did.)
Patrick
responds to these two points:
1. Patrick pretty much rips to shreds X's really bad logic by explaining A) X's assertions of the facts are actually false (*cough*lies*cough*) B) explains the motivation and thought process behind the original questioning and C) questions why X thinks this reasonable/relevant line of questioning is unreasonable/irrelevant.
2. Patrick says his natural phraseology is going to stick around.
Now, stop. What would be the response you would expect to see in reply by X? Maybe a comment about why X feels his suspicions were warrented? Maybe a response to Patrick's question why X felt like Patrick's OGML comments were manufactured? Heh. That's what you would think.
Instead, we
get X completely ignoring any sort of follow up to the meat of this thread (why he suspected Patrick in the first place) with a "town reaction" handwave. He also throws in that he wasn't asking Patrick to change his phraseology. Phraseology that led him to suspect Patrick. Because he
likes when people commit actions he deems to be scummy so he can lynch them later. Even though X made it clear that this sort of action would clash with his town reads from Patrick. Sounds like to me a good test run of an excuse to go after Patrick at a later date without having to put too much vested interest in it at this point in time. At no point in time did I see X defend the actual content of his original post whose alleged "intent" was to gauge the reaction of Patrick (e.g. it was a crap reason to go after Patrick and, knowing this, he didn't talk an iota about it).
Please note, after this failed attempt at heaping suspicion upon another player, X went into full scum-safety mode (see Point Three for more detail).
Point Two: Hypocritical Mafia Theory Argument
to X, "Top Three's are misleading." And, in fact - they're completely useless! Because, "If you want to know what [X thinks], look at [X's] posts." All you need to do is just look at his posts and apparently his suspicions are super easy to discern! My issue with this is threefold:
1. Let's take X at his word and look back at his posts, then, shall we?
15 out of X's 25 posts prior to this claim deal with him either directly discussing or explaining his interactions with GC (who he
finds to be town) or Patrick (who has
given him town/null vibes). The remainder are inconsequential. To underline this point of not actually voicing suspicions, one just needs to look at X's sixth post prior to him making the "Top Threes are misleading; just look at my posts" claim: He
says that nothing has caught his attention up to that point (no surprise). In his following five posts he suggests a null opinion of Yos' timing of the claim and dismissing the WIFOM of the suggestion scum wouldn't claim miller (hint: no definitive suspicions voiced). Wowzers! So where are these completely and totally obvious suspicions?
2. I'm not the only one to notice this.
Incog calls him out on this very issue. X conveniently
ignores
misses it.
Patrick calls him out on this very issue. X conveniently
ignores
misses it.
Yos calls him out on this very issue. X
side steps and gives a complete crap response that amounts to "If you are right then I am wrong. I know what you are saying is right. However, I am not wrong!" Logic defying bull.
3. My third issue is that X attacks the Top Three not in an attempt to hunt scum, or even to argue the merits of a Top Three in terms of how it might hurt/help the mafia (as Dizzy did). Nope. His argument boiled down is that he finds Top Threes to be aesthetically displeasing. After what started as criticism of a Top Three as being misleading, X finally drives home his real
point: Top Threes are "misleading" because they have the potential to split up a big huge post of named suspicious players and the cause behind that suspicion into two smaller posts, one containing named suspicious players and the other containing reasoning behind that suspicion. Yes, that's right. X tried to argue that Top Threes are misleading because the composition of a hypothetical post is not in the format he likes to read.
Point Three: No Helpful Contribution
· Please find me a post that indicates who X suspects. You won't. Unless if you count the joke post
388. I don't. He's 1) said that he thinks Patrick is town and 2) hasn't said a damned thing about why he thinks OGML is suspicious.
· Please find me a post that X is actively contributing to hunting scum. You'll be hard pressed to do so - if it isn't abundantly pure talk (and no walk), it's in some gray area where he can claim he's just putting out feelers. Or attempting to gauge reactions. Or something incredibly passive so he can worm his way around this criticism.
· New Mini-Game: Try to find all the times X side-steps, shifts or blatantly ignores things that criticize or are asked of him!
· Why hasn't X been trying to "gauge reactions" of other players like he did Patrick? Apart from Patrick, there has only been his blatant
role fishing from OGML that he described as an attempt to "investigate OGML's alignment." Yes, I suppose that
is
an accurate description of what he was doing: once you determine someone's role, you'll have a pretty good idea of the alignment! X got a stiff dose of reality when his (bad) Patrick attack failed miserably. The spotlight shined severely, and he felt the burn. Since then he's been keeping his head low because he - as any other scum - doesn't want needless attention on him.
· Why didn't X criticize the specific Top Three lists that were formulated by different players? Because it requires making a practical use of his bad theory argument.
All of these things, when added up (and feel free to just filter his posts, you'll see them in full effect), make him a vocal observer of this game. He isn't playing it, he's floating by. This is like one step above active lurking - he's constantly here, he just isn't providing any legitimate content to the thread. It's the perfect safe play by scum: Stay clear of lurker labels. Be vocal about inconsequential aspects of conversation. Ignore criticism. Above all, don't getting pinned down on any definitive point that can come to bite you in your scummy butt a day cycle or two down the road. X is a slimy scumball. He deserves votes.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
