1.)
VitaminR, I understand your point of view just fine -- you feel that MafiaSSK was obviously outclassed trying to argue theory against myself, Seol, and potentially LoudmouthLee. But your point of view is simply
not workable
.
The fact that we all had the same "theory"-based issue with MafiaSSK is neither a reason to think Seol, myself, or LoudmouthLee are scum,
nor
is it a reason to think MafiaSSK is Town. If anything, it should be expected that if somebody espouses a bad theory in a game filled with "Oldies" that they are going to be taken to task for it. And if the player with a bad theory is considered "weak," they are necessarily going to appear to be outclassed.
While you accuse me of not trying to understand your vote or intentions,
you
(and others) have tried to compact both my and Seol's vote on MafiaSSK to being based on theory. If you read our posts, while theory
was
an initial springboard in-part, it was not (and is not) the crux of
either
of our arguments. The question is why he claims to have that theory (e.g., is he being honest?, does he actually believe it?, has he applied it sensibly?, is he overstating himself?, is he willing to amend his theory?). I can assume that everybody here has some elements of mafia theory that I would disagree with. But here, the circumstances surrounding MafiaSSK's theory all suggest to me a scum mentality more than a true Town mentality.
2.)
Glork and VitaminR, please explain how my LoudmouthLee vote is "opportunistic" and why this "opportunism" is scummy.
I have been biting my tongue on LoudmouthLee for a while, but his Vote Count Analysis (apparently made to rekindle interest in the game after the crash) has so little worthwhile analysis that I can draw no conclusions beyond that he is acting busy in the hopes it makes him look Town.
At what point would it
not
be "opportunistic" of me to vote LoudmouthLee?
3.)
In post 428, Glork wrote:I am genuinely curious to know why people think LML went through the VC analysis to try to frame/jump on someone who hadn't had any attention whatsoever. Yeah, he lacked context as PJ indicated, but I'm really really really not seeing the connect between what LML did and an actual scum motivation. PJ's vote also feels in that opportunistic category. There's not a lot going on, and people might be feeling antsy after the downtime, so why not punish LML?
In post 436, Glork wrote:Hey Yos, since you're here, what motivation do you see for scum-LML parking his vote on UT?
FoS: Glork
This is striking me as purposefully framing an issue in a particular light instead of the correct light. I do not believe any person who voted for LoudmouthLee based on his ultimate choice of vote (Untrod Tripod) -- the concern was the manner and (lack of) analysis that led him to it.
The burden is not on us to figure out why LoudmouthLee would vote for Untrod Tripod.
LoudmouthLee has already taken some heat, as you concede by suggesting people are "riding the tides to an easy lynch." To alleviate such heat, scum are going to want to look productive and Townish. LoudmouthLee's post looks designed
precisely
for that purpose, substituting work for scumhunting. I do not get the impression he is actually trying to figure out players' alignments. He is pushing names into an Excel document and focusing on the outliers in one direction (lots of vote changing) but not the other direction (lack of vote changing).
Skimming LoudmouthLee's posts in the Mountainous game Yosarian2 linked to, I get the same impression. In the linked game, LoudmouthLee asked pointed questions and dissected others' opinions. In
this
game he largely argues with people attacking him, and now that he has put forth his own analysis on the game it is devoid of in-game context.
4.)
In post 423, LoudmouthLee wrote:c) Here's a really great question for you, PJ (and Yos, and EVERYONE ELSE ON THE POLICY KICK), why Nat, and not any of the other players that hadn't moved their votes? Because Nat was being adversarial. Was stirring the pot. Was angering people. You say policy. I say VI. I think, somewhere in the middle, we're both right.
This is far from a great question. Natirasha was being deliberately and abrasively unhelpful. He refused to read the game upon replacing in, and then rather than contributing posted merely that he was "lurking." In short, he was not playing the game, nor was he even making an appearance of playing the game. Players like that do not belong in games. Had I been on-line I would have gladly voted for him to force him into either contributing or replacing out. Feel free to add me as temporarily changing my vote to Natirasha in your Vote Count Analysis if it would help.
