Alright, I'll respond to this post as it's going to lose its relevance if I put it off till tomorrow:
In post 91, Collatz wrote:Why would scum switch their vote? I don't know. But I also can't see Town switching their vote. In fact, I find it less likely for Town to switch their vote simply because the will not want to stand out in any way.
So by now we've established that Collatz doesn't know how my actions were scummy.
Apparently his view is
that town has a
stronger
desire to not stand out than scum. This is the opposite of what is actually (or
should
actually) be the case.
Now, the case is absurd, and Collatz is slowly collapsing as this is pushed. However, I think this might hint at him being a newer player being an issue here, with a lacking understanding of the game nuances. I can see a newer player jumping on something suspicious without considering whether it is actually likely to come from scum. I'm not letting Collatz off the hook, but it's a perspective that must be considered.
In post 91, Collatz wrote:As for what scum would stand to gain from it I, again, do not know. The whole thing has kind of confused me but when it happened used it as an oppurtunity to try and get some information early in the game. As for why I still think your are scummy it's because of your vote on BBT and because of the way you voted for me once I called you out on your vote hopping and voted for you because of it
Regarding the last part, I did justify my vote as Alchemist's response being "a hilariously brilliant explanation." At this stage everything was naturally a bit tongue in cheek as it was the first page of the game.
Collatz' explanation here though is something
I do not like
. Read through his iso and you'll find that he spent the beginning talking about how it was so scummy, bla bla bla. When I started pushing, he says:
In post 81, Collatz wrote:(...) at the early stages of a game where there isn't much info I treated it as more of a scum move than town move.
Turns out, this (#91) is the first and only place he references voting me to gather information. I find it suspicious how related to my own talk of information gathering in #
70. He seems to be feeding off that notion. And he doesn't even stick to it, going back to it being suspicious behavior soon enough:
In post 103, Collatz wrote:The argument of it putting pressure on multiple people really isn't valid when the votes happened so quickly that the voted person didn't have a time to see the post, let alone respond. By votehoping so quickly he removed any kind of pressure he could have put on the people he was voting for which defeats the purpose of the hop in the first place.
Am I the only one who finds this to be suspiscous?
Sorry about the long post.
Tl;dr: Collatz flipflops between explanations and looks for something to stick. Also, read the goddamn post.
