In post 460, Zdenek wrote:Tammy, The posts that I quoted show you questioning other people's attacks on people. The issue with this is that by doing that, you are softly defending the people who are under attack. At best this is antitown because you are reducing the pressure on the people under attack without actually committing to saying that you think they are town, and at worst it is scummy because should one of these people end up being lynched and flipping town, you can garner credibility for having defended them. So the issue isn't that you were asking questions, it's the sort of questions that you were asking consistently while not taking stances on very few things.
There's also no contradiction between me thinking that you were being aggressively unhelpful by questioning people's arguments against others and that you were being overly cautious by not voting. They are both things that were doing and both scummy (and for that matter, not voting at this stage of the game is really unhelpful).
Hmmm...Either you are purposefully twisting things or we're having a misunderstanding? I'm not defending anyone. When I do defend someone, it's not lightly veiled in the sort of way you're trying to suggest. I question or attack just as equally obvious as I defend. I don't put little underhanded hints in questions that I can take credit for later. My questions are completely straightforward; I'm asking exactly what I want to know, and I'm not going to stop asking questions.
I also don't drum up support for a wagon I might want to hop into by asking said person questions, that's how I evaluate them and make a determination of them. If I want to start a wagon on someone I do it, and I really don't care about what support I might or might not get.
Looking over what you quoted...
Question 1 - I take you think I'm defending RT by asking LMP what about his posts is screaming scum? My question isn't defending RT at all. I'm trying to get a better idea of LMP and what he regards as scum reads. My follow up question to LMP regarding the RT conversation, there was a quote that I had a thought about and wanted to see what his was.
Question 2 - I don't know who you think I'm defending. That question was to Greenknight on why he changed his vote. It was also after he told me he was surprised you were voting with him because you suspected him in the last thread. It prompted me to go back to the last thread to see what he was talking about, in which I found that he had been suspecting you, but dropped it. I wondered why.
Question 3 - Again, don't know who you think I'm defending. Am I defending shadow1 by the question? I asked GNR if he had any other suspicion besides the vote change. I'm trying to make up my mind on both of these people.
Question 4 - You think I'm defending Norman I suppose? Not so, I'm again trying to get a sense of LMP and what he regards as scum tells.
There is no reducing pressure to anyone to ask questions. Again, the questions I asked were completely valid, didn't come close to defending anyone softly or otherwise, and don't give me anything in regards to credibility for defending anyone. All they do succeed in doing is give me a way to evaluate them. So, um, yeah, don't know how much more clear I can be about that.
Eh, yeah, I'm asking questions to help me form what stances I will take. It's Wednesday. The game just rebooted Sunday? I came in on Monday. I haven't had a chance to reread the old thread carefully, other than to check for consistency or to ask the questions about the old thread that I did. You are able to come up with stances that quickly? Good for you. I'm actually a bit more deliberative, and I need to interact with people before I can even begin to form an opinion of them.
But LOL that it's scummy to ask questions and a bigger LOL that it's scummy that I haven't stuck a vote on someone yet. Voting practices are not good indicators of alignment at all, it has more to do with personality and how people play than anything. Besides, scum knowing that the good mafia fundies are going to call them out for not voting, tend to make sure to follow the herd and vote for someone they can easily get away with to avoid the "your vote is your voice...if you're not voting, you're not helping" speech. If I were scum, I have several people I could have easily already stuck my vote on to make sure to blend in.
I then wouldn't be having this conversation, because I'd be being helpful...or would I? Is it more helpful for me to vote before I know who I want to vote for and jump all over the place as I change my mind by the minute/hour/day? Or is it just as likely that the game will go on satisfactorily with me voting tomorrow or Friday when I feel better about my vote? (The truth is I am a bit of a cautious voter. I'm working on it and once spent an entire game holding onto my vote until I hammered or near hammered each day at deadline - yep as an innocent and I didn't get one vote speech that game at all. I'm not one of those vote hoppers, so either I vote early and park it or take my time, especially when there are several people who are suspicious.)
I don't know...the "you must have a vote on at all times" is rather silly as far as I'm concerned, and I can be just as helpful to the game, if not more, by generating conversation. The idea that people will only answer questions or interact if a vote is pressuring them to doesn't hold up to experience. And if I do find it's true, I have no problem placing a pressure vote. One thing I do like though are those who use the voting lecture as a means of appearing active.
Regardless, I'm pretty stubborn, so either you can accept that I'm helpful by asking questions and evaluating people and will vote on my own time, or you can harp on it - that will only make me dig my heels in though and probably delay the vote I said will come in a day or two.
I've played a bard before and was anything but useless.