WolfBlitzer's prolonged absence in the face of my suspicion is mighty convenient for him. He seems to have dropped off of everybody's radar altogether.
---
fhqwhgads wrote:Ice9 wrote:I do find it interesting that Red Coyote is trying to cover for him.
I think this is a bit of a reach.
And I think that's an easy way to try and smear me without explaining your thought process whatsoever.
---
Lynx The Antithesis wrote:He basically goes against Ice's whole reason for his vote, and simply joins the wagon anyway. Then later tossing in the "spark discussion" doesn't help his case either.
This pretty well sums up the issues people seem to have with budja for his vote, which I agree with.
---
budja wrote:I didn't realise Ice was being serious on his suspicion, maybe more serious than a complete random vote but not much. It was page 2!
It was page 2! is not a valid excuse. Is there an arbitrary number of pages that have to be produced before votes can be considered serious? If so, I didn't get the memo.
---
Spolium wrote:Goatrevolt wrote:The things I'm suspicious of are:
1. That he voted a target in expectation of later seeing scum tells rather than based off of something he thought was scummy.
2. When I questioned him on 1, he responded that he was just trying to spark discussion, which is completely different reasoning than above.
I really don't see this big difference you keep talking about. If there's more discussion taking place then there's more opportunity for scum to slip up, so prompting discussion is more likely to lead to a scumtell than not doing so (as you said yourself, drawing town out of the random phase is essentially pro-town).
The only thing which really bothered me was the fact that Budja's announcement of his intentions was indeed counter-productive, and despite this move being anti-town it doesn't exactly follow that it was a
scummy
move. Frankly, I'd expect scum to take more care in avoiding this.
Holy alarm bells, Batman! Why are you trying to minimize damage for budja? Both of you are labeling what he claims to have been trying to do ("move us out of the random stage") as generically pro-town, which is a silly idea in the first place because if that is always considered pro-town then the scum will just
do that
to get brownie points, but at least goat broke down the flaws in budja's actions and pointed out the possible scum motivation for them. You just blandly agree with the assessment that trying to end the random stage is pro-town while trying to get goat to drop the rest of his argument. And then you go on about how budja is being anti-town but not scummy... uh, what? Could there be a more perfect way to try and get your scumbuddy off the hook? And the last line is just a WIFOM mess. You're saying budja can't be scum because scum wouldn't be so sloppy. Yeah right.
Spolium wrote:Goatrevolt wrote:Secondly, what kind of discussion did you anticipate your vote would spark?
I'm not sure that this is a fair question. When trying to provoke discussion, it's impossible to determine exactly
what
sort of discussion is going to arise (particularly so in a game where everyone is second-guessing themselves/others, and scum are waiting to pounce on any careless townie).
In order to answer your question, Budja would have to blindly speculate about what
might
arise from a provocative vote, and such speculation would be easy to criticise. I mean, what answer could Budja give you here which you would even accept as valid?
And you just keep going on the budja cover-up, fielding a question for him by means of trying to get it disqualified. What you've essentially said here is that budja can't answer this question without implicating himself, so he shouldn't answer it at all.
FoS: Spolium
---
Goatrevolt wrote:When I asked him about that, he backed off into the more general: "just trying to spark discussion." To me, that rings of him knowing his original reasons were bogus and so he fell back to "trying to generate discussion" which has the connotation of being a pro-town play.
These were my thoughts almost exactly as I read through the same section.
---
Budja wrote:Goatrevolt wrote:"That he voted a target in expectation of later seeing scum tells rather than based off of something he thought was scummy."
I don't see anything wrong with this, this is no worse than a random vote. The fault I made was to declare the vote was pretty meaningless. People's responses when votes are placed on them are a large part (IMO) of finding scumtells.
I disagree with you on this point. My fault was not my action but the fact I openly displayed my reason. Saying a vote is for pressure reduces the pressure and makes the vote meaningless,
that was poor playing I did there
, I will admit that.
Sparking discussion and seeking scumtells are not fundamentally different reasons and I did have both in mind.
This is just a big pile of lame excuses. You were playing poorly, so we're expected to just let you off the hook?
---
Spolium wrote:Don't get me wrong - I'd like to see a fuller explanation from Budja too. I'm just aware of the fact that he made plays like this as a townie in another game; he seemed to be wishy-washy and vague, was the prime suspect for an entire day, came ridiculously close to a lynching and ended up being the guy who zeroed in on the scum.
So what you're trying to tell me is that budja looks scummy but he's actually secretly the best player we have so we shouldn't lynch him. Well, at least you're getting creative in your protection now.
---
Goatrevolt wrote:I'm going to keep/upgrade my random vote on Springlullaby, because I know she's posting in other games, but she's avoided this one. I feel like I'm getting bogged down in the minor details with Budja. I need to step back and assess the big picture and see if his actions really make him likely to be scum or not.
Your hesitance to pull the trigger on your, in my opinion, well thought out and presented Budja case has me a bit confused. After all the effort you went through, debating with Budja and Spolium, you'd really rather go on a lurker hunt? Am I missing something here?
---
Preview Window Edit: I agree with everything Goat just said in regards to fhq.
FoS: fhqwhgads
---
Unvote, Vote: Budja