Incog wrote:wut
Dizzy
:
Dizzy started off well, taking Ether's initial line of suspicion and applying it elsewhere - to where she thought it might be more applicable instead of towards Incog. There's no harm in piggybacking off of someone's logic if you agree with it, and the fact that she applied it beyond Ether's scope means that she wasn't just being a drone. The fact that she didn't necessarily agree with my camn suspicions (I only saw her agreeing with the fact that camn was actually responsible for backing up her claims in 32) shows that she was able to distinguish between initial D1 logic - once more, not being a drone/copy cat/etc.
Incog's criticism of "taking things seriously" fell flat with a good explanation from Dizzy. Her continued explanation of her Skitz opinion/vote looked solid to me. Incog's "Dizzy isn't scumhunting" was pretty random, since there were several players who, by page four, didn't look like they were scum hunting - some with less activity than Dizzy. The most apt criticism at this point in time would be playing a bit conservative, but as long as the player is focusing on legitimate discussion points then there isn't really much to fault for that kind of play on page four.
Dizzy has been asked very similar questions by different players at different points in the game (e.g., re: my initial heated discussion with camn, re: her initial Skitz observation, re: her initial Skitz vote). I find her responses to be consistent (thus, leans to the notion that she isn't lying), rationale and believable. And apt, as per her 105 comment towards charter. Over all, while I think she has been conservative in the sense that she hasn't gone all out in terms of the breadth of her (voiced) suspicions, it's clear that there are some reasonable wheels turning about in that head of hers. All the points made against her have been interesting but dismissed, poor and easily dismissed or off the mark and easily dismissed. The fact that they keep coming up leads me to believe that it's entirely possible one of these other players are scum looking to see if there is an easy lynch due to some Dizzy hate. And, while it's possible that her hesitation to make a case against another player is that she's scum not wanting to throw her chips in to a potentially ruinous argument, I think her posts show that she's willing to make a stand. Which leads me to believe that she just doesn't want to make a mistake. While this eventually might cripple her ability to play well at all - for fear of an almost entirely inevitable mislynch/case against a town in high doses is toxic to the town - I can't fault her (nor see how anyone else can) for conservative play while we're still in the single digits of pages for the game.
Ether
:
I'll preface this with I go into games with certain players I already know/know of through observation with a predetermined mindset of "town until proven scum." While this group isn't very large, there are a couple in this game. Ether is one of them. Therefore, she started out this game as "slightly protown" for me. This has nothing to do with anything with their meta, or about how I perceive them as a player/person, except for the fact that the way they analyze players in a game is (what I find to be) analytical and easy for me to read, because that is - by and large - how my mind operates with approaching mafia. So, I usually slide them a bit towards the town side until I see some major BS in a faulty/scum attack on town, because that's where I would be able to find a scum slip from them - and I feel confident enough that I would catch such a slip.
Anyways. Ether started out pretty great with going straight to business. This is almost always a good thing, regardless of how weak the support may be - it's mostly through reactions and the occasional slip-up that the fruit of the labor of initial D1 suspicions can be gleaned. Her "weakens but doesn't counter" line when shown with evidence to the contrary of her thinking was pretty meh and didn't fly with me. And then the fact that she made a mere obligatory nod towards Skitz (42) was off-putting, since one of the reasons Incog's evidence was weak and not countering was because she couldn't imagine who else could have had such limited access. It made her look like she was just looking for an excuse to harass Incog or that she didn't think her point of attack had any lasting weight (regardless of to whom it was directed) but didn't want to own up to it or that she didn't want any attention to fall on Skitz.
I originally thought it to be option number two, but when she questioned my FOS on Skitz (76), which I thought to be entirely reasonable, it had a bit of a strange conjunction with her previously ignoring Skitz. I also didn't like her "I'm going to blatantly fencesit" and not comment upon some going ons that ended 76, as if it was a taunt towards my FOS. It missed its mark. (My FOS was for Skitz trying to look like he agreed with everyone, not that he couldn't make up his mind; any mislabeling of "fence sitting" is easily cleared up through the definition given with the FOS.) But, the next time she posts she's back up to form - asking probing questions and suggesting her own suspicions. What I find interesting, however, is that it isn't until here at 113 why we see she didn't pursue Skitz after her early basis of attack.
Regardless, Ether has provided active and useful posts, when they're being made. The content is usually helpful to continue the thread's flow of conversation, and it doesn't look like she's trying to post without saying anything. What I find to be most suspicious is that she seems distracted and isn't paying that much attention to the game. While this isn't necessarily an alignment issue, it does give her a cover for her increasingly infrequent posts. But, it's entirely possible this is just a hiccup in her activity level. Therefore, I find her to be leaning town.
OGML wrote:They both seem town, and this kind of town-town debate threatens to totally muffle anything else for the rest of the day, leaving us with a lot of nothing to work with, and providing a big fat shield for the real scum to hide behind.
Do you think the mod's
deadline is so close that the rest of the day will be dominated by the GC/X argument?
I do, however, agree that we (that is, X and myself) have gotten too interested in the details. I'm more than happy to argue a point by point basis as seen on the previous page, but I'm of the opinion that it does more to muddy the waters than to clear them for outside observers - thus, much more harmful than good. Be that as it may, I still hold firm in my suspicions of X, but am hoping/expecting the thread to move along before we call it quits for the day.
"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).
