Now, to answer alex's questions from Day 2 without disclosing my role and without going into things that could lead there:
alexhans wrote:1) Calling everyone not to hammer but not unvoting yourself?
I had no reason to unvote. If someone hammered in the face of a request not to do so for a brief period of time, that would tell us a lot. I said that I had to reread a specific thing and rethink a specific thing, so I wanted time to do that, but I saw no need to unvote, since anyone who hammered in that time would have been pretty hard pressed to explain why they did so.
alexhans wrote:2) Your post (the long ones) have a tendency to describe what happened and giving opinions, instead of making cases. That's a good way to pretend to be scumhunting but not doing anything in truth and leaning on others. You don't ask questions. Care to explain your attitude?
I disagree with your characterization, since my reading, my expressed opinions and my continuous analysis of what people post is my way of scum hunting. When I say that player A did X, which leads me to think Y, while you may characterize it as merely an opinion, I consider it scumhunting, as it adds to the body of thoughts, opinions, and evidence that the group can draw upon. This game is not only about "making cases" - it's about information, ideas, opinions, persuasion, etc. and let's face it, unless scum screws up royally or the town otherwise gets really lucky, there are rarely any strong cases to be made in the early going. So, the way I see it, posting one's thoughts, ideas, and opinions is a good way of contributing to the collective wealth of information that can be drawn upon later. As for "asking questions", I think there's a bit of a false (and potentially dangerous) over-reliance on the suggestion that scumhunting=asking questions. This leads to lots of players asking pointless and meaningless questions, for the sake of wanting to appear as though they are scumhunting, when they really aren't. It leads to players asking pointless and meaningless questions about things like using the word, "plenty", for instance, just to look like they are doing something, because if the accepted wisdom is that asking questions=scumhunting, you end up with a big heap of pointless and meaningless questions instead of relevant and meaningful content. I prefer to ask pointed questions when pointed questions are called for, and I prefer not to ask meaningless questions for the sake of appeasing someone else's preconceived notion of "scumhunting".
If anything, I find that people who ask multiple pointless and meaningless questions are more likely to be pretending to be scumhunting while actually trying to just skate along, than those who post their take on things and their opinions on things. But, to each his own. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I try to utilize my strengths as any given situation requires. E.g.: my analytical approach works best for me, as I find it is often more advantageous to post my opinions and my take on things to add to the collective body of thoughts and opinions, while possibly keeping some of my thoughts to myself if I think that they will be of more value to the collective later, when further events either support my initial thoughts or detract from my initial thoughts. As another example, if I think I've spotted a breadcrumb, I will not point it out immediately if I think that doing so would be detrimental, but instead I will keep it to myself until such time as it becomes beneficial to the town to do so.
I am not one to ask a long list of questions for the sake of asking questions. Rather, the way I play depends upon the game, my role, the other players, and the overall feel I get from any particular game and its players.
alexhans wrote:3)Always you went with the more common cases (I mean the ones who were on the spotlight) and didn't comment on others.
Not true. When I first replaced in, I gave my views of the game to date. After that, I voiced my views on who I thought was scummiest and did not go further down my suspect list, because I believe that this is an appropriate way to play. And it works for me. I think I'm getting better at picking out scum the more I play, although I am far from infallible.
alexhans wrote:4)You pushed Panzer's lynch and later said you needed a re-read? again,Why not just unvoted to give you time? It appears like actions to appear cautious.
Not true. Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. I said I wanted to reread and rethink a particular thing, which I did.
If I wanted to "appear cautious", I would have unvoted him. I had no reason to unvote him, and I had no reason to want to "appear cautious". [Aside: Alex, you unvoted Panzer when he was at L-1. Did you do so to "appear cautious"? The fact that you suggested this, in light of your own behaviour, suggests that you did.] I said that I needed to reread and rethink a specific thing, and I asked that nobody hammer while I did that. I had no need to unvote him because (a) I had very good reason to believe that he was lying about his claim (which he was), and (b) something else twigged with me just before I was heading out for a family event and I wanted to look back at that particular part of the thread before Panzer was hammered, because there was the potential that it might lead me to post something, prior to Panzer's lynch, about the other issue that I twigged to just before I headed out.
I had no intention of backing off from voting for him because he deserved to be lynched for his scummy play and his obvious lie. His actions were not those of a townie, at all. I just wanted a short period of time in order to reread and rethink a specific thing, but that wouldn't have changed my vote. It would only have dictated whether or not I would post something else about the other issue that I wanted to revisit before Panzer was lynched. And, as I said above, if someone had chosen to hammer him in the face of a specific request not to do so, especially since it was a very short-term request, that would have given us even more information to work with, so there was no real risk involved and no reason for me unvote him.
alexhans wrote:So, no one has asked you this but... What info did we gain with his lynch?
Is this a serious question? Every lynch wagon gives us information to analyze, even though it may not become apparent until later in the game. For instance, assuming that there is at least one scum on Wall-e's wagon, that means there is scum among Steph, Ryan and Zach. And, assuming that at least one scum studiously avoided being on his wagon, that means there is scum among Alex, Lester, and Ash. Then look at the Panzer wagon and, assuming that there is at least one scum on the Panzer wagon, that means there is scum among Steph, Ryan, Zach and Lester. And assuming that at least one scum studiously avoided being on his wagon, that means there is scum among Alex and Ash.
Putting those together, along with analyzing the posts from the entire game, there's some pretty useful information and some pretty good likelihoods to be garnered about who is scum.
alexhans wrote:You think all this is pro-town play?
Absolutely, yes.
Regards,
Jazz
