Mini 904 - Narnia: LWW Mafia (Game Over)

[kikuchiyo]

Meh, I'm not seeing the RBT case. He's been opportunistic with his vote, sure, and he hasn't contributed too much, but there are plenty of people who play like that when town.

@kiku, is the above post the main reason for your vote on snail?

No. I have asked evilsnail to explain what he meant by "oppurutnistic". He has failed to do so. Aside from his RVS vote, RBT voted four times. Twice for you and twice for Starbuck. I would like evilsnail to explain why he characterized this pattern as "oppurtunistic" and why oppurtunistic voting is

not

considered scummy. My vote on snail is mostly because his case on Narninian looked good on first read, but didn't match up with my own iso read on Narn. I can elaborate on that, but I would like some answers from snail.

[evilsnail]

This is the strawman. I did not vote you for any misrep.

A strawman is a kind of misrepresentation and it is not what I did. Strawmanning is deliberately portraying someone's point of view or argument inaccurately to make it sound weaker. Calling RBT's behaviour "opportunistic" is not that, because it's not weaker than HH's or your descriptions.

I called his behaviour opportunistic merely to describe the behaviour of voting without contributing. That is opportunistic, because it means taking advantage of the scumhunting other people have been doing to find justification for your vote.

No. The vote for you is because my iso read of Narninian reveals a much more clear and concise pattern of thought than your "case" presents. The fact that you seemed to give RBT a "pass" was just icing on the cake.

Okay, that was not clear to me. I thought you were just voting me because of my comment about RBT. Then please point out where exactly you think I'm wrong about Narninian.

Note that I did not give RBT a "pass." If something substantial turns up or someone points why it would be advantageous to RBT-scum to be lurkish, then his behaviour takes on a new significance. On its own, however, I don't think it merits a vote.

Do you have any other suspects?

You. On my first read, you were one of my top suspects, actually (mainly for your interaction with Starbuck), but then I thought your behaviour Day 2 was pretty townish so I let it go. But your "case" against me here feels a lot like someone trying to create suspicion where there is none, so I'm starting to reevaluate.

Other than that, I had a case on wolframnhart, but I can't remember why. It's in my notes on my laptop, but I left that at my parents.

[kikuchiyo]

A strawman is a kind of misrepresentation and it is not what I did. Strawmanning is deliberately portraying someone's point of view or argument inaccurately to make it sound weaker. Calling RBT's behaviour "opportunistic" is not that, because it's not weaker than HH's or your descriptions.

We don't have the same definition of "strawman". Strawmanning is focusing on the weaker part of an argument and drawing attention away from the more important issues.

For instance: "Hey, that black guy stole my car!"

Strawman: "Do you have something against black people?"

The real point at issue is the stolen car. By focusing on the "race" part of the statement, one is strawmanning. I called your argument a "strawman" because you seem to be placing more importance on the RBT comment and less on the fact that Narninian's iso is not as bad as you make it look imo.

I called his behaviour opportunistic merely to describe the behaviour of voting without contributing. That is opportunistic, because it means taking advantage of the scumhunting other people have been doing to find justification for your vote.

I don't like this answer. your initial post implied two characteristics regarding RBT's play. Now you are using one to define the other.

He's been opportunistic with his vote, sure,

and

he hasn't contributed too much, but there are plenty of people who play like that when town.

He's oppurtunistic and hasn't contributed. Now you are defining "oppurtunistic" as voting without contribution. By this definition, your original statement could read something like this:

RBT is voting without contributing, and he hasn't contributed much.

Sounds kind of silly, which is why I questioned you on it.

Okay, that was not clear to me. I thought you were just voting me because of my comment about RBT. Then please point out where exactly you think I'm wrong about Narninian.

I already did my iso read of Narninian, but if need be, I can pbpa your post. That will take time. I'd like to have other opinions on the matter before I post. There are too many players in the shadows at this point.

Note that I did not give RBT a "pass." If something substantial turns up or someone points why it would be advantageous to RBT-scum to be lurkish, then his behaviour takes on a new significance. On its own, however, I don't think it merits a vote.

So, you don't think on a day 1 when town is deciding between three town targets(two confirmed) that "lurkish" behavior is scummy? We have three flips and an uncounterclaimed power role. What benefit did scum have to be involved at all? Also, what was scummy about my behavior?

[evilsnail]

Well, a strawmanning is usually defined as I defined it. And what you're defining it as is still a form of misrepresentation. But anyway.

The real point at issue is the stolen car. By focusing on the "race" part of the statement, one is strawmanning. I called your argument a "strawman" because you seem to be placing more importance on the RBT comment and less on the fact that Narninian's iso is not as bad as you make it look imo.

It was not clear to me that you were voting me for my Narninian vote, as I've said. I'll address that part of your case, but you haven't said anything substantial about it.

I don't like this answer. your initial post implied two characteristics regarding RBT's play. Now you are using one to define the other.

It's just a word. I didn't give it that much thought. I still don't see how this is at all scummy. On your interpretation of my post, it just undermines what I then proceed to say.

So, you don't think on a day 1 when town is deciding between three town targets(two confirmed) that "lurkish" behavior is scummy? We have three flips and an uncounterclaimed power role. What benefit did scum have to be involved at all? Also, what was scummy about my behavior?

It could be scummy if you could show me that RBT is normally very active. Otherwise, there are plenty of people who lurk as town.

[Narninian]

Discussion is awfully slow today.

Evilsnail main contribution so far has been to vote for me and back up that vote based on my actions on day 1. Obviously this biases me towards him, because I felt my actions on day 1 were right given the information we had. The only other thing I thought of doing was pushing bv310 to claim - which wouldn't have helped anything (unless it was a vigilante that killed the loves, but that would be too much of a coincidence I think to have scum role blocked and vigilante mis-kill on the same night) .

That said bandwagoning snail would be rewarding the lurkers - I want to hear more from everyone else.

Vote: wolframnhart

lurk-hunt

[kikuchiyo]

It's just a word. I didn't give it that much thought. I still don't see how this is at all scummy. On your interpretation of my post, it just undermines what I then proceed to say.

Herein lies my issue. Why not give it much thought? Why did you undermine what you said? You have still not answered my questions:

1) So, you don't think on a day 1 when town is deciding between three town targets(two confirmed) that "lurkish" behavior is scummy?

2) What benefit did scum have to be involved at all?

3) What was scummy about my behavior?

It could be scummy if you could show me that RBT is normally very active. Otherwise, there are plenty of people who lurk as town.

RBT's day 1 behavior was exactly what I expected from him. However, scum had three(alleged) town wagons to choose from. It seems that "lurking" is a much more viable scum strategy in that regard. His contribution has not imrpoved all that much today. So with that in mind, why are you giving RBT a pass? By saying there is nothing suspicious about his play, you are giving him a pass. Having described him as "oppurtunistic" and "lurkering" should place him high on the suspicion list after a day 1 in which all three wagons were allegedly town players.

What was scummy about my play? Trying to keep multiple claims from happening and focusing on lynching the "scummiest" player are scum tells to you? Do you believe it is better to lynch players who act scummy, or players who seem townie?

Please try and just answer my questions. At this point I get the feeling you are simply dancing around my inquiries without offering an opinion. I will produce my pbpa on why I changed my mind about your Narn vote, but you seem to be avoiding my questions.

[wolframnhart]

Sorry everyone, few things going on around here and I placed this and another game or two on back burn.

Narnian, intersting that you vote me when I have posted more then others, like you for example.

Last time i posted was feb. 1st. You posted last on feb 2nd, only to ask what ISO meant. Before that you posted Jan30th. And now you come and post as evilsnail is being questioned, trying to deflect attention off your scum partner?

[Papa Zito]

Read the post you are replying to? As I say in parentheses, if any of this refers to anything concrete I've said, like my Narninian case, I'd like to hear it so I can address it. I can't do anything with "not impressed with snail's post" or anything related to my predecessor.

You're not supposed to do anything with "not impressed with snail's post." That's why I said it.

Are you suggesting we ignore your predecessor completely?

BTW:

I definitely didn't mean to imply that you weren't contributing.

Btw, would you or Papa Zito care to contribute anything more substantial than "don't like snail's post" or "I realize how poor it is" (if any of this pertains to my Narninian case, anyway)?

No.

@Town: Snail really doesn't like being voted. Suggest moar votes.

[evilsnail]

You're not supposed to do anything with "not impressed with snail's post." That's why I said it.

I realise that. I was just asking whether there was anything substantial I can respond to.

Are you suggesting we ignore your predecessor completely?

Where have I suggested this?

Please try and just answer my questions. At this point I get the feeling you are simply dancing around my inquiries without offering an opinion. I will produce my pbpa on why I changed my mind about your Narn vote, but you seem to be avoiding my questions.

I'm in no way avoiding your questions. To me, it seems like you keep creating new questions for me to answer and then claim that I'm avoiding them. But I will try again.

Now, your questions:
1) Only if it was deliberate lurking. So much of lurking is caused by RL business and/or an inability or unwillingness to deal with large blocks of text. Plus, RBT was perfectly willing to hammer Starbuck. That suggests to me he wasn't deliberately avoiding the thread. Sure, that may be safer in a way, but it also attracts attention.
2) To get a lynch to happen? Consistency of play? To stay involved and seem pro-town? To not be seen avoiding certain issues? A well-reasoned vote always gives off a pro-town impression and that impression can stay with other players longer than the retrospective realisation that the vote was for a pro-town player.
3) What I found scummy about your Day 1 play:
- You voted Starbuck for "avoiding the thread" after dismissing the initial case against her - seemed like a cheap way of getting back onto a bandwagon
- You basically tunnelled on Starbuck afterwards, almost every single post is about the Starbuck wagon, no real scumhunting outside of that

Other questions you asked:
- Why not give it much thought? Why did you undermine what you said?
I give the content of my posts a lot of thought, but not necessarily the wording. I thought that what I meant would be clear enough. I wasn't trying to undermine my own conclusion. That's only true on your interpretation of the post and your interpretation of what I meant with the word "opportunistic."
- Why am I giving RBT a pass?
Because I haven't seen a substantial case on him. Because you for one have said that his day 1 behaviour is what you expect from him. Because his behaviour today is the same, suggesting that he's just a lurkish player. Because opportunistic, lurkish play is not a reliable indicator of scum.

[Kdub]

Vote Count

Riceballtail (1)

- HackerHuck

MadCrawdad (0)

-

kikuchiyo (1)

- manho

HackerHuck (0)

-

Papa Zito (0)

-

wolframnhart (1)

- Narninian

Narninian (1)

- evilsnail

manho (0)

-

evilsnail (2)

- Papa Zito, kikuchiyo

No Lynch (0)

-

Not Voting (3)

- MadCrawdad, wolframnhart, Riceballtail

9 votes available, 5 votes needed to lynch.

Deadline is February 19, ~ 8:00 pm MST.

[Papa Zito]

Are you suggesting we ignore your predecessor completely?

Where have I suggested this?

When you say you "can't answer for your predecessor's actions" that means you want us to wipe the slate clean. No bueno.

Not Voting (3) - MadCrawdad, wolframnhart, Riceballtail

Fail.

You three: Votes or scumlists. TIA.

[wolframnhart]

right now I think that if evilsnail flips scum i have a nagging gut suspicion that HackerHuck and Narnian are his partners, only because they really haven't said much about one another, but attack others (HH the exception I don't see him doing much).

I am willing to test this theory out.

vote evilsnail

[Riceballtail]

I approve of Kiku's questioning on Snail. I would vote, but it's too premature to push for a claim/risk a quickhammer.

[manho]

so kiku is using another crap case to get a mislynch...

if i'm not misunderstanding again, kiku's reason to vote snail is that "snail made a case on Narninian, but then shift the attention away. However, kiku think the original case a good one." i really don't think it is a good reason to vote someone, and i don't think anyone here is seeing this a main reason to vote. but then kiku accuse snail of "strawmanning" that snail avoid kiku's main "case". everyone reading the thread will know that the RBT things is the case rather than the Narninian things, so i think there is nothing wrong for snail to "strawmanning".

confirm vote: kiku

[MadCrawdad]

You three: Votes or scumlists. TIA.

I've currently got an FoS on kikuchiyo and riceballtail.

I'll have more to say later today or tonight.

[Papa Zito]

You three: Votes or scumlists. TIA.

I've currently got an FoS on kikuchiyo and riceballtail.

I'll have more to say later today or tonight.

An FoS is neither a vote nor a scumlist. Looking forward to your post later.

[kikuchiyo]

so kiku is using another crap case to get a mislynch...

if i'm not misunderstanding again, kiku's reason to vote snail is that "snail made a case on Narninian, but then shift the attention away. However, kiku think the original case a good one." i really don't think it is a good reason to vote someone, and i don't think anyone here is seeing this a main reason to vote. but then kiku accuse snail of "strawmanning" that snail avoid kiku's main "case". everyone reading the thread will know that the RBT things is the case rather than the Narninian things, so i think there is nothing wrong for snail to "strawmanning".

No. The original case Snail made was

not

good. On first read I agreed it looked good. However, after doing an iso on Narn I disagree with the case. The strawmanning is not a huge issue for me, because I don't think I was as clear as I thought.

I have a response to 533, but I have one more question first. More like an excercise.

Evilsnail: please place the following players in order for "best reasoned" Starbuck vote, to "least well reasoned" Starbuck vote. I know its hard, but try and ignore the fact that bv and dybeck are confirmed town. Base your answers on the reasoning attached to the votes.

bv310, manho, kikuchiyo, wolframnhart, dybeck, Narninian, Riceballtail
You don't need to justify your answers if you don't want to, just place them in order from best to least.

[HackerHuck]

Looking at end of day, I had two questions:
Were all the scum voting for town?
Are all of us so dumb that no one was voting for scum?

Granted I'm confident that I'm town and I'm probably right about riceball, but I find it very odd that we ended the day with pretty much everyone sitting with their votes on a townie. Not only that, we pressured another townie enough to claim mid-day. That left me with three people to review:
Riceballtail
Sibelius/evilsnail
Papa Zito

I took a look at both Papa Zito and Sibelius' actions yesterday, since I know I'm not scum and I already find Riceball scummy.

Unfortunately, Sibelius became inactive prior to the Starbuck claim and I wanted to see his reaction to the wagon on BV310. I get what Papa Zito was saying about the toomuchinformationitis or whatever, but I also got the feeling - much later in the day - that Starbuck was probably going to be town. In fact there were a few people who felt that Starbuck was town, but still were interested in her lynch (Manho specifically).

What I don't like about Sibelius. His original vote on Papa Zito is off. It appears that he's voting for Papa Zito because he thinks Starbuck is scum and his single aggressive comment about Heilograph. If I looked only at what the post contained, I would think that bv, riceball, or manho would be better suspects. It's one thing to believe that Starbuck is town, but he seems to pick on Papa Zito and not really talk about any of the other people who were pressing Starbuck. Later on, Sibelius becomes suspicious of Heilograph, even though Zito's treatment of Heilograph appears to be half of the case against him. his final summary of his suspicions is also pretty weak. Snarkiness isn't really a scumtell and Papa Zito certainly wasn't the only one harping on Starbuck. Evilsnail's responses have been pretty good for the most part except for this post.

Because opportunistic, lurkish play is not a reliable indicator of scum.

Really?

I don't see too much wrong with Papa Zito's posting. The biggest complaint would be that he went after three townies (I happen to believe Manho's claim) over the course of the day. He also was quick to get off of the Starbuck wagon and remain off until the lynch. Keeping his vote on BV310 makes it look like he's scumhunting and keeps his name off of the Starbuck wagon. His relative ignorance of Sibelius' vote on him is also worth noting. I'm not saying he's likely scum, but there's more than enough here to keep me from putting him in the town camp. I wouldn't even be surprised to see him and sibelius/evilsnail as a pair, but his recent attention to evilsnail does make that a little less likely in my eyes.

I'm willing to move off of Riceball for now, but I still think he's scum.

Unvote:
Vote: Evilsnail

[kikuchiyo]

Unvote

I have more to post this weekend when I have the time and I want Snail's response as well Madcraw's promised contribution. I will leave it up to Snail if he feels the need to claim. Consider my vote still on in spirit.

[Narninian]

unvote

for now - reading the rest.

[Narninian]

honestly I just put that vote on wolf because he hadn't posted since monday. I'd do the same for whoever else was lurking but it seems we are 1 vote away from lynching Evilsnail - as his first action of the game was to vote for me, with a weak case I'd like to see what he has to say. Do you have a claim Evilsnail?

With very little participation on day 1 and not much today, I'm still keeping an eye on RBT as well.

[Kdub]

Vote Count

Riceballtail (0)

-

MadCrawdad (0)

-

kikuchiyo (1)

- manho

HackerHuck (0)

-

Papa Zito (0)

-

wolframnhart (0)

-

Narninian (1)

- evilsnail

manho (0)

-

evilsnail (3)

- Papa Zito, wolframnhart, HackerHuck

No Lynch (0)

-

Not Voting (4)

- MadCrawdad, Riceballtail, kikuchiyo, Narninian

9 votes available, 5 votes needed to lynch.

Deadline is February 19, ~ 8:00 pm MST.

[Narninian]

Odd I must have miscounted the votes -

Vote: Evilsnail

[MadCrawdad]

In starting to look through the Day 1 wagon on Starbuck, I think that there are some activities that make kiku a pretty good candidate for scum.

Early on D1, Starbuck begins catching flack for her “L-3 is bad” statement. Kiku comes out defending Starbuck, not only saying that Starbuck’s actions weren’t a scumtell, but saying that she found them to be more of a town tell.

Post 67

Last time I played with Starbuck I thought her AtE's were scummy, but unless she is putting it on to build meta(in which case its null), I find it to be more of a town tell. Either way, its not a scumtell.

Unvote

Bye bye RVS.

Here still defending, saying that she doesn’t see any scum motivation behind Starbuck’s actions.

Post 73

Sorry, Starbuck, rereading and I realize you're not using AtE. What I am referring to is the emotional tone I am reading in your posts. The "Why are you suspicious of me?" attitude. Your posts sound alot like our game where we went at it over role pms. Null tell for me at best. Though I don't think L-3 is dangerous in RVS, I agree that you overreacted a bit. To me, that's an emotional move. The only other explanation is scum motivation. But I don't see it.

bv310 post 69 is good. We shouldn't let inactives slide by. If I remember correctly, RBT is going to lurk regardless of alignment. I'll start by asking for some more content from that slot before I vote.

Now here after dybeck requests a vote and commitment from kiku, she’s responds that she’s still not seeing Starbuck actions as worthy of a vote.

Post 117

How about some input from you? And how about that vote I suggested you make? Any reason you're not committing?

I am participating as I see fit. Which vote are you suggesting I make? I am not sold on Starbuck as scum. I see no reason to "commit" to anything at this point.

I am a bit confused at where RBT is going with his questioning of manho. I don't disagree with the reasons players are voting for Starbuck(PZ's makes sense), but meta tells me to overlook her for now. Let's here Grandi's take.

Ten posts later, after seemingly defending Starbuck for most of the day, kiku now casts a vote for her, not because she finds Starbuck’s previous actions scummy, but because Starbuck has been absent.

Okay. So maybe she wanted to apply a little pressure to Starbuck, but why? She didn’t find Starbuck’s actions scummy to this point.

Post 127

PZ: I never implied or said I was giving anyone "carte blanche". The previous exchange was reminiscent to me of a similar argument involving Starbuck in another game where I convinced myself she was scum. That is why I have been ignoring it.

However, she now seems to be avoiding this thread.

Vote: Starbuck

This next post is interesting, because by the time kiku posts this, Starbuck still hasn’t reappeared. Yet kiku mentions that she’s got plans to move her vote when Starbuck reappears.

If she was just looking to pressure Starbuck in post 127, it doesn’t make sense that she’d even be considering moving without having heard from Starbuck. And when applying pressure to another player, saying that you’re looking to move before hearing from them kind of helps take the pressure off.

If post 143 reflects how kiku apparently felt about her Starbuck vote, her initial vote doesn’t even make sense, unless she was just looking for a place to step onto the wagon. I think this is a really telling post.

Post 143

I think bv310 will draw my next vote. I'm not moving until we get a little Starbuck in here...

Here in post 146 (3 posts later) Starbuck reappears. Claims that she hadn’t been avoiding the thread, answers questions, and delivers some pointed observations about kiku (and some other players).

Post 146

It's been a crazy couple of days with work. My apologies all. It's eval time for my rank in the Navy.

On Papa Zito

However, you drummed up fear by announcing you were worried about a quicklynch.

Further, you simultaneously announced you were saving us from said danger by unvoting and calling attention to the problem.

It's like when Clorox runs TV ads showing telephones (literally) crawling with germs, then shows how wonderful their product is at killing said germs. Drum up the hype, drum up sales.

I can see a scum player doing this to earn townie cred.

Hopefully that's crystal clear now.

Wow. Reaching much. Can you provide specific examples for each of those accusations?

On dybeck

I'm not sure I'd be entirely unhappy about a kikuchiyo wagon, either.

I'd sincerely like to see her vote, and to give a sincere justification for her choice, for starters.

You say that in Post 106, and she voted in here.

Do you feel it was sincere?

Starbuck. I'm calling you on your lurking. Get back in here and talk to the town, please.

You've obviously never played with me and know that the only reason that I'll won't be around is because work picked up in some way or another.

For the record, for all of you, I am active duty in the United States Navy. I can't spend my entire work day on the computer and some days, I'm just too plain exhausted to stay awake at night and catch up. But for the most part, I think I'm one of the most active players when it comes to my games.

Do me a favor and check out some of my previous games for my normal amount of activity before you decide to call me out on anything. I do everything in my power to not be a lurker because I despise lurkers. I definitely take great offense to being called one, and I'm willing to bet that someone is going to use this in their "case" on me, but I honestly don't care because most people who have prior experience with me know my opinion about lurkers and know my normal activity level.

Unfortunately though, sometimes my job and life gets in the way of my activity here and I can't control that. So why don't you do a little background checking before you start slinging a word like lurker at me.

On kikuchiyo

So you say the following in Post 117:

I am participating as I see fit. Which vote are you suggesting I make? I am not sold on Starbuck as scum. I see no reason to "commit" to anything at this point.

I don't disagree with the reasons players are voting for Starbuck(PZ's makes sense), but meta tells me to overlook her for now.

Then you go ahead and vote in Post 127, while saying the following:

However, she now seems to be avoiding this thread.

Quite a fast turn around with a bit of opportunism, don't cha think?

My apologies for my job taking priority over my mafia game on the internet.

If you do a profile search of my posts, you'll see that the only thing I've done mafia wise in the past few days was set up the game I'm modding. I've had to leave my games by the wayside.

On Grandi

I can understand if you would rather have other ways out of RVS, but i would really like to hear from everyone against a random wagon why they think that's scummy.
Also, Starbuck, a lot of games on this site start with random wagons. You must have come across a couple if you really played 30ish games here. Do you always respond this way, or is there something especially scummy here? Links/examples of you reaction to random wagons this way please. Also, people who played with her before, have you seen her react like this before?

A lot of games start with random wagons? They may start with random wagons, but normally don't get up to L-3 barely off the 1st page.

You've never played with me before I'm guessing. No, I don't always respond this way. I saw something, and I didn't like it and I said something about it. Apparently though, others are taking it as a scumtell.

And no offense, but I'm really not going through my 30+ games to appease you. If you want to read my meta, feel free, but I'm not gonna do your homework for you. If that leads to my lynch, so be it.

I can see absolutely no reason for a townie to react the way SB did, trying to "stop the quicklynch". The only thing i can come up with is if she thought the wagon would go straight to lynch, and i simply can't believe that someone who played 30ish games here believes there is a chance a random wagon without a case or anything is in danger of being lynched when it is at L-3

There's no reason for me to believe that it couldn't happen. You are so absolute in this. It bothers me.

Any semi-decent player could see there was no danger of lynching there, and if there was it would only be good as it exposes scum.

Not a fan of your ad hom.

On bv310

So far, Starbuck and PZ are the most scummy to me. I think my opinion of Starbuck right now is more just based on eveybody else's reactions to her.

So you aren't going to bring anything new to the table? That's awesome!

Now here, a few posts later, kiku confirms her vote on Starbuck, and that’s that. Why? Because Starbuck claimed that she wasn’t avoiding the thread?

In this post, kiku claims that she did all sorts of checking on Starbuck’s activity before voting her. Okay, fine. So if that’s the case, why again was she already getting ready to move her vote in 143, before hearing from Starbuck? If she really felt that strongly about Starbuck’s activity, post 143 seems illogical to me.

Post 151

Starbuck: How is giving you three days to respond to pressure before voting you a "quick" turnaround? You posted an accusation at bv310 on Sat. Jan 12 at 12 PM(my time). You came back today.

In between you posted to this site 19 times in at least six different threads. Of those 19 posts onlny 5 were in the game you are modding. You also posted every single day. I checked that before I voted you. Its why I voted you: because from my pov you have been "ignoring" this thread.

Thank you for serving our country. My vote stays.

vote: kikuchiyo

IMO post 143 shows that kiku was just looking for a place to get on the Starbuck wagon, even after defending her early in the day. Coupled with her role-fishing early D2, I feel there’s a pretty good chance that kiku is scum.

[manho]

so kiku is using another crap case to get a mislynch...

if i'm not misunderstanding again, kiku's reason to vote snail is that "snail made a case on Narninian, but then shift the attention away. However, kiku think the original case a good one." i really don't think it is a good reason to vote someone, and i don't think anyone here is seeing this a main reason to vote. but then kiku accuse snail of "strawmanning" that snail avoid kiku's main "case". everyone reading the thread will know that the RBT things is the case rather than the Narninian things, so i think there is nothing wrong for snail to "strawmanning".

No. The original case Snail made was

not

good. On first read I agreed it looked good. However, after doing an iso on Narn I disagree with the case. The strawmanning is not a huge issue for me, because I don't think I was as clear as I thought.

that's mean you are voting snail not for the narninian case, not for the RBT case, and not for the "strawmanning" case? so what's your reason behind the vote? can you give a clear, detailed and understandable case on snail?

as madcrawdad said, kiku was voting starbuck and pushing for her lynch not for her "L-3 is bad", but for her disappearence when she said that was due real life stuff.

as for the question why the town are voting 3 townie in Day 1, i think the 3 wagons are all pushed by scum, namely kiku and probably PZ.