Thok wrote: What does bother me is that he felt like he had to justify keeping his vote on me (with a reason he now disavows about me not participating in the thread), and that PJ accused mith of asking PJ to unvote me, when mith didn't do that. (He asked for an explanation of the votes on me, but never requested that I was unvoted.)
Uh... let me go over that entire conversation again, then.
mith wrote: I don't find what petroleumjelly said initially (or in arguing with LML) particularly unreasonable. I do find it interesting that he is still voting for Thok, though.
In my vocabulary, “interesting” is usually just another way to say “slightly suspicious”. Keeping a random vote on somebody means nothing to me, especially when there was no
reason
to take it off.
This quote hints to me that mith may have wanted my vote off of you. I read comments like these to mean “well, you wouldn’t be suspicious if you weren’t still voting for Thok… but you’ll be just fine after you unvote”. Like he is trying to nudge me in the direction he wants me to go.
Jelly wrote:Is there a reason I should unvote Thok?
He hasn't exactly contributed to discussion since his first post, and it's not as if Thok is in any danger: it takes seven to lynch, and the three votes on him are not nearly enough basis to even consider pushing for a claim. The level of play in this game pretty much assures that he is not going to be quicklynched or any such thing.
In any case, considering my scumgroup theory of {Thok, Machiavellian-Mafia, mith}, you asking for me to unvote Thok only helps solidify my suspicions.
As I mentioned, it sounded like mith was trying to make it obligatory for me to have unvoted you simply to not look suspicious when somebody else puts on a third vote (which is silly).
mith wrote:pj: Why leave it on? There was enough discussion to form better-than-random suspicions. I don't buy the bit about him not having contributed; the game was barely a day old.
Pressing me
again
about my vote (when in fact, the only other person who had really contributed at the time was LML, who I was not suspicious of), which I figured he (for whatever reason) wanted more explanation for, here:
Jelly wrote:When you asked me why I didn't unvote Thok, that was in Post 26 of the game. The discussion going on was solely between myself and LML: since I didn't think LML was very scummy in his argument (although I think he pressed it a bit too far), I didn't feel like voting for him. Nobody else had really "contributed" in the same sense, and since switching my vote would have been pretty much just as random as my initial random vote, there was no reason for me to move it around, especially when Thok was in absolutely no danger.
And here:
Jelly wrote:Why is it "suspicious" to keep a random vote on somebody if it takes seven to lynch, and there are only three votes on that person (none of them serious), and any other vote I would have placed would have been for just a random a reason anyways?
You are making it sound like I have an "obligation" to unvote if Thok reaches three votes during the random stage. That cannot be true, because then the obligation would fall on others into not placing a third random vote on Thok the first place, since that would result in Thok being at two votes anyways, thereby accomplishing nothing.
I did not have to justify keeping my vote on you: I was trying to force mith into justify why I should
unvote
you, and stating one reason I could use (if necessary) for not taking my vote off.
I am getting a distinct “making something from nothing” vibe here coming from both mith and Thok.
