Once again, rite, thank you. That was well-stated. Now, with all effort to not be frustrated, and with a clear head and a readthrough under my belt, let me explain, in painfully specific detail, exactly why I am now voting for Someone.
First, two comments made in quick succession specifically stating I was voting for Someone:
Someone wrote:Oh come on dour.....Why are you voting for me?
Someone wrote:The same holds true. The only reason that you were voting for me was that I have been supposedly quiet.
This is what I was referring to when I said Someone was repeatedly suggesting that I had already voted for him. Note that both of these posts occurred
before
I actually voted for him. This is what I referenced when I said that I felt Someone was intentionally misleading the Town by making those statements.
Also, it bears noting that the second quote above, while not entirely unjustified, does not accurately represent my intentions. This is what I said that ended up triggering Someone's reaction:
Dourgrim wrote:Y'know, this is interesting: suddenly everyone goes quiet, even though we have a sizeable bandwagon on mlaker.
We also have Someone and his "master plan" which apparently absolves him from the need to talk, even though (in my mind) he's one of the more suspicious players in this game.
Perhaps now would be the time for you to speak up, me buckos. Let's see if I can encourage that:
FoS-that-WILL-turn-into-a-vote-unless-you-start-talking: mlaker & Someone
The bolded part of the quote was
intended
to point out that Someone was acting like he was cleared because of the "plan" he put forth regarding DP and was
not
meant to say that Someone was lurking or not posting enough. (I freely admit that I worded it poorly, and for that I apologize, but I stand behind the intention of the statement nonetheless.) As I later said:
Dourgrim wrote:I wanted to hear more from you because you had (and still have) failed to allay my suspicions, and the only thing you do is rant and rave about my FoS. That'd be almost funny if it weren't such an obvious ploy to avoid attention. The reasons to be suspicious of you are well documented throughout the thread, and the only thing preventing people from voting for you and lynching you because of those reasons is the fact that no one really trusts DP's "Grandpa" claim or his sanity. I really don't care how often you post... I care what you have to say in those posts. So far all I see is smoke and mirrors.
I stand behind the statement that Someone has not only not cleared himself to my satisfaction but has failed to do much of anything to prove his innocence beyond a role-claim that, quite frankly, would be incredibly easy to fake considering the number of people who have made identical claims in the thread already. I will grant you that it is extremely difficult to prove one's innocence in a game of Mafia. This does not mean, however, that my "gut feeling", as rite put it, is any less valid. And FoS's (which is all I originally threw out there) are often based on nothing more that "gut feelings".
And the relationship to DP's role-claim and subsequent sanity discussion is pretty much precisely as rite put it: your activity in that discussion not only gave you plausible deniability ("Look at how often I post, I can't possibly be scum because I'm not lurking like scum do!") but also drew attention away from you.
One last thing now occurs to me: when I was in the Blinvitational, mith decided he thought I was scum because I did something "stupid" (which I did intentionally to draw attention to myself, a unpleasant but necessary facet of the role I had in that game). A heated debate ensued over my role-claim and allegiance (I was pro-Town), and I got very upset because it seemed that everything I said was being twisted around to "prove" my "guilt". At the time I didn't understand mith's reasoning for that line of thought, but now I think I do. The best way to reassure a Town of your innocence is to get righteously indignant when people question it... which is exactly what Someone seems to be doing. Perhaps he's just genuinely upset with me because of my suspicions, and if that's the case I'm sorry... but perhaps he's trying very very hard to convince us all of his innocence by being angry and using that to cover something up.
I stand behind my vote. Sometimes role-claims just aren't convincing enough for me, sorry (read any of mith's ridiculously long posts on role-claims for more insight). rite may be correct (I just can't bring myself to say he's "right"
) and I could be paranoid... but isn't that kinda how you're
supposed
to play Mafia? *shrug* I don't deny that I could be wrong, but I'm willing to take that chance.
) to vote for.
