Might as well get things back on track.
Vote: Barroman
, for a few reasons. I'll try to be condensed.
1.
Began game with "BAD NIGHT!!!! The Cop is out", and as I pointed out elsewhere (I believe on a Kilmenator case), mourning the loss of a dead power role right off the bat strikes me as more scummy than townish.
2.
The Elias_the_thief questions, which has already been discussed (and doesn't need further discussion unless somebody wants to go over it again).
3.
Barroman, 92 wrote:Javert - I'm happy to see your "unvote". It seems that you really think the things. That's a good point.
Perhaps this is my own bias speaking, but I don't particularly care for giving players "pats on the head", which is essentially what this is doing.
4.
I am also getting a few mixed messages. For much of the game, Barroman has been going after kilmenator and ac1983fan. Even on Day Two, he has said as much:
Barroman, 388 wrote:I think that Javert is right.
And another thing to say; Kilmentantor and ac1983fan always look to me suspicius... and that lasts votes were suspicius... and the both voted him. Probably to look like they were inocent?
His next post (which was [398]) says he "thinks that ac1983fan could be a pro-town role", and he also says he can see suspicion on Elias_the_thief due to his placement on the Ancalagon wagons. Basically – if I am following his suspicions correctly – his top suspect should be Kilmenator. When three people vote for her, he says "don't be so hasty!!!".
And yet. After Nocmen claims to have "reasonable proof" that Kilmenator is not scum, and after Kilmenator places a first vote on ac1983fan, we have this:
Barroman, 413 wrote:Vote: Kilmentator
I don't understand what you have said...
4a.
Did you wanted to say, that you vote Ancagalon just because the deadline was near, and you want to lynch anyone, the one with more votes??????
4b
And now... you have voted ac1983fan?? I think he said he was the role-blocker, dind't he?
Both of these questions seem rather silly – rather like the Elias_the_thief questions at the game's commencement (numbered for efficacy):
->
4a
: We have actually already gone over how assuring that there is a lynch on D1 with 11 players is better than sitting back and not allowing a lynch at all. Unless Barroman disagrees with this (and if he does, I expect him to write a rebuttal to my post which explains this), there is nothing wrong with kilmenator did by making sure we had a lynch.
Furthermore, if somebody
did
have that state of mind, I fail to see how it is scummy in the context of it being a lynching vote on scum, unless you believe her to be part of a separate scum-group.
->
4b
: Seeing as Barroman himself has expressed suspicion on ac1983fan – both before and after his claim of role-blocker – I'm not quite sure how he suddenly gets to sound indignant for when somebody
else
places a vote on ac1983fan. It strikes me as very duplicitous, though that's not quite the word I'm looking for.
->
4c
: (Not from post above) Also, the fact that Barroman is telling people to "not be hasty" but still puts down a Kilmenator vote in the midst of a wagon strikes me as strange.
5.
And of course, his absence at the end of Day One - when the wagon shifted to Ancalagon - though explained, still indicates that Barroman could have been reading the game (in that he was not strictly separated from a computer), but chose not to post. I can accept his explanation of familial problems, but it does not completely absolve him for the omission of his presence.
----
On another note, I was checking ac1983fan's list of posts where he found scummy things. The best before, he had claimed that everybody had something scummy except for MeMe. But in his list of posts, none of them were any of
my
posts. This strikes me as an oversight, but I would like to see it explained (in addition to seeing those posts explained, which I have asked for a number of times).
... and zut alors! This post ended up being long.
