***Your first two comments (first that I misrepresented you, then the sarcastic "if Glork says I'm wrong, then I guess I was wrong" note) make me feel worse about your alignment. As I noted at the time, you were wrong because I had already moved my vote, and you had questioned me on the basis of still voting MBL while discussing other things. Your premises were factually wrong, I had pointed that out earlier, and so your point was completely invalid.
In your response to me, however, you simply chose to act as if I'm trying to stifle everyone by taking on a "he's wrong, but I won't tell you why" attitude negatively. I didn't explain why because I had already explained why at the time. Anybody could have read back and noticed that I had moved my vote. Anybody could have read the relevant posts and seen that I pointed this out. It did not need to be repeated.
***Shteven's response to my hypothetical "suppose I
had
left my vote on MBL..." doesn't do anything for me either way. On one hand, he is technically right that while I poked around elsewhere, he didn't do anything. On the other hand, this shows that I've actually been poking around, whereas... well... he hadn't been doing anything. A valid defense, but it opens up another hole in Shteven's early-game play.
***The next point:
Shteven wrote:The reason I voted Albert started out as a feeling. I got a lot of inspecific queasy feelings from each of his post. Then, he said that we should all read his past games to understand his playstyle. This is not a scumtell. However, it vexed me on a personal level. Not the best reason to vote for someone, I realize. However, the main reason I was so glad to leave it there was because it's the early pages of day 1. If I misrepresented the strength of my convinction (which I believe I did) then it's an error on my part. Attacks such as your post on me don't spring up on page 6. My attack on Albert was much weaker because it was much earlier. I am no longer voting him for this, and while I'm still not very fond of him, it's not worth much anymore. See one additional reason below the next section.
.....this kind of argument just makes me feel ill inside. I am not inherently opposed to voicing suspicions based on gut. I'm not even inherently opposed to voting based on gut. But at some point, I expect a player who votes "on gut" to try to actually explain why they have this gut feeling. The problem I had with Shteven's play throughout the majority of this day is the fact that he kept reiterating that he was against Albert, but he continually failed to explain why this was so. "Gut" cannot cut it throughout an entire Day One. I don't care how small, seemingly-insignificant, or few those "gut" feelings are. If you're going to state that you are happy with your vote
(before removing it) without having explained it,
even after having been asked to explain it more thoroughly than you allegedly previously had
, I think that this speaks volumes. First of all, it says that you are clearly very convinced that the person for whom you are voting is scum. Secondly, it indicates (to me, anyway) that you're not doing your best to convince everybody else that the person for whom you are so consistently voting is actually scum. I think, Shteven, that if you put
even a fraction
of your defensive effort into making a legitimate case against Albert, you just might have gotten him lynched.
This bothers me so, so, so much, it almost hurts. I believe that AE touched upon this earlier. You seem ready and willing, at the drop of a dime, to post a lengthy defense of yourself (sometimes coupled with retorts and insinuations against your attackers -- particularly me). Yet for so long, I felt as though you put very little effort into helping find scum elsewhere. You claimed to have been happy to vote Albert, made a handful of fairly "Meh" posts in my opinion, and seemed to think that it was enough. I could go into a long-winded discussion about how that's a terrible way to play as town, but I'd be wasting my breath. We've already had too many theoretical gameplay debates, and I don't think you're playing poorly as town anyway. I think you're playing a mediocre game as scum.
Shteven wrote:Most of the reasons are just above this section. The part I want to add here is the suspicion over his townie claim. This is another thing that hit me fairly strongly on the first read. It's probably because I didn't hold him in high regard. I have backed off this point, because I thought about what would happen if I was in his place. First, I'd wait for the 8th vote at least, but sooner or later, I'd have to claim. And really, there's not that many other things to claim. So while I still hold his early-claim to be fishy, I don't fault him for claiming townie. I don't want to get into more meta discussion, but if someone wants to briefly summarize the courage vs sacrificing a townie choice, I wouldn't mind the info.
Another fairly neutral defense, in my opinion. I suppose this explanation is reasonable enough, but it doesn't do much for me personally.
Shteven wrote:"Steven decides his feelings about Albert aren't as strong as he once thought and rationally stops voting for him. But wait, that would kill my case. Oh, I know, he used the word target. Let's lynch him, am I right guys?" ...As for the word target, I like it, I play world of Warcraft, and it's nifty.
This amounts to mere OMGUS, so it's a definite minus point. I tend to look at word choice in people's posting. Tones, specific words, and those "bewteen the lines" things that people say are often pretty telling. FrozenAtlantic once said that my greatest strength was in reading
subtext
in other people's posts. So I feel that my bringing up your word choice is entirely reasonable.
Secondly, he doesn't address the actual point in his quoted selection, that . He's strawmanning my "I don't like his word choice, but I might be reading too much into it" comment, and he's completely ignoring the Point 4) that I had actually made. I still think that his stance (calling playstyle as a defense "completely worthless") is completely wrong, and I don't like the fact that he brought up that point against Albert. I still don't like that he chose to ignore my Point 4) in lieu of taking a potshot at me for a side-comment. Definite OMGUS, and very likely not the good kind.
Since then, I agree fully with AE's point that your only focus is on self-survival. To an extent, I realize that everybody should want to survive. But given what I've felt has been a fairly large difference between your defensive efforts and your scumfinding efforts, I think that AE might be onto something.
Take this, for instance. Each of your last six posts of the game have been primarily defensive. In two of them, you have also dropped "Glork is scum" insinuations while directly responding to my behavior towards you.
I am also fairly disgruntled that most (if not all -- I haven't bothered to check specifically) of your top suspects [Glork, Albert, Guardian, MBL] have been people who have poked around at you. It comes back to the OMGUS thing... only, it's on a larger scale. Mass OMGUS is more likely to be a scumtell than individual OMGUS, in my opinion.
And the point about me being the 3rd wagon now is rather moot. At the time that I was unhappy with Yos2's comment, you
were
the third wagon, and you were only a single vote behind the other two. That is all that matters.
