With the deadline approaching, I felt it was a good time to affirm my stance on each player, starting with Paradoxombie, the person I am voting for.
1) Paradoxombie
The first post of substance he makes is post 78 - six days after his previous post. An obvious early bout of lurking, although I checked all his posts and he had no posts between May 26 and May 31. Were you away at that time Paradox? Anyway, post 78:
Paradoxombie wrote:These attacks on Jordan are justified, but have have yet to convince anyone(I hope) that Jordan is a worthy day 1 lynch
On the other hand I'm finding Simenon's play extremely suspicious. You keep suggesting that you have reasons for your original vote against Jordan, and I don't buy that. And I definitely don't believe that you've actually somehow posted your reasons.
You're definitely looking alot worse than Jordan to me
Vote: Simenon
The first thing I note there is the very wishy-washy stance on Jordan - he says basically that they are "justified", but doesn't add anything else. Furthermore, no FoS or vote is given to Jordan, implying that he truly doesn't see the Jordan issue as a major point. He later says that Simenon looks a lot worse than Jordan, suggesting Jordan does look bad, but Simenon looks worse. If that is the case, why does Jordan get no FoS at all, yet Simenon gets a big fat vote on him?
The rest of the post focuses on Simenon. Instead of thinking that Simenon was concealing his reasons, he actually says "he doesn't buy that", suggesting he doesn't even think that Simenon had reasons, and Simenon was doing it for no reason. This is obviously not true - Simenon had previously stated he had reasons, yet was just not saying them at that stage.
I see this post as distancing. Jordan was under threat, so Paradox rushes in to state that Simenon is more suspicious - an attempt to draw attention away from Jordan, as others have already mentioned. It also shows an attempt to "fit in", concerning the Jordan issue, as he says they were "justified", yet doesn't expand in any way.
Again, it is almost another week before he posts, this time with another Simenon criticism.
Paradoxombie wrote:Simenon wrote:
I feel the distraction would lie in what I say. As I have said, my former reasoning is completely irrelevant, and could be used by ze opportunistic scum. Since there is no scummy aspect about my previous thinking, I don't feel obliged to disclose it.
So you are admitting your original reason would be suspicious, but we should take your word for that we would actually be wrong in our suspicion?
That sounds like you're trying to think for the rest of the town. I don't like when people try to make up my mind for me.
And please stop saying it's irrelevent, I'm not arguing about Jordan at all.
He really misinterprets Sim here - Simenon says "there is no scummy aspect about my previous thinking", yet Paradox says he is admitting his reasoning was "suspicious", which is obviously a lie. I don't understand Para's point about Sim trying to "thinking for the rest of the town", as I don't see any indication of Simenon doing this at all - he merely stated he had reason for his vote, but he didn't want to conceal it. Overall, it shows Para has a real drive to attack Simenon over the most minor issue.
Paradoxombie wrote:Simenon wrote:
No. Don't put words in my mouth.
I'm saying that I had a reason that I don't feel like sharing, as it would only serve to be a distraction. It is irrelevant- there is no positive gain I can see by disclosing my reason. At all. Hell, for all you know, I may have even forgotten my original reasoning. That's how little impact it has on this game.
If it really is so irrelevent then I don't see why you won't just say it, unless it's suspect. Hence I assume it is suspicious. So you're denying that. Fine then.
So really, why would this insignificant little original reason that you claim has no bearing on the game be so dangerous to reveal? To the point where you believe it would be worse to reveal than to continue with this distraction it has become from your refusal to comply?
Simenon wrote:We have to trust your word for it that you made a mistake and I don't trust you particularly.
Yes, I think we all agree that taking someone's word in this game seems like a bad idea
/irony
The whole issue has been branded by Simenon as "irrelevant", and I agree. Paradox seems to want Simenon to give out his reasoning, even though Sim had said it would only benefit "opportunistic scum". Para uses some bizarre logic here - because the issue is irrelevant he assumes it is suspicious, something I don't really understand. The way he continues to attack Simenon over such an irrelevant issue is very suspicious in my eyes.
Paradoxombie wrote:Patrick wrote:Paradoxombie, what do you think of Jordan so far?
I can't say, He's given off a few scumtells, but it seems that most of the pressure on him has decreased and I haven't reached any conclusions yet.
Patrick wrote:Also, explain what benefit you think Simenon is getting from refusing to reveal his original reason if he's scum. You must think he's the most likely scum because you're voting him.
I don't see what significance his motive has, he says a piece of information is meaningless and not suspicious and yet refuses to tell us for what seems like no reason.
FOS: Patrick and Ripley
Neither of you haven't mentioned any flaws in my reasoning, so i don't understand what difference it makes.
Somthing doesn't make sense about Simenon and you just want to drop it? What possible reason could you have to want that? You think it's distracting? How about you convince Simenon to just come clean and explain himself? Wouldn't that be a more
protown
resolution than me just stopping, regardless of the significance of the issue?
Once again, Paradox refuses to take a stand on the Jordan issue, and seems to ignore it completely. Again, more talk of Simenon, with an added FoS of Ripley and Patrick thrown in for seemingly no reason. It all, at this point, seems incredibly erratic play, throwing FoSes around, ignoring the entire Jordan issue, and attacking Simenon at all times.
Paradoxombie wrote:Aimee wrote:And Paradoxombie is just baffling me. What have Patrick or Ripley done to deserve any real suspicion at this stage. I agree with Patrick here - you voted against Simenon without any real reasoning.
So you don't find Simenon suspicious?
And this post doesn't make any sense. I basically ask him why he FoSed Ripley and Patrick, but he then jumps straight back and asks me about Simenon. I really don't see what the big issue Paradox had with Simenon was. He obviously exaggerated the entire matter.
In his eighth post, he says in reply to Ripley that "I don't think I'm taking any of this too far", and then basically says he isn't going to back down until Simenon admits it, even though everyone else seemingly believed that the entire issue was irrelevant at that point. He does say that he would back down if "a better lead comes up". The fact is that:
1. Paradox's lead to Simenon was incredibly weak.
2. There already had been better leads - most notably the whole Jordan issue, which Paradix had not eluded to at all up to that point.
Paradoxombie wrote:
So here's one more from me: I think you guys are making a bigger deal of Jordan than you have to, dwelling on one issue isn't doing anything but slowing down the game. No one has anything new to add about the situation. Maybe Jordan is scum, maybe not. Sitting on this one thing is about as bad as not posting.
There now we both have 2 quotes on the Jordan "situation."
I honestly think mine are somewhat more helpful since
1. they give analysis
and likewise
2. Give people something so they can decide if I'm scum or not
but that's just me
He notes that "dwelling on one issue isn't doing anything but slowing down the game", yet that is entirely what he was doing with Simenon, and is obviously hypocritical. Again, no real response is made about Jordan, seeing as he says "Maybe Jordan is scum, maybe not." This suggests he doesn't really have an opinion on the whole thing. He also says his points on Jordan are helpful because they give analysis, but really, he is just sitting on the fence.
Paradoxombie wrote: How ironic, I vote someone for claiming they have reasoning but refusing to reveal it, and you jump at me for not having reasoning.
Double standards = bad
As Patrick later pointed out, having reasoning for voting for someone but not revealing it (e.g. cop's investigations), is sometimes normal. Voting for someone with no reasoning is scummy - it suggests a degree of being lynch happy, as you are willing to vote for anyone for basically no reason.
Paradoxombie wrote:I didn't even think he was scummy!
Here, he totally contradicts what he had previously said. He had previously been arguing that Simenon's actions had been "anti-town", which explained his vote. The very fact he admits he doesn't find Simenon scummy makes everything far more unclear, especially about his vote against Simenon in the first place.
I also agree (for the most part) with what IH is saying in his points against Paradox - he straight out ignored the Jordan argument, and focused exclusively on Simenon, who hadn't done anything majorly suspicious at that point. He ignored other, and better leads (he himself admitted he would move away from the Simenon issue if there were better leads - which there were).
Overall, I find that Paradoxombie is acting very suspiciously. He has attacked with weak reasoning, been hypocritical, contradictory, and slowed discussion with his full scale attack against Simenon earlier. I stand by what I said earlier to justify my vote:
Aimee wrote:It just doesn't make sense. Wild accusations, the OMGUS style FoSes against Patrick and Ripley, the extreme offensive against Simenon... it's all far too strong and intense for my liking. The actions don't make any sense.
Re-reading has made my view stronger and clearer.