We've got just two days until deadline (and no indication that Guardian will extend it) so I will do as promised and review the TH case.
My most recent previous posts on the TH case in depth were:
Post 1532 and
Post 1538 (which was basically a comment on something in the former).
The main points which surface from that are:
1) TH's repeated use of "broken scumdar" as an excuse for poor efforts in scumhunting
This is a strange issue, being one I have never encountered before. My main dilemma here is how to judge TH's behaviour. Obviously, an inability to scumhunt is not "scummy" - it is just a mark of poor pro-town ability. However, relying on an ability (real or made up) as an excuse for not making the effort is evasive and scummy (though I wish that I had some precedent for this so that I could be more confident on this point).
It is also relevant here to mention TH's sudden epiphany on the matter of MoS. After professing inability all game, he suddenly has some massive revelation that MoS is obvscum. Not only is the sudden change in behaviour bizarre, to say the least, but the arguments TH has made are hardly very persuasive - particularly to induce such a fervent attack.
2) Apologetics and damage control
I took issue with TH making arguments against himself such that he almost sounded the most scummy in his own view. He called this being "comprehensive" - does that not mean that if we take a comprehensive view of things, TH is scummy? - and leaves it that.
The issue here is what do we make of this behaviour? I interpreted it as damage control - "confess your sins you will be absolved". Now, in one of TH's posts on this matter he said:
TH wrote: Is it silly for me to add in what I expect to be the main argument against me, when I do my scumdar for everyone else? (Ok, maybe it's silly, but I did it anyway.)
TH, what was the reason you made arguments against yourself? Calling it "silly" just dodges the issue (kind of like point 1).
3) Emotional lapse by giving into pressure
This was another point which never got resolved because TH again turned it into a matter of playstyle rather than a matter of scumminess. TH just calls it a "rare moment of emotion" and leaves it at that - again making an excuse for his behaviour. Moreover, like the previous excuses, it is one that stifles debate on the subject (in that one cannot challenge the reasoning behind anything if it is simply reduced to a matter of personality)
4) Lurking lynching nightmare scenarios
Now, I initially challenged TH over the fact that, when he brought up lynching lurkers, he evaded the matter of town lurking and brought up the nightmare scenarios of "game degenerating or of scum lurking to victory." In his response, TH actually dodged my question by saying:
TH wrote: I know full well the town can also lurk. And that's what I'd like to prevent. My hope when I push for a lurker lynch is that the lurker will stop lurking, and then we won't have to lynch them. It's a threat. Now, if they won't respond to the threat, why not lynch them? In that case, they're either scum (and lynching them is good) or they're an unhelpful town (and lynching them is not so good, but at least the more helpful townies stay around). And perhaps after that lurker is lynched, the rest of the town will think twice about doing the same.
You'll note that I never pushed for a Tar lynch, despite his uber-lurking. That's because I felt that he was town (although my confidence in that has been shaken now). In the case of Flameaxe, I considered him of above average scumminess. Also, he did some lurking at a key moment: at the end of day 1, when we were all scrambling to find a lynch. So I felt a lurker-lynch of Flameaxe was justified.
So I'm not in favor of lynching all lurkers. But some should be lynched, and at least the threat of doing so can do some good.
Was there a specific push for a lurker lynch I made, which bothered you? Was it my push against Flameaxe, or was it something else I've forgotten?
In other words, TH simply says he wanted to stop town from lurking (when my question was why he did not
address
the matter of town lurking at first instance) and makes no mention at all of the nightmare scenario issue.
Here, again, we can see TH repeating the pattern he has been doing on these issues because he tries to reduce the point to a matter of theory, by saying that he believes the threat should have worked, rather than actually explaining his in-game conduct.
For now,
FoS: TH
!
