RetroDucts wrote:
Here are the posts I noted from Trebis:
Trebis, post 24 (fixed quote tag) wrote:RetroDucts wrote:I don't think I want to random vote this time. I actually think Tarhalindur could be onto something.
Vote: Khelvaster
I wouldn't try to deduce much from this. I've played with Khelvaster before, and he has a tendency to do things like that.
This seemed unnecessary and an almost too eager, unprompted defence. When the post was made, I felt it was too early to make anything of it.
So I shouldn't even try to make reasonable assumptions this early in the game? Then tell me, when exactly am I allowed to start making analysis?
RetroDucts wrote:
Trebis, post 51 wrote:Mizzy wrote:Unvote since random votes don't seem to be doing much now.
Subtle attempt at looking more pro-town? No way to prove it one way or the other, but I'm just throwing that out there.
This sounds opportunistic. Throwing suspicion out there for something I think wasn't worth publicly noting at that point.
You're trying to make me NOT voice my opinion. First of all, that's just bad manners
Second, if you're town you would want people voicing their suspicions no matter whether you feel it is "worth publicly noting" or not.
RetroDucts wrote:
Trebis, post 53 wrote:I seriously doubt the scum would try to get a claim out of a townie THIS early in the game.
Glork covered this one.
Trebis, post 106 wrote:I'm gonna agree too with Mizzy.
This whole encounter between Khelvaster and Retro Ducts just confused me and turned me off to the game more than anything. I don't know what it was about it, but I had a hard time following everyones arguments without my eyes glazing over.
All-in-all right now I feel like it's a case of two townies arguing with eachother, which is never a good precedent to set in a game. I've seen too many games where Day 1 gets stuck between two townies duking it out, and at the end of the day the only logical conclusion is to lynch one of the two of them. And of course in the end, you learn they're both town.
My issue with this is mostly that it sounds like Trebis hasn't really put much thought into the exchange between Khelvaster and me (I've bolded the relevant section of the post), which make the following paragraph all the more questionable. How could he claim to have read it as two townies arguing if he didn't even know what it was about? He even goes as far as to relate the situation to where mislynches take place, almost as if to foreshadow the outcome of the Day.
You're right about me not putting a lot of thought in to the exchange, because like I said I had a hard time following it, and it more confused and turned me off to the game than anything. I DID read everything, but I didn't feel like either of you were scummy acting because of it, so I didn't get involved. And as for you accusing me of foreshadowing the outcome of the Day....yeah, I pretty much did that, because that's how I felt the situation was at the time. If my opinion is that we're off track, should I not say that? Stop trying to shut me up. Since then, however, I feel like you are MUCH more scummy for trying to silence me in all my posts.
RetroDucts wrote:Trebis wrote:Trebis wrote:
Also, Unvote whoever I was voting for.
Interestingly, he was voting for OGML.
Unvote
Vote: Trebis
I unvoted on principle because the game had gotten past random voting, and I'd rather not vote than leave it sitting for no reason. The reason I voiced suspicion of Mizzy for her early unvote was because I felt we weren't past the stage where we had to put pressure on someone to induce conversation. Now, obviously the conversation is flowing quite freely, so a (L-6?) "pressure vote" was doing nothing.
Ok, on to Tarhalindur:
Tarhalindur wrote:Trebis, who are your top 3 scum candidates and why?
1) RetroDucts for the above reasons
2) Mizzy, because I feel like most of her posts are just her describing the situation going on at the time. It's a good way to look active without doing any analyzing. Also, she seems to ride along at the tail end of the flow of the conversation, never bringing up anything herself.
3) ....? I don't really have a good third suspect. Sorry.
Tarhalindur wrote:Trebis's post 106 is pinging my scumdar - he seems to be agreeing with the (somewhat irrelevant) comments of others and talking about mafia theory (the whole "two townies arguing" paragraph), but he doesn't really offer any analysis of the game state (esp. with regards to who he thinks may be scum). That looks like a case of IIoA (Information Instead of Analysis), which has been a fairly reliable scumtell for me lately.
In response to the IIoA: I feel like I haven't done anything in this game, information, analysis, or otherwise. As I have said, I haven't been able to get in to this game, so I haven't been a useful player at all--hence, asking for replacement.
We've all been in games with deadbeat townies that end up getting themselves lynched, and I don't want to be the guy to do that to this game, so I'm getting myself out out of respect for the town.
Aaaaand Glork, whom I'm not really sure how to respond to.
Glork, after I asked why he was suspicious of me wrote:General gut?
I can't really say for sure.
Um. Ok. How do I respond to this?
Glork wrote:I find x and y suspicious. I notice that x votes y to start the game, but as things get serious, he removes his vote.
I'm pretty sure this is in reference to my unvote. When I unvoted, nothing serious was going on with OGML. It was just general principle.
You voted for me in post 68 for no real reason(or at least, no reason I could see), then when I hadn't even posted anything significant again, you said you were "Still happy with my Trebis-vote" on post 105.
What am I supposed to respond to?
