EmpTyger wrote:No, I’ve asked Lowell to explain himself, and he’s avoiding giving an explanation, first with a non-answer, then by lurking.
But in any case- Lowell’s initial comment certainly made that implication about KoC. Are you saying that Lowell making a vague comment which could mean 2 opposite things- and then not clarifying when asked- is a sign of innocence?
I have no qualms with
your
reason for your vote on Lowell. It was brought up to illustrate the similar setup between the two votes. The implication made in #56 quote fragment 2 is that it IS a pre-emptive attack which would imply a level of scumminess.
Innocence? No, not at all. My issues in this lie with Caboose, not with Lowell. If he keeps playing like he has been I'll gladly lynch him.
Emptyger wrote:What on earth are you implying here? How on earth does that implicate Caboose in any way?
1) Asking a player questions is not the same as considering them suspicious.
2) Pointing out suspicions is not the same as casting a vote.
3) Pointing out genuinely suspicious behavior is not suspicious in itself.
4) We’re 6 days from deadline. Having half the town head towards a consensus- without any immediate danger of a speedlynch or anything negative- is not only not bad, but *necessary*.
The implication of Caboose lies in the dissonance in reaction to 36 and 59. The reason that is scummy is it is the start of a wagon that has inherent backing in the suspicions / comments of other players.
1.) Of course not, but if you're trying to tell me all of the statements above do not show suspicion then we're at an impasse. It is easy to imply negative or positive connotations with a question.
2.) No, but it is
related
to a vote. Normally there is a relation to suspicion and the casting of a vote. Sometimes in the same post, sometime pages away - but, in general, if a "real" vote is placed without grounding in suspicion that vote itself is, by nature, suspicious.
3.) Of course it isn't. Now, the whole argument of "genuinely suspicious" being for the most part subjective aside - my problem isn't with suspicion of Lowell for this: to a degree it is warranted. It is with Caboose, specifically.
4.) Again, of course it is necessary. That doesn't alter the dissonance I see with 36 and 59 and, that in and of itself, raises enough suspicion that I placed a vote.
EmpTyger wrote:Clarification: I’m voting Lowell because at this point he’s lurking instead of explaining himself. There may or may not have been an innocent explanation for the comment he initially made. But coupled with his lurking in this situation...
No need for clarification. I simply said that suspicions become votes. I made no reference for the specific reasons (just that all the reasons relate at least partially to that statement). Your suspicions became a vote for the post-statement play. Which is, of course, understandable.
Caboose wrote:No, it isn't. My statement was in response to RBT and Juls saying that he liked you. Lowell's statement was not prompted.
False analogy, which means +scumpoints for SpyreX
And don't say OMGUS either. My reason is perfectly valid.
Lowell's statement was, contextually, in response to the differences in play between KoC (the WW2 discussion) and myself (game theory, baseline questions). That IS a prompt for a statement of a personal baseline "feel" of the game.
Unless you are making the argument it wasn't prompted for because it wasn't specifically asked for... in which case your statement falls under the same umbrella. Again, either way, this shows more of the dissonance I saw before.
I don't CARE about OMGUS or that business. It rarely happens the way people think it does. However, saying there is no analogous connection between those two scenarios IS something I will argue with you about as per above.
Caboose wrote:That makes me scum because.....
Despite your postzilla, your reasoning for your vote is pretty incomplete.
That makes you scum because...
When you view another players action as "bad" (36) and there is glaring similarities to your own (59) there HAS to be an underlying reason for such a shift in thought process to occur.
Thus, considering the spoken suspicion (but not votes) AND the nature of this specific game (the fast deadlines) it is a perfect jumping point for starting a wagon. Which, inherently, isn't scummy. However, the method in which you did do it, to me, is.
KoC wrote:
I should make it clear my post was meant in jest. Although I concur with SpyreX - the sudden wealth of anti-Lowell feeling certainly makes me wonder if this is an attempt to get a quick wagon going, whilst buddying up to me to create tomorrow's scapegoat.
Now I know my sarcasm-meter is often way, way wrong... but really? Even in rereading after this the only way I can see it as a joke is it was so over the top aggressive. That's hard to stomach as being a total joke.
. Ah, well. Pity I missed it.
