In post 406, TwoFace wrote:I eagerly await for your anayasis about these fishy reasons. Surely you can explain which ones you find fishy and why.
Woo, finally here!
I think the best way to start this is by examining everyone on the current wagon and seeing why they voted and how I agree/disagree.
Currently we have TwoFace, Gamma, and Ari on the wagon:
1) TwoFace: probably the most solid person on the wagon - im only going to go over the stuff i disagree with:
In post 352, TwoFace wrote:So fitz is probably scum. Too many non ai or non truths being twisted into appearing bad. No way an experienced town player comes to this conclusion.
This is very presumptive but I understand where you're coming from. would've loved to see you wait for his response tho.
Fitz wrote:- I'm not saying your naked vote on Misa is bad...I'm saying you voting a mason is bad. Which I can say in my post with the hindsight now that you were voting town. If I didn't assume LUV and Misa were telling the truth I wouldn't have considered you vote negatively.
this is bad - ill give you that much but it's not lynch worthy, looks more like a lapse in logic and judgment than anything. if he continues this sort of behavior, then we have problems.
In post 358, havingfitz wrote:IMO talking about the statistical odds of hitting scum in a group of four players on P1 of D1 is completely worthless. And going on and on about it serves absolutely no value and just gives the impression of trying. If it's not doing that then it has no place in the game...therefore is not progressing the game at all...and I find that counterproductive...aka suspect.
very fair
In post 358, havingfitz wrote:- In hindsight voting town (mason Misa) is bad...yes? Voting town in bad...yes? We have more information at our disposal following the mason claims so that colors your vote on Misa negatively. Comprehend?
However, there is nothing bad about it on day 1. This is voting analysis stuff that you're trying to shove in on Day 1. Like I said before, I agree that this is bad. It's really really not great but I don't think it's scummy. Just a lapse in judgment.
If TwoFace has only been on town wagons, that's something to look at - maybe a LYLO i have no clue vote.
To be fair, this throws everything I have said above into question but I am willing to wait for a response about this whole thing.
In post 419, havingfitz wrote:I will say I find it funny that I am 1) being accused/voted (by those I cast suspicion towards btw) of suspecting everyone who suspected/voted for a mason while at the same time 2) being criticized for town reading two of the players who voted/suspected a mason. Point 2 negates point 1. Which no one seems to even notice. And I readily admitted I suspected both LUV and Misa....but I know I am not scum.
I am not suspecting players of being scum solely based on the fact they suspected/voted a mason. But now that we have the mason claims that is perfectly valid information to consider.
That covers most of it though so let's move on.
2)Gamma: I don't really think he's town anyway but let's see what he has to say
In post 360, Gamma Emerald wrote:Havingfitz: pushing the masons before they claim is NAI. If you wanted to attack someone for doubting the claim then that would make more sense.
Same reason almost verbatim, just a little crude.
Weeuuueeeuuueeuuueuuuu
KK this is where stuff gets a little weird for me. Again, not disputing the fact that HF's stuff doesn't have a hint of scum taint but I don't really believe that. He gave a slew of other reasons, valid or not. I'm not really concerned about them because, as you will see, I have my own reasons.
I would be OK with anyone saying this but anyone who has thought about voting Eric (like Gamma has done) when Eric does literally the same things from an objective viewpoint. Except, Gamma only shows intent to vote Eric but doesn't do it. There's even a flip-flop on Eric between 185 and 384. Not enough for anyone to question it but there's certainly uncertainty that Gamma is town-reading Eric. In fact, if anything, there's a clear slideline provision there. But the fact that he's going to OK Havingfitz for some of the same things that Eric has literally done puts me at an unease.
3) Ari:
In post 413, Aristophanes wrote:I mean like "You voted a Mason before they claimed! You must be scum!" doesn't even make any fucking sense!
You're right...and Havingfitz is experienced. Doesn't something seem very weird there?
I don't really want to do anything more with Ari because that's all he talks about Fitz in a relative sense (not a bad thing since Fitz has been V/LA)
There's nothing wrong with three people voting in the same exact way if it's for 110% valid reasons but I don't think this reason is 110% valid. There are certainly cracks and no one is following havingfitz. I think these reasons can be legitimate with the next post that he writes but not at the current moment.
Here are some reasons that fitz does draw actual concern though:
In post 286, havingfitz wrote:
1. We're you just thinking aloud and not looking for anyone else's opinion?
2. Who asked you?
Posts like these are very uncanny and weird. The fact this is toward TwoFace before the vote and then he votes TwoFace after listing multiple scumreads - especially with TwoFace arguably being the weakest of the bunch - is very weird. There's some sort of tunnel vision that Fitz is applying and it's not great. Started with Io in the beginning to a small degree, now it's straight onto TwoFace.
I also think that the response to me in 358 says a lot about Fitz's opinions of the game rather than opinions in general. The first two statements on VIs is ignorable because there's no reason to lie in that situation. Moving on from there:
In post 358, havingfitz wrote:The things he says and does are still fair game for assessing his alignment. I'm not and haven't been willing to just discard him for being new to this site.
This is the real meat of the situation. The fact that Fitz can't distinguish that some one, who is new, cannot have a different playstyle that would react differently to the overall alignment of a player is just straight up not true. There's no way Fitz can say that with a straight face without trying to convince himself of that fact.
In post 358, havingfitz wrote: Prior to the mason claims and Deer replacing in, Eric was lower down on my radar and not in conflict with your adamant mindset. With 3 people who were on my radar now removed for now...he has gone up on my list of suspects. And still not getting my vote despite that btw.
1) Eric did not post in between...so...?
2) Does that mean that you still suspect Deer for being in Io's slot? It certainly seems to be that way and links back to what I said at the top. Eric is probably 3rd lynch material for Fitz.
I know how to best play from a scum perspective and Fitz does that. Not from his words but from the long-term game. Am I willing to vote on that now? Yeah - maybe at the end of a BW or if nothing else really strikes anyone. I think I would rather get rid of Creeps first if this is how he's going to act for the rest of the game.
