Just gonna start with saying I know jingle wants me to react to the vote on me in some way, but this is the limit of what I can say in response to it. "Okay."
What the hell is LAMIST? I've seen it used several times now and can't for the life of me figure out what it's supposed to stand for.
For other Jingle related things: I really dislike using meta to describe / explain everything, including your own play. While there's a certain amount of influence meta should have on your reads, it definitely shouldn't be
the
thing you rely on. People change. How they think changes. Situations and circumstances being different will change how they behave. It's not as cut and dry as "they were like this before so they will be like this again in this situation." In no small part because the situation is not exactly the same. Also, people who are aware of their own meta are capable of actively playing along with / against it.
That's just an in general mafia discussion style comment, though.
As for the Aristophanes case: I think Jingle raises a good point about how Aristophanes is handling the self-meta stuff. I don't think the original l-1 vote argument is worthwhile, though I do feel the following discussion had merit. My short-version understanding of the meta stuff is Jingle saying "ari is suspect for not putting the l-1 vote" with ari saying "no, I don't do that stuff" with Jingle saying "aha! but you do! look at these games" to which Ari responds "hmmm I see I have done this thing but those situations were different" leading to Jingle saying "I have caught you saying you would/would not do things when you have experience doing/not doing those exact things!" and having Ari respond with "well I can't make you think you're wrong on this"
While the original point from Jingle is horribly weak (Aristophanes didn't put someone at L-1! Scum!), I do feel that how Aristophanes handled the rest of it is suspect. This is more so in light of the rest of his posting. He's put more effort into defending himself from Jingle than he has in contributing anything else in the thread so far. His most recent posting about his actual reads before Jingle-stuff was
"I have reads forming but nothing to say about them" - which is the equivalent to saying nothing at all. Anyone can say they have thoughts. What
are
the thoughts? The most clearly worded thought processes are self-defense against Jingle and
agreeing with someone attacking his attacker but then saying
it's gut.
Regarding Luca putting words in other people's mouth thing, I suppose the more correct wording would be "responding to questions addressed to other people and saying the answers were ~obvious~" - I am typically suspect of calling things obvious (especially when I feel they're not) when it comes to other people's reasoning. It's not saying that it's what they're trying to say, but
this post as well as the one below it are mostly along the lines of "they're clearly doing A" - others may read it differently, but that's the feel I get from it. Korts may be
wording things better than me about it.
I don't see anything suspect about not putting people at L-1, so commentary from Jingle saying keychain is suspect for that I disagree with - I also am generally finding keychain townish at the moment aside from that. Similarly have town-leaning reads on Korts and insanity.
I'm vaguely interested in seeing the final reveal of Jingle's Grand Plan. Withholding judgment until then.
If there's anything else specifically you'd like me to comment on, feel free to ask. I don't have much else to say on the mind.
Pending content from CultOfAthena's replacement and certain other people's postings, I am comfortable doing the following:
UNVOTE: CultOfAthena
VOTE: Aristophanes
at the bolded. He's going by another username now.![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile"){kind=icon}
Is that not common knowledge in Australia? That's pretty interesting. 
