204 Fight Club Mafia -- Mod Abandoned

[Thesp]

Hello all!

I'd like to take this moment to confirm my predecessor's vote on Olio. As I was reading through the thread, I was ready to vote him for his scummy-seeming justification for his votes and some unusual posts he's made, but Crola already had his vote on him. I now endorse it more strongly than he did.

Carry on.

[Thesp]

I will beat up anyone who doesn't post in the next two days with my paper fists.

[Thesp]

Pardon me. I realize my previous statement could be misinterpreted by my vague use of prepositional phrases. No one is allowed to post with my paper fists, except for me. I will use said paper fists to lay the smackdown on anyone who fails to post within the next two days.

Now post.

[Thesp]

The bandwagon on Olio looks quite random so I'm not willing to jump on it, especially because he said he would have computer problems, so he is sort of "justified" for lurking.

Who said anything about voting him for lurking? Besides the person who was concerned with his lurking prior to the video card bit?

[Thesp]

Sure, be happy to explain. Besides the hostile and defensve reaction now, here's a post by post analysis:

Sineish, you say you had reason for your vote and it wasn't random. Didn't you notice names were in alphabetical order? And if you noticed, why didn't you check from the queue thread for the real order of signups?

This post strikes me as odd.

So far I'm not convinced by Sineish's explanation. I still think his vote is random vote trying to be non-random. At the moment it's the scummiest we got in my opinion.
vote: Sineish

We are still missing spork and KingEnigma. mod, maybe give them a playful nudge?

Really? Sineish is really looking scummy to you for his "non-random random" post? It looks like the line of reasoning you're using (based on your previous post) is because of semantic differences over the word "random".

Few reasons from top of my mind why Crola claimed now:
Unkillable/-lynchable role
Wins game when lynched (wasn't there something like that in the bookshop-mafia
Scum
Poor play

Everyone of those reasons is bit far-fetched in my opinion, but right now I couldn't think anything else.

This post also strikes me as odd. It looks like you're trying to appear as though you're contributing without putting anything useful out there. Notice there's no stance taken here as to which one he thinks is correct. This also could be baiting.

Bamboomancer, do you mean scum could try to kill Crola or scum could try to make such a roleclaim?

Useful question.

I agree with Commodore Amazing.
unvote: Sineish
vote: spork76

This looks like a post pull.

Can you please explain that theory of yours. I don't quite follow, I'm afraid. When it comes to my lurking, my graphic card stopped functioning on Wednesday.

Thesp, what in my justifications you viewed scummy? The fact it's day one and we don't have information? Or the fact I agreed with Commodore Amazing? Why don't you think Commodore Amazing is scummy?

unvote: spork76

I don't think Commodore Amazing is scummy for that post because he put forth substance. You used his post as justification for yours rather than appropriating it. In fact, it would lead later to the idea of "if I'm wrong, look at the guy who put forth the idea", almost what you've done here. Also, do you think I should think Commodore Amazing is scummy?

Here's the thing: you haven't constructively moved the game along. You don't seem interested in doing so. My guess is beause you're scum. Happy with my vote.

[Thesp]

You did smoothly leave out the "at the moment" part I have there. Also you're putting words like

really

in my mouth. Thanks for that.

It's day one. What kind of evidence you base your first vote? Did you notice the page where my vote was given?

I'm confused. I quoted your entire post and didn't add anything to it. Where am I putting words into your mouth?

I also thought I'd detailed the evidence for my first vote. You quoted large parts of it, if I'm not mistaken. It's not concrete, but it's something to go on.

Also, I don't buy the "It's day one" stuff. We can still work from hunches and guesses. That's what I've got here. I did notice what page it was, so I thought the particular accusation in the tone of your posts that early (as it came across to me) was odd.

So you'd rather we stay silent and not give our opinion about things happening in the thread? Looks like we have bit different style of playing and that's a crap reason for a vote.

No...far from it. I think we should definitely give our opinion on things. My point on this post is that I thought you

hadn't

given an opinion.

What does "post pull" mean? I agree with Commode Amazing's reasoning and vote the person I find scummiest at the moment. You'd rather I vote without giving explanation, eh?

It means you pulled someone else's post as your own. It allows you to deflect any criticism, should the vote turn out to be on an innocent (as this one appears to have been) upon the initial poster. Given your lack of significant contribution to the thread at the time, it struck me as odd.

I'm bit lost: what's the difference between justification and that appropriating thing? Should I repeat somebody's words when I agree with him? How much you think there's information on day one, really? Why do you give Sineish free pass now when he has jast agreed with Mr. Flay and voted me based on that agreement?

Sorry for my use of terminology. I'm a philosophy major, so sometimes I get absurdly precise/erudite in my terminology. When you appropriate something, you make it your own. I wasn't convinced you had really believed in the scumminess of spork76. You may have, it just didn't appear that way to me. I've also stated what I think about any arguments re: the futility of Day One. We're also beginning to build a nice track record.

Also, re: Sineish, who says I'm giving him a free pass?

Here's the thing. Your reasons behind my vote are crap and points from a) to c) go for Mr. Flay too.

a) You are voting me because my first vote in the game doesn't have word random attached to it and it's based on very little information.
b) You are voting me because I agree with somebody else's logic and vote for person I find more evidence against than that little information I based my first vote on.
c) You're expecting me to have solid reasons behind my day one votes after few pages of posts.
d) You start game from page 5, I start game from page 1. Which one has more information to start with?
e) You don't seem to have any problems with Sineish's vote.

OMGUSvote: Thesp

At the moment Sineish is next in my list with Mr. Flay and Drummer.

a) It didn't come across as random. I'm fine with hunches on very little information, this one seemed out of place, though.
b) I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. If you're finding evidence against anyone, though, I'd love to hear it.
c) I think this is a mischaracterization. I don't think you need rock-solid proof, but working from something would be nice. It'd be nice to see where you're coming from, and I haven't really seen that.
d) This is not only a terribly unhelpful way to think, but it's also conceivable that being a replacement helps me think things more clearly. Having no attachment to the thread until page 5 gives me a unique, outsider's perspective not swayed by the throes of daily reading. I may be incorrect, but I think it's silly to be dismissive over this. If you have secret information I don't have from being here for pages 1-4 (which I can and have read), I'd love to hear it so you can get me up to speed.
e) Not sure I do yet. I'm still pondering that one, but right now I think you look scummier.

[Thesp]

*beats up Bamboomancer, KingEnigma, and spork76 with his paper fists*

Actually, I'd love to hear more thoughts from d_rouge. Soon, actually.

[Thesp]

Where did I say Sineish

really

looking scummy to me?

Sineish is correct in divining my intent here. Read the same thing, instead reading "actually" instaed of "really".

These statements seem contradictory to me or then I've misunderstood something. You're saying you don't have concrete evidence and at the same time you don't believe in "day one" stuff. In my opinion "day one" stuff is same thing as not having concrete evidence, at least not for your first few votes on the first few pages.

When I refer to "concrete evidence", I speak more about game mechanics and game-long patterns. In any case, it's apparent that the only such evidence we seem to have now (if I recall correctly) is spork/Drummer's role confirmation. I agree that to vote today, a lower information threshhold is correctly observed.

That's crap. How do I deflect criticism by agreeing with Commodore Amazing? With my agreement I signed his conclusions. You'd rather I repeat the words of others and try to present them as my own thoughts? That's scummy to me.

Once more: what kind of significant contribution you're waiting on day one? Am I really the only one in your opinion who hadn't contributed to the thread at that point you maded your post? And why do you believe spork is innocent?

Usually, when a bandwagon turns, the person who initiates the turn

does

get looked at more harshly. I also don't know if you were the only one who hadn't made significant contribution up to that point, I know yours just stuck out at me as I was reading through. I do give you credit for giving us more to work with, here.

So you think I'm scummy because I didn't try to pass Commodore's thoughts as my own reasoning for my vote (appropriating) but instead said I agreed with his thoughts? To me that sounds like a flawed logic, no offense. What does that track record mean?

You claimed you agreed wth him. I just didn't believe you actually did, for whatever reason.

I am. He agreed with Mr. Flay's reasons for voting me and you didn't find that worth FOS, though my agreement with Commodore's reasoning seem to be one of your main reasons for voting me.

I see. I will ponder more on him later. It's worth noting Sineish had already contributed quite a bit to that point as well.

My first vote against Sineish had very little reason behind it. I agreed with Commodore's thoughts and switched my vote to person I felt was more scummier ie. I had more reason behind my second vote than my first.

Perhaps this is part of the problem. Your vote on Sineish comes across (to me) much harsher than a little-reason attack. I agree there was more reason for the second.[/quote]

I think you're missing the point. When I made my first vote, there was almost nothing to base it on. My second vote had more substance as I saw Commodore's reasoning a valid one. That doesn't mean there was rock-solid base on that vote, but there was more foundation that on my first vote.

Now, when you made your first vote you had 5 pages information, which I didn't have when I made my votes. So you could go through multiple posts from one person and base your vote on them, when I didn't have that luxury when giving those two votes. Yet you're accusing me for not having some solid evidence for my first and second vote, if I'm not mistaken.

Ah, I see what you're getting at. In all fairness, I did try to consider time and frame of reference on each post, as I took notes while I read through it all the first time.

Argh, I died, kind of, even though it says I'm still fighting. Good luck all.

?????

[Thesp]

I have no problems with suspicion of d_rouge and find them well founded.

[Thesp]

I wouldn't mind getting some sort of claim out of Sineish.

[Thesp]

I find myself not believing Sineish.

Vote: Sineish

. I think that's a lynch.

[Thesp]

I was indeed town, and just a slip of paper.