This game is strange, because there are the two small teams, I feel like the patterns we are looking for are different. I'm really not interested in the standard "A said something weird so they're scum". ADK and scola both seem to be on the line for fake scumhunting, well nobody's incentivized to do that, so it's hardly a scumtepl here. Neither exile feels wrong or awesome though.
I feel like our best bet is to pivot (PIVOT!!) to a totally different exile. Rather than looking for who's defending who (which is gonna be so much more fruitful in standard 3-scum setup), we should look for who's playing it safest.
Off the top of my head that's Galz, e, mail-mi.
Vote: Galz
I know some of that is not-aroundedness. But playing it safe isn't just a synonym for low post count. Once I'm at a compy imma check my instincts
Scola isn’t on the line for fake scum hunting it’s more specifically voting with out a strong reason, explaining the vote later when pressed with an explaination that doesn’t hold up logically with what happened at the time. (Check my prior post about the setup discussion and mail-mi, ADK, myself, joth and robz reactions with scola picking robz our of that). He’s is also being accused of acting like newbie overly sheepish, overly qualifying scum, many of his posts have had unnecessary jokey tone or greetings and he has bent quietly to the votes and cases against him.
I get that scum has more insentive to truly scumhunt and so “poor reasoning” and fake scum hunting” are less than ideal cases in this setup but they are much better than a total lurker exile which is essentially what a galz vote is for.
And yet this is your first game with me. That jokey tome or greeting is very normal for me D1. Look at any of my past, ended games.
my vote did have a reason. Not strong, because, well, D1. I don't agree with my explanation not holding up with any logic, though I think people wondering why I picked Robz over the other doctor reveal early suggesters is sensible. But I also din't think it was illogical.
I'm not sure what you mean by overly sheepish and overly qualifying scum. I also think it's interesting that I could in theory be all these scum newbie things, but there's no allowance there for just general town newbie. (I have only played a handful of games on here, two of which I was gone by D2).
I don't agree with the ADK wagon (though of course pondered voting that way for self preservation). And I am worried about starting a new wagon, because I agree we don't want to wait until last minute to consolidate. So I haven't put a vote in.
But I've been told new wagons are not antitown (do you agree), so if that's the case, Ill throw a vote in, after all:
vote: mcmcsalot
I do agree with you that voting a lurker isn't very practical right now.
So it looks like we agree the vote was weak and your explanation was lacking the really solid logic of why specifically robz over others.
I do think it could be general newness as well but the fact that it is tied to you making a vote on someone leans new scum. New town is likely to hold on to their thought if its not strong or clear, new scum feels more compelled to contribute and thus might make a weaker less logically explainable vote.
Overly sheepish and qualifying behavior below. This could very well be how you talk, I have not played with you before but it think scum more often adds words that are unneeded because they sound better when reread:
Whew(qualifier), and my vote wasn't strictly rvs(sheepish, is it or isn't it and if its both maybe elaborate as more info comes about)
Ha, pretty sure(not strong opinion)
This is outside of game discussion and then tagged with the fact that you still like your robz vote but
might consider didds or mix.(might consider indicates not a strong read on any of the players you have decided to talk about which is weird for town to do because if you only might consider why even mention it.)
Here you get voted for being one of the players who was saying you would vote for didds without actually voting for her and you give your reason then triple down on liking your robz vote which you have gone on to say is weak and was slightly rvs to start.
You then go back and reread at my pressure for a reason for your vote and it prompts you to unvote. So why during the three times were you still so confident that you needed to reitorate you still like the robz vote to then just go ah yea it's not a great vote. Obviously if you are town and just made a bad vote it sucks to then get more scumread for backing off but its that the pattern is not one of oh yea that vote was bad its an inbetween world where you think the vote was okay, its just day one, you reitorate a bunchm then you decide nevermind its bad. It seems like scum bending to pressure after having made a vote and read that didn't hold up.
