Right, here goes. There can't really be a huge amount of defense here since I've made maybe 5 posts so far this game, so there's not much to defend. But the argument at the moment seems to centre around this post of mine (meme omitted):
OK, serious face now. I don't think the case against II is a good one so far. He has been lynched early and stupidly too often recently, he's right. I'm withholding judgement at this point.
So I guess I'd better unvote since there are proper votes on him now.
I have no other reads so far.
And the reasons this is scummy:
1) It's hedgy
2) I don't offer anything else.
Well both of those stem from the same thing, which is that we were less than 2 whole pages (for my posts/page setup anyway) into the game at that point!
I hedge D1. That's what I've always done. I'm trying to get better, trying not to do that so much. But I simply cannot form an opinion on someone based off of just a few posts each . Apparently people disagree with me as to whether it's possible to get a read off of someone in that time, since everyone is finding me so scummy for a grand total of one post. But one thing is certain: I, personally, cannot form reads that fast.
This post:
And like, the whole "not voting for someone because I don't like the case others are presenting" is silly in my opinion. People can have different reasons for thinking people are scum.
either misrepresents me or misunderstands me, I'm not sure which. It's not that I think II is scummy and I'm avoiding voting II because some other people have presented a case I think is bad. It's that I don't think II has been scummy. Clear enough? Obviously if someone presents a case that I find convincing or I come up with such a case then I will vote appropriately.
And the final sentence
Just because one case is "bad" doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong
Is basically summarising my hedgey position, right? I mean, what I'm saying is "I don't like the current case, not voting right now, but another case might come up later to convince me the conclusion is correct". Which is exactly what you're saying here.
Unless you're saying you should vote for people in the absence of a good case. Which makes no sense to me.
I really can't say much else about this, except that people need to maybe read some other games of mine. I'm always found scummy on D1, for hedging among other things.
I can maybe offer some super-tentative reads so far.
II is pretty much dead null. This post of his is vaguely towny though, so ever-so-minor town points?
Gkrieg and e are making sense. It makes me a little nervous that e and Haddock are OMGUSing again becuase they always do that and often when they are both town.
That's all I've got for now.
Namely his legitimate-sounding worry about me and e OMGUSing.
e has put a bad case on me, and he should know better, hence the vote. But he and I often find each other scummy. Very mild scum. (and
unvote, I have a better place to put my vote now that I've cooled down)
WW. Eh. Don't like his unexplained sheepy-looking votes, but he does that. Mild town I guess, this is how he is.
chairs. Man, the poor-taste joke pisses me off. He's contributed nothing, fairly standard. Wanna say scummy cos I'm annoyed, but no, null.
gkrieg. Null. I was going to say I didn't like this post, but the more I read it the less scummy it looks
vote: Haddock
The hedging is bad, but I still don't have scummy vibes from iguana
I like e so far, ADK stays fairly townie, but it is always hard for me to read him D1. He usually does something extremely scummy as scum, so I'm giving him a town pass until he does that.
Awaclus is towny so far. Being himself.
RR. Not himself at all. Hasn't done anything crazy, is being too careful. Not posting enough.
vote: RR
Author
Topic: Mafia 81: Desperation Mafia - Game Over (Read 55508 times)