I thought I would have more time/energy this weekend to be more active here, but I was wrong. Here I am for a bit before I finish up some necessary things. I have things to respond to, I see, and much of it is the same thing, so I'll try to get it in one response.
Gamer Guy 2 wrote:
Elohcin, I would like to hear more from you. How do you feel about Dom, Scotty and Turnip Head? Did either the Long Con argument or the Synonym argument have more sway in your head? What made Synonym's case bad? was Long Con's also bad?
It worries me that Elohcin left the vote a tie based on Synonym's case being bad. It shows non-commitment and a willingness to allow either player to die, even though previously stating "civs needing to call out BS". A win-win situation on the chance that they are both civilian.
Scotty has 3 posts. His vote for Synonym was a drive-by. Too little to go on.
Turnip Head has 3 posts of little substance, but he says he's been out of reception. Too little to go on.
Dom seems concerned about baddie hunting, and has expressed this several times over people finding socks. I don't agree with his Synonym vote, but his posts look like baddie hunting as he asks questions, etc. And I agree with his vote for MM.
Neither of those arguments had sway in my head. I thought LC jumped on Synonym for what I saw as satire, and I think people jumped on LC for making a case. I didn't think it was a good case, but I think many people jumped on it (either for it or against it) because it was easy to do so. I agreed with Cookie's post on the matter in my vote post. As for more recent matters, I think Synonym's reactions to today's accusations look genuine, like a frustrated civ. Yes, I've seen baddies pull the frustrated civ act, but that's just where I'm leaning, so I will not be voting him today.
I don't understand why my previous vote would worry you - it makes perfect sense to me why I would not vote for someone because I thought the case on them was bad. And if I recall correctly, when I voted, it was not a tie, but I'll give you that is was certainly close. It doesn't show non-commitment: it shows that I don't vote for who I think is civilian, and that I don't vote for people simply because they have a large number of votes. That's called bandwagoning, and that's not good civ behavior in my book.
I'm sure I've left something out of this post from someone, but I'm happy to answer whatever I need to. As for my vote today, I believe I will vote MM again because the player is definitely hiding behind the sock, posting and voting without substance or reason still on Day 2, and it pings me more than others who have garnered votes today.
Linki - I'm here!