We actually probably should threaten to lynch Naga in any case. That, at least, might force an appearance.


Fair enough. You've been scum/non-town in an absurd percentage of the games I've played with you, so perhaps that's where I've drawn my impression from.

(Though I do sort of instinctually find it suspicious.)

Vote: Naga

I will probably retract this in exchange for a reasonably informative post.

Keep in mind that an actual vote, made to JD, is not changeable anymore.

This blackberry wild cider is delicious.

Look, Skystone, it's not that you're sus to me for being aggro. It's how you aggroed onto Zinger. Zinger took time to point out why you were arguing in bad faith, and given that Zinger had a right to take exception to CL's approach, his take on CL did not differ from you commenting a policy lynch on Zinger for practically similar reasons. It was hypocritical of you.

Fast forward to you throwing defense CL's way and you come out sus. CL doesn't have to be scum (in my perspective) for your defense to be questionable. What mattered was CL batting at Zinger and you encouraging that through your defense.

You're more than welcome to push your agenda. It just may get you lynched since "at all costs" does include the lynch.






If we're going to push a lynch on Naga or Rubik, we just have to verbally commit and follow through in the time leading up to the deadline. The burden is on them tonparticipate if they want to not get lynched. Policy yo.

Sus.

Specifically, because you are not indicating whether or not you've actually cast your true vote to JD or if you are just indicating that you plan to/are in favor of voting naga. The vagueness could potentially lead to Town players making a choice to cast their unchangeable vote on Naga, because your ambiguous vote post lead them to believe that's the direction we're going toDay.

We don't have room for ambiguous posts in this game of unchangeable votes.

the latter

i don't intend to vote under any circumstances until i can't put it off any longer

I know. It's purely an indication of intent.


Except that I never defended CL. From the onset, I specified the scope of my argument: that Zinger's crusade on Lunch did significant harm to town and undermined the game. Even Zinger would not (I hope) contest the the basic truth of these claims -- he merely considered the sacrifice to be justified given the level of insult he felt (as he more or less admitted). In no regard, moreover, does either claim pertain to Lunch in terms of how scummy or not he was, nor does either constitute a defense of him except insofar as "being rude" is not diagnostic criteria for anyone's alignment.

The two cases (Zinger's position on CL and my position on Zinger) are, furthermore, materially different. Zinger objected to a player being rude; I objected to what was, from my perspective, a player abandoning, to the disadvantage of everyone, the basic social contract that governs these kinds of games. The two approaches cannot be correlated merely because of the fact that they are both "policy" lynches in the much same way that we cannot, for instance, call all economic policies bad because some particular economic policy (say, nepotistic corporatism) is bad. Zinger, certainly, had a right to take exception, but there are avenues of resolutions for these sorts of problems -- such as, say, working it out through a mod -- that neither threaten to wreak havoc in the game thread, nor otherwise happen to undermine our pursuit of scum.

Like, it's perfectly reasonable (and totally fair) to suggest that I took a pretty hard stance on Zinger both Day 1 and 2. It is likewise reasonable -- if, I think, wrong -- to reject that stance for one or another set of reasons. It is, however, substantively incorrect and bordering on intellectually dishonest to suggest that my critique of Zinger's individual response pertains to Lunch as a player. Lunch being rude or not does not equal Lunch being scum or not.

Also, I very rarely defend my scum buddies. Just ask Lunch.

There's a fair bit wrong with Sky's previous post (see above ^ ), but I don't have the patience to go into it right now.

I will, however, point out that 2 out of 3 of my biggest scum suspects right now being willing to vote Naga makes me less willing to vote Naga.

I am willing to support a Rag, Sky, or CL lynch, and will throw my vote on whichever of those three has the most perceivable votes (based on announced intentions) at the end of the Day.

All manner of tactics are open to scum. This includes being rude or the such to push a player a certain way. CL being obstinate wrt to Zinger for something last game (and applying it to this game) isn't solely a matter of CL "being rude". It is a matter of CL acting in a scummy manner towards Zinger (certainly from Zinger's perspective). Zinger has chosen to react in such a way as to policy lynch CL for being rude/obstinate/however you want to describe him. Sure, the approach is hardcore and certainly narrow, but it is hardly fair (completely inaccurate) to label Zinger as destructive when compared to you wanting to policy lynch Zinger for his response to CL.

In other words, two wrongs don't make a right.

Zooming out, the two policies are similar. Zinger, without regard to CL's true alignment, pushes for CL's lynch. You, without regard to Zinger's true alignment -- not including the PR revelation that proved Zinger truly is town -- pushed for Zinger. You can differentiate it on minute details as much as you like, but in the end either policy can be wrong. This, for me, is why I'm keen to agree with Zinger concerning you as you've shown, through your words and stance, to be hypocritical wrt to Zinger on the topic of CL.


And you have "defended" CL. Just as CL can call Zinger a liar without using the word, you can defend CL without having to full on sword and board for him.

pretty sure zinger was scumreading CL

Yes. That's why I said as much in my previous post.

I am willing to vote Naga if he doesn't show his face and it looks like it's that or an undesirable result.

I'd rather lynch Rag.

I have not sent my vote.

i was responding to sky

Ragnarokio is my friend.

~11 hours until deadline.

There are currently no votes to report.

Naga is officially in violation of the activity parameters. If Rubik takes no further action today he will violate them shortly before deadline. Take that as you will.

@KoD
Wtf are you even saying. I can't even that block of text. Two wrongs dont make a right lol

By the looks of things:

Rag and Sky want to lynch Naga (2x for Naga)

KoD, Zing, and Tev are for a Rag lynch (3x Rag)

Not sure who CL or Argh want to vote for, and Naga and Rubik are inactive.

I'm willing to go along with the Rag lynch. It's at least a decently solid case, and I'd rather not risk causing a tie vote.

We actually going to run it down on Rag?

Gents, we're going to watch Rome burn tonight.