Okay. I thought I had explained this already, but as it keeps popping up every once in a while in more and less fiery postings, I try to make it clear once more (we should rename this game into
TIG XCIV "Where the Repetition is the Rule"), maybe with some added ideas based on Boro's few "new questions".
Yes, I was mad at
Bom's self-vote, especially after all the rant there had been about the signifigance of making a reasoned vote.
Yes, I entertained the idea and was unsure about what to do; whether to stick with the principle (those who do not play should be lynched so that people would know it happens and thus would not do it, or stayed out of games they have no intention to play) or whether there was chances to hit a wolf.
Yes, I did more or less talk myself out of it even if I wasn't sure on how strong grounds the suspicions I had on some people were.
Yes, after
Shasta started pressing with it - and it kind of opened out as a real possibility when some others also voiced their possible interest in doing it - I started rethinking it as a real option. I mean it's stupid to vote for a non-player if you're the only one to do that.
But then you forget what I aready told earlier - and you can check it if you wish.
I wished to have a discussion as to whom to vote, in the end there, like 15 minutes before the DL, got a phone-call from my colleague, and when it was done, like 10 minutes to the DL, people had already started voting for
Bom and there was no reasonable scenario left but to join (no ties and thus double lynches). Picking up enough votes to lynch someone else at that moment was basically impossible.
So it was not that I especially wished to see
Bom dead and somehow sneakily orchestrated it so that the others did the job for me (if I was that good, I'd win every WW-game singlehandedly whatever side I was on
), but well, it went that way this time.
But I'm not apologizing either. Like someone said, better an innocent than a gifted on D1, and I'd continue, better someone you can only do quesswork (throw a dice) than someone you can try to read and actually play with on D1.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Boro
Unsure innocents always has to go back through posts to either convince themselves about their suspicions being right, or to see they might have judged wrongly. But with Nog yesterday, it's almost like trying to convince us his vote was being thoughtfully considered, when really it was a "here's why Bom's suspicious" case with some "half-serious" and "it could just be innocent Bom being Bom" added in to make it look reasonably considered.
It was Bom's self-vote to motivate Nog to go back and re-consider voting Bom...right? But you hardly have to go back through Bom's posts to convince yourself. I mean, it's Bom. We are familar with his style. What were you expecting to get out of his posts? If your reasons for voting Bom are because Bom's playing unconventionally and there doesn't appear to be other options you're comfortable voting for, fine, just come out and say so. Saying Bom is being mysterious/not giving anything away/not providing helpful input is like saying the sky is blue. It's not like anyone needs to go back through Bom's posts to confirm/deny reasons for voting him. Bom's playing randomly and playing like Bom.
You can't on one hand lynch someone because you're not comfortable with the other possibilities and here is Bom playing like Bom. Yet on the other hand go through a post-by-post explanation and keep tacking on the suspicions to justify the vote. To do so is just overkill. Surprise, surprise, Bom said something controversial/suspicious/crazy/random.
|
And they say I'm verbiose!
I'm not sure I followed every part of this, but I think I got the gist of it.
No. I was not proposing to lynch
Bom because he is
Bom. That would be stupid. I was suggesting it because of how he played, especially the self-vote. Especially because of the discussion on the very issue earlier that Day.
But then you
Boro seem to fall into the fallacy of hindsight or that of wolvery (both meaning "knowing things"). You can choose which one...
Yes, I wished to go back through his posts, but unlike a wolf or a person with hidnsight on his innocence (as we have now), I didn't know if he was a wolf or innocent. So I tried to see if there was anything that would point to him being a wolf and using that self-vote tactics as a cover.
I mean you who complain about
Bom's lynch seem to forget that he could have been a wolf. Or you knew already he wasn't and then as wolves rant on us others who didn't know from supposed "moral-highground". *coughPitchieCough*
So I see nothing wrong in both saying "I'm annoyed of the way he plays so much I could lynch him just for principle's sake" and trying to find out whether there is something lupine in his posts.
Blah.
X'd with a host of posts...