dakky21 wrote:jfm why did you unvote me BUT didn't vote for anyone else? It's still a joke vote phase so leaving your vote (even if it is OMGUS) on me is better than unvoting and then not voting for anyone (for any reason)... You are acting really weird... like you don't care where your vote will go... thats particularly scummy. For that reason I'll leave my vote on you but Pershy may be a better candidate after his last "igmeoy" post. Being so weakly attacked and defending so hard is also scummy...
Well, it's Day 1, I'm just making notes ;)
I'm really not sure about this post, first we have the jfm10 part where
unvoting a
joke stage OMGUS is described as "[
not caring]
where your vote will go" and "
particularly scummy". I do not think the stated actions justify either description. One could certainly say that jfm10 had contributed very little with their posts, which in itself certainly could be considered scummy, although it
is worth noting that at that stage nobody else had actually contributed anything either besides those who had chimed in on potential role flavour and the subsequent claiming discussion. Perhaps that is the point dakky21 was trying to make with this post, but if so it was poorly articulated.
Meanwhile the part about pershy seems largely unfounded, the reason given being "[
pershy's]
"igmeoy" post", a
post that is about as innocuous as can be. In addition, the "
defending so hard is also scummy" part could only to refer to the
aforementioned IGMEOY, or one of
these two made since
dakky21 pounced on the initial
shark comment. The most defensive, and only suspect, one of which being the one containing the line "
I'm not a shark and I doubt there are actual sharks", as this sentence in particular does look somewhat like a slip, however... If this
were scum realising that they have accidentally blurted out that they, or somebody on their team, is a shark, there is actually little need to cover up the blunder as this information still only helps town if town has a role capable of investigating flavour claims, and only then if they investigate the right person. Besides, if such a role does exist then they would surely be somewhat suspicious of any apex predator results (such as say, a shark) though anyway.
I'm not saying there isn't reason to suspect some of the posts by either pershy or jfm10, but what dakky21 is saying as justification doesn't appear to line up with what actually provoked the response.
—
With regards to the early chapcrap/Metsfanmax stuff, I
agree with Ragian in that I agree with what Metsfanmax said =P
Metsfanmax wrote:chapcrap wrote:I didn't say the vote was a bandwagon. I was saying that you agreeing to not mass claim was bandwagoning after multiple others did the same even though you posted and said nothing in between. Was a genuine vote.
OK, so your vote on me is because I "bandwagoned" by agreeing with other people that a bad idea is bad. Got it. Next time as scum I'll be sure not to make that mistake, and try to make the bad ideas look good.
Specifically it looks to me as though (at least initially) chapcrap was merely reaching to find a reason other than OMGUS for a blatant OMGUS vote.
—
ZaBeast and Metsfanmax
each covered the reasoning in favour of lynching day one more or less, and I agree with doing so.
—
Finally, the jfm10 thing, first could somebody in DBD tell me whether Ragian was scum or town in each of the three games jfm10 has previously played?
This post and the
initial suspicion could perhaps be viewed differently depending on the answer. Additionally, was Ragian largely responsible through either night actions or day discussion in jfm10's demise in these games? Even with favourable answers it would be hard to see jfm10's vote as not being opportunistic bandwagoning (something
later admitted even), but non-DBD players are certainly at a disadvantage in judging this situation.
Obviously, the largely unpressured soft-claim slightly complicates the issue. I'm not convinced that Metsfanmax was
using linguistic sleight of hand to make lynching jfm10 sound less favourable, nor that chapcrap was
deliberately fishing for a counter claim. The two questions are very much related though:
Regarding whether
protective role and
Doctor are synonyms, I would say not; Bodyguards and non-killing Jailors are protective too, but distinct enough that one would rarely (if ever) conflate them with the various forms of Doctor. To say that the use of them as if they were synonyms is evidence against the user is dubious however, Metsfanmax's use of the phrase "
claimed doc" appears to have been casual shorthand for
claimed protective role rather than deliberate misrepresentation. When it comes to chapcrap, at best you could take it as somebody suggesting a reason not to lynch a new-ish player of unknown alignment that did something foolish out of charity, at worst it's either scum trying to bait out further mistakes from others or even scum covering for a new-ish player they know to be fellow scum. Regardless, the fact that jfm10 is not counter-claimed is
only of value if we get a more specific claim, nobody can counter-claim an entire group, and this is the crux of the issue.
I am torn between voting for chapcrap, taking the poorly justified OMGUS and the potential role fishing in aggregrate, or voting jfm10 to push for clarification on the claim. Presently, what I really want is the answers to my questions from DBD members.
A note to jfm10: if you are town-sided (and telling the truth therefor), please do not further clarify your role
unless pushed by general agreement to do so, i.e. unless you reach 7+ votes against you. To do otherwise would further hurt town.
