Let's take a look at Peachmonster:
-He is against policy lynches. This is established in posts
77 and
82, but then look at his next post
97, where suddenly it's okay to lynch someone based on grammar? Then, in post
245 it's okay, even desirable to lynch Moriarty. He builds a half-hearted case on CottonLicky, on the basis of actual scummy behavior, and then in the next post ...
Oh, and per earlier post:
Vote: Moriarty
Moriarty, please take a stance on someone you feel is scummy in some way.
Okay, so lynching based on scumminess is preferable to lynching based on policy/anti-town play. You have a case on someone you feel is scummy. But you vote for someone based on policy, and NOT on the person you think is actually scum.
I think Gorditoboy has noted a few times that the Moriarty wagon is the perfect place for scum to hide. Posting what is essentially a FOS on Cottonlicky and then voting someone else, when both halves previously stated that they'd prefer to lynch scum over a policy lynch looks like feeling out the town. Also, while Peach has been going on and on about game mechanics (I think better than half his posts so far have been game mechanic related, or discussing their own meta) and pushing Moriarty as a possible lynch target, they don't actually hop on board the wagon until it's clear that it's going places. Peach is making very safe scum plays, and not really contributing to the game.
Also, this post:
Getting a town read on Smarboy, I like the play and the reasoning. Gord's play seems to fall in line with his town play in Bioware.
Scum hunting for "invalid reasons" is still scumhunting, whether you agree with it or not. I don't claim to be a great player, but I do try. If you'd like to give me reads on more players I have no problem in answering questions about other players at all, until then Ii comment on what I find scummy and what I see fit. The fact that you don't agree with my reads doesn't mean I'm not making them.
Bolded = experienced player's version of the noob card.
Me voting for him wasn't a policy. I voted him to pressure him to participate in a more helpful way, and in case he was trying to coast. I voted for a player, not for a policy. A policy lynch means you set a rule that you must never break. These are two entirely different things. In addition it's not a policy lynch because I am free to take away my vote from Moriarty at anytime I want. In a policy lynch, you can't take away your vote, it's "policy."
At the risk of quibbling over the definition of policy, any time you vote for a player for something anti-town, it's going to come across as a policy lynch. The fact is, voting a player for anti-town play when there are people who are actually being scummy is itself anti-town. So, for that matter, is announcing that a vote is for pressure (even if everyone and their brother recognizes it as such). You're splitting hairs here; you are voting Moriarty because of his playstyle and that is a policy lynch.
If you think I should be the play why didn't you vote for me when you made a really long case against me? You are reacting pretty strongly to what was an observation and a finger of suspicion. You should follow it up with a vote. We prod you with suspicion with what may have seemed like wifom, and your reaction is to make a giant case against us, but then not even follow it up with a vote? That doesn't look good at all in my eyes.
While I feel your actual defense is sound, the over reaction you are having defending yourself is pretty suspect. You are not the play for the day but you are a player to watch more closely than others, particularly how you react when people accuse you.
@the-man Cheese may be obnoxious but like ForeverZero stated, it's getting reactions out of people, and making people take stances on him. He's also taking stances on others. I feel ok about him right now myself.
So why didn't you follow up your case on Cottonlicky with a vote? Why are you still not voting him? Clearly your pressure on Moriarty isn't doing anything, so why not put your vote where it might do some good?
Regal had a strong case made on him earlier in the day that made sense and that we do not feel he made a strong response to it.
Spag I dislike, Chuckie is a null tell. FZ and Gotenks I would actually like to defer to my other half for a read on, as I don't feel I have a strong one.
My other half originally made the case on Licky, but then asked me to separately review Licky's posts and give me his opinion. I arrived to the same conclusion citing the same posts, so we decided to pursue. I fail to see how we have pursued you for "invalid reasons", and find it suspect that you are accusing us of "not scumhunting" because scumhunting for "invalid reasons" (translate: finding you scummy).
Here you list a whole bunch of people you find scummy. Why not vote one of them? Don't you prefer to vote scummy people instead of inactive or anti-town people?
Peach is our #1 scumpick. We would go for a gotenks lynch over Moriarty, but would prefer Peach.
Summary: We have someone (Peachmonster) being actually scummy. We should lynch them, and not policy lynch someone because we don't like their posting style.
Vote: PeachMonster
