OK, so I've done a read up of Emurlahn's posts. When he goes for content, he tends to make sense, but I dislike his techniques of attacking people. He breaks up their responses into single line quotes and responds to each one without addressing any of the context of those lines. This makes it very difficult to tell whether he actually has a valid point or is just quoting out of context for effect, and I dislike it for that. He gives the post numbers instead of using a quote that links to the post in question, which also makes it harder to check up on his cases.
I noticed when he went after Kessobahn in Post #528 (It's too long to post here, so I'll
link to it instead) he made a point of implying that Kess was using these tricks which he listed as if they came from the Scum Survival Manual ™ (Available for £10.99 at your nearest bookshop). It's the kind of technique that allows you to hammer home your points, making the case seem more emphatic to the casual reader. I've used it myself on occasion. But it seems to me that an inno who is looking at things and trying to get others to see clearly wouldn't try to overstate his case. Not saying that it's indicative of scum, per se, in the circumstances it is probable that it was an instinctive response to something he saw as scummy. I just didn't like it.
The thing is though, it gets brought up again later:
Emurlahn, on Dec 5 2008, 12:53 AM, said:
Kessobahn, on Dec 5 2008, 01:48 AM, said:
But if Mockra buys into the whole symp shit, that hurts us. In a bad way. Fuck, since Emur ripped everypost to shreds everything I say looks symp like. Fuck this is hard.And how do I defend against that. Its all bullshit, but how do you defend? Fuck. I'm gonna think for a while.
Next time, think twice before dismissing someone./something The way you replied gave me all the ammo I ever needed to continue, and that made you the one adding fuel to the fire.
Copying every single survival trick in the book (2 hours into the new day ) did nothing to prove your innocence, either.
(Underlined for emphasis)
He goes back to his book and implies that Kess has been guilty of everything in it. Now that seems a little extreme - Kess was shifty and nervous under pressure, yes, but once again he is overstating his case - through hyperbole this time.
As far as general stances go - his point of view on Day 2 was that Mockra had lied about his reveal, and that guarding scum made him scum and guarding good made him good, and then that Mockra's lying must imply he had guarded evil, so vote Gamelon. Well, peeling this back a bit, it seems he has not really thought Mockra's mechanic through properly (although I think I missed this when I was looking at it before). There is no way it would make any sense for Mockra to switch things around - let's pretend for a moment he hits an evil person on Day 1. So now he's scum...what now? He can't guard a GB or his alignment will switch to good, rendering him a liability. So he has to continue to try and hit scum to maintain his alignment? Or perhaps not use his ability at all? Might as well not have it then. It just doesn't make sense from a gameplay point of view. So having based his reasoning on something very shaky, it turns out his vote for Gamelon had pretty much nothing behind it. But he was pretty vocal in pushing for a lynch...
Now onto Day 3. The main thing he has done has been to make a very weak case on Korlat. Now I notice this post back on day 1:
(In response to Omtose's early accusations against Korlat)
Emurlahn, on Dec 4 2008, 10:46 AM, said:
I personally found Korlat less... alarming (scummy would not be the good word, as I think Liosan isn't scummy per sé, but just incredibly overreacting, and it is that which makes me suspicious of him) than Liosan. I've been butting heads with Kessobahn as well, and while I uttered some strong language, I didn't feel the need to self vote at any point in time
That is what I find so alarming in Liosan. He could have removed his vote since then, too. But he didn't, so that leads me to deduct that his reaction wasn't some kind of angry lash out but a more calculated play.
Your mileage may vary.
However, I'll concede that if Korlat keeps his 'low content' posting up, he's a good target for voting/ lynching.
He seems to be good to his word! However, the sheer tenuousness of his case today made me reinterpret the underlined part as possible distancing. On the other hand, I find Korlat fairly suspicious myself, so I don't place a whole lot of weight on this, just chronicling my thoughts.
And that's about everything. All in all, I find Emurlahn suspicious, mainly because his method of arguing seems quite manipulative to me. There are a few interesting things, but nothing conclusive. This isn't a case, exactly, because my vote is not going on him at the end of it (there's not quite enough there, and you may have been able to tell from my actions thus far that I'm cautious when it comes to placing my vote for the most part) - I just figured I should make my thoughts available to all so they can comment.
EDIT: Major cross post, with Kaschan going to L-1 among other things.
This post has been edited by Ruse: 10 December 2008 - 12:48 AM
Help
