I’m … dissatisfied ... with the people who seem to think that I’m voting farside22 without a proper case on her (Maryita, ThAdmiral, also nonny to a certain extent).
I had a pretty lengthy discussion with her on Day 1, from page 5 to page 8. This discussion originated from her #81, in which she misrepresented DarlaBlueEyes (a dead townie). In her #80, Darla had expressed the opinion that Lord Gurgi (who claimed miller) would be a good Day 1 lynch, unless someone else was more scummy, since his claim leads to all kinds of WIFOM and in case he was a townie, we would only lose a miller (which is a worse-than-vanilla role).
For starters, I was, and still am, of the opinion that this post by Darla was perfectly reasonable and that she shouldn’t have been attacked for it.
However, in #81, farside22 made it seem like Darla had suggested lynching Lord Gurgi without discussing scummy actions by others, and voted for Darla. In the same post, farside22 said Darla should have done three things with regards to Lord Gurgi’s claim, (1) giving her opinion on the best course of action of you’re a miller, (2) saying whether she believed the claim or not and (3) pointing out scummy actions by others.
After I pointed out this misrepresentation, farside22 (#110) “rephrased” her reason for voting Darla to “making a useless, non-constructive post”, which is clearly something rather different than her first reason.
After I pointed
that
out, farside22 (#113) said she attacked Darla for not explicitly saying she didn’t want Lord Gurgi to be lynched immediately, which is another misrepresentation, because Darla made it perfectly clear she didn’t want to lynch Lord Gurgi immediately by adding “unless someone comes round even more scummy”. In the same post, farside22 also said that she voted Darla for not doing the three things she listed in #81.
I then pointed out that, at the time farside22 first attacked her, Darla had already done two of the three things farside22 wanted her to do. Darla gave an answer to farside22’s first question in #63 en #67 and to her second question in #43. I concluded that farside22’s newly stated reason for voting Darla was not valid (#117).
Then in #118 farside22 went “But Darla still didn’t do my (3)!”, implicitly admitting that her last given reason wasn’t valid, while maintaining that she wasn’t backtracking. She then went so far as to give a
fourth
reason for voting Darla, i.e. that Darla was being “defeatist”.
In my next few posts, I restated my case against farside22 a couple of times, trying to get others to vote for her, or at least give their opinion about it. I wasn’t successful at doing this, because the rest of the town seemed more interested in lurker hunting. Then Spacecase started acting scummy and I unvoted farside22 to vote for Spacecase. I specifically stated that I wasn’t satisfied by her responses, but that I thought it was futile trying to get a lynch on her on my own (#178).
Everyone who doesn’t see there is a case against farside22 is either not paying attention or trying to play down an attack on a scumbuddy.
Now, something that didn’t really occur to me until now, after Lord Gurgi and nonny had their little discussion on the last two pages, is that Lord Gurgi also voted farside22 yesterday, but for entirely different reasons, or rather, with no reasoning at all. In fact, Lord Gurgi’s first vote was for farside22 and was random/joking (#36 – note that while Lord Gurgi “unvoted” me, he never actually voted me in the first place).
Lord Gurgi then maintained his vote for farside22 all through my attack on her, without once commenting on that attack. This is very suspicious. It’s like Lord Gurgi random/joke voted his scumbuddy in order to make a kind of “negative connection”, and then didn’t want to take off the vote during my attack for fear of appearing to defend her, but at the same time didn’t want to encourage the bandwagon by commenting on my case. Lord Gurgi later even said that he didn’t want to push the bandwagon against farside22! (#268).
Reviewing Lord Gurgi’s posts on Day 2, he starts out with a second vote on farside22, referring to his “reasoning” on Day 1. The problem with this post is, of course, that there was no reasoning for Lord Gurgi’s vote on Day 1.
Then in #454 he suddenly does make a case against farside22, which is based upon (1) farside22’s lukewarm reaction to his claim, (2) supposed strawmanning by farside22 with regards to the metagame arguments Lord Gurgi was making against her, and (3) farside22’s LoS, which had Lord Gurgi in second place.
I think all of these reasons are unconvincing at best. Farside22’s reaction to the claim was pretty reasonable I think. Lord Gurgi’s metagame argument against farside22 boiled down to “I usually feel she’s town, but now I feel she’s scum”, which is, frankly, a stupid argument. I don't really see how farside22 is strawmanning there. (3) is just OMGUS.
And
still
Lord Gurgi doesn’t comment on my case against farside22...
All this, coupled with his claim and a few other scummy actions (as pointed out by forbiddanlight in her long posts and myself in #397), make me think Lord Gurgi might be bussing a scumbuddy...
