RR wrote:He's my best suspect as well, by far, and I'd really like to finally see him lynched. That does not mean I'm sure enough to auto-assume he's scum before I see the results, being 100% sure of anything in a setup with no power roles is never the right move.
I never called him confirmed scum. I never called you confirmed scum either. I was making an educated guess.
WWB wrote:Emperical evidenve or absolute truth is based on fact, in otherwords something tangible that can be proved such as a "Telephone record". It can be proved someone lied about calling someone else if a telephone record is produced. There is little such luck here with the exception of the TIMESTAMPS. That is FACT and the only FACT that has been introduced this entire game. I agree it can be argued and there are certain things that could make it not indicative of scum, however very few. So my OPINION based on this FACT and the other evidence collected against you is that you are scum!
What exactly are you talking about here? How are a player's actions not considered a "record"? I'm voting charter right now. Is that not fact? Are you going to argue that I'm not voting him? This one and only FACT you are basing your opinions on, it is the same FACT that the mod DISPROVED?
WWB wrote:I didn't think you would agree your town right? Wink
Go wiki logical fallacy. It has your name all over it.
WWB wrote:Now you think we are using secret code? Talk about a stretch.
It was sarcasm. Notice the sentences immediately after saying the complete opposite?
RR wrote:While I disagree with Walt's case, I'm starting to dislike how Panda keeps using a patronizing tone that's goading him on. This back and forth stopped being informative a long time ago and is now just an absurd lash out.
I disagree that it is not informative. Some bits might be irrelavent, but I'm able to get a better read than I would if he stopped talking.
You seem to just want him to stop talking altogether. What for? What else is on the table now that needs discussion? Do we all have such a one-track mind that we can only have one discussion going at a time?
ThAdmiral wrote:This is a weak argument, and frankly sounds a bit desperate.
Desparate how? To get charter lynched? When he is already majority lynch at deadline?
Basing a case solely on opinion is weak. You seem to disagree. So is basing a case on opinion alone perfectly fine?