As I was about to post this, I noticed DR's post. I wrote this post before reading his, but will adress his shortly.
@ everyone:
The following post is entirely for wolf’s entertainment [/sarcasm].
Seriously though, unless the
deadline is extended (please, please, please?)
, this will be my last long post before deadline. As you know, I am often V/LA on Mondays and Tuesdays. So it looks like Rash will have the last word.
Decide carefully whether or not to believe him. Obviously, no solid evidence (such as a confirmed cop result) exists as regards anyone. And the game is hanging in the balance. Even if Rash’s shenanigans has you questioning my alignment, consider whether you think I am the
best lynch for today
.
Consider also the weight of his evidence. Rash has posted a lot of words and argued a lot of details but his entire thesis boils down to a couple of tells. He says that my attacks on wolf have been less than logical. He says that my voting today has been irresponsible. I hold that neither of these things are true but
even if they were
, they can be attributed to a townie.
Compare his case to those against wolf and DR. Look at the way other people have brought unique suspicions against them, but how Rash has been the chief proponent of a Ythill-lynch in spite of what you thought on your own. Be aware that he is manipulating you, whether to serve his ego or his alignment.
I still assert that wolf is the best lynch, with DR a close second. Reread my posts to see why I think this, and decide what you believe.
Though I will not be able to make a long post like this one, I will be able to occasionally check in before deadline. I will gladly hang DR or wolf. I will not hang anyone else.
@ Rash:
Rash wrote:It wasn't in your original sentence. The context was not clear. It's a backpedal.
Fail. It wasn't clear
to you
in context. You could have asked me to clarify instead of guessing what I meant. Clarifying after the fact is not
backpedaling
, I have not changed my intended meaning, you were just wrong about it.
Rash wrote:
I never said anything about DR being a target. That's misrepresentation. Your original argument was "who could prove wolf's alignment," and DR was a valid answer to that in addition to Tony, contingent on them not being lying scum (in hindsight Tony was not).
*Headdesk* My original argument was that Tony was the obvious NK choice b/c he was the only one who could [automatically] clear or condemn wolf. You argued that other people could have cleared him. If you were not arguing my conclusion, then why even bother?
Rash wrote:Your unvote after crywolf voted for DR contradicts the assertion that DR is obv-scum.
You're straying even further from reality. I didn't say DR was obv until
after
his last post. Until then, I was still harboring a little doubt, as was evident in my unvote (and expressed explicitly around that time).
Rash wrote:A lot of your "evidence" is speculation about the setup and involves divining wolf's alignment from the actions of others and forces links that aren't necessarily true. This means your case is craplogic.
Do we have a confirmed cop with a guilty result? No. Do we have other solid facts comparable to that? No. We have nothing except a lot of evidence that
suggests
people's alignments. In some cases, it has added up deeply enough to form conclusions.
Your argument here makes me laugh becasue my case on wolf is
a lot
more extensive and
a lot
less assumptive than yours on me. In the name of brevity, let's just look at today's evidence...
Wolf is a claimed doc who did not die, did not protect the crucial role for "clearing" her, and who's pressence did not sway the mafia from killing him even though two people all but suggested that she protect him.
I am a claimed townie who has engaged in "irresponsible" voting against two people I see as scum. Hell, even if my voting was irresponsible, it doesn't mean I'm scum.
Rash wrote:You act as if this trap could not be used to frame crywolf instead, and that's where the problem is.
Rash, OMG, think about what you are saying. This statement is absolutely ridiculous. If I was using that trap to frame wolf, it means that I am scum and she is the doc. If I am scum, what would be the gain in leading a real doc to protect someone and then killing that person? Was I trying to have my NK blocked?
It makes absolutely no sense.
Rash wrote:Note that I said people. This means that mafia are included, and it's not just the town.
Conceded. I misread your tone in the heat of things. Sorry.
Rash wrote:You set a trap where the mafia (who are people) WIFOMS when they kill (from your day 4 argument perspective) and you WIFOM about the kill when you wake up in the morning.
Very generally, yes, though the WIFOM today is pretty mild. I cannot fathom that mafia would target Tony after that trap without knowing the kill was safe.
Rash wrote:Ythill wrote:
I set the WIFOM trap to entice the mafia into killing someone else unless wolf was one of them. Same thing bionic did when he backed her into a corner about Tony's alignment. The outcome heavily suggests that wolf is scum.
Am I twisting words?
(No.)
(Yes.) You have been suggesting that this was the case: "wolf is scum because Tony was killed."
Quote fixed. Look back at what you said: "So are there no reasons for Tony to be killed except those where wolf is scum?"
I explicitly said that there were
reasons
for Tony to be the kill whether wolf was scum or town. Tony's alignment was nearly confirmed by his actions late yesterday, so I had no reason to believe he wasn't the ideal kill.
Now go back and read what I said: "to entice the mafia into killing someone else unless wolf was one of them." Which means that, if wolf is scum, the mafia may very well still kill Tony but,
if she is not
they are unlikley to. Which is the only thing I've said (and meant) all along, despite the meaning you attributed.
Rash wrote:You've since concluded from the NK (in addition to all of that other craplogic, spare me) that wolf is scum, so she is not doc. This is not an applicable explanation for a prior day 3 event. Your reason for the "idea" came before that statement, not afterwards. Let's hear it.
I don't understand the question. I'll try reiterating but, if I don't answer you, please rephrase the question...
Yesterday I was pretty convinced that wolf was scum, but made an effort to ensure that she was either cleared or condemned today. I set up a situation whereby Tony would be likely to survive (thus revealing her alignment) or where it would be (more) obvious by his death that she was scum. Today I interpreted that information. I don't see the conflict there.
Rash wrote:Ythill wrote:Considering the kill identity, it suggests that I am town.
Explain this.
Already have (above) but I'll say it again. Saying that I (as scum) would lead wolf (as doc) to protect a player and then choose to kill that player is absurd. If the gambit was successful, I would only have managed to block my own kill.
Rash wrote:You're still too confident.
That's funny from an equally confidant guy who is operating on less evidence
and
leading against the consensus.
Rash wrote:Ythill wrote:Rash wrote:Popularity and quality are not equivalent, although hopefully the latter leads to the former.
Popularity and viability are equivalent with a 4:3 ratio.
As popular and viable as a Lowell vote, I'm sure.
Do you even know what viability means?
First off, I was never on board with the Lowell lynch, so your cheap shot is entirely pointless. Second, viability has nothing to do with a D1 lynch. Third, the statement is that viability=popularity (trasnlation: an unpopular lynch is less likley to actually happen at this ratio). That's what I was saying all along, and then you tried to assert "quality" into the argument, and then I simplified the argument without your additive "quality" so as to better communicate it, and then you try to use some
viability + popularity = something else
argument in its place? Huh?
Back to the original statement... in a situation where the number of town equals the number needed for a lynch, the viability of a lynch is equal to it's popularity. We've argued this so far into the ground that I don't even remember what the point of this statement was. LOL. But that's the statement, stop trying to cahnge it in order to disprove it.
Rash wrote:Saying that "a majority" is dead set on lynching DR does not equate to a representation of my townieness.
Oh contraire, my slippery friend. You said, "The way things have been going, it doesn't seem like we're going to have anyone but DR lynched today..." The context and tone of this
infers
(which was what I said) that the matter is both out of your hands and against your better judgment. Which is a point of view that can be associated with town but not scum.
Now, maybe you meant something else. And I wasn't trying to say that you were scummy for saying what I quoted right there. I was just saying that it was invalidated by your own actions (as hypothetical town). You (as town) have the power to alter the opinions of others. You, as one of the 'nillas, are one of the important swing votes. It is certainly within your power to try to argue wolf (the other popular lynch) over DR. So you acting like the matter is out of your hands ("The way things are going") is not valid.
Rash wrote:Just because you deem the consensus (remember that scum can consent too) to be against me, it doesn't mean my actions are worthless.
It depends on how you are using
worthless
here. And on your alignment. Even then, worthless is probably a strong word to describe your renegade-ness, but it certainly isn't the wisest course of action. Unless, of course, you are utterly convinced that both wolf and DR are town, which seems inconceivable to me.