Alright! Thanks for stepping up to the plate, zach!
zachattack wrote:The first person to be suspicious of Wall-E was Nekka, Nekka asked why Wall-E liked Gamma's vig claim so much and Wall-E never explained why. What was so great about Gamma's vig claim? You've stated that you liked it, you like the idea of having a controllable and provavble killer, but why is this better than Gamma keeping quiet about who he is?
An unprovoked vig claim seems like something I might do as a vig. In fact, it's something I've done before as a vig. In fact, I've done it over half the times I've been a vig. Something about being a thread bully, using the added weight of a nightkill threat when scumhunting, it's a positive thing to add stress to the other players as a vig.
zachattack wrote:Eek voted for Wall-E, mostly because of Wall-E's dickishness and his loving the vig claim. Tony again asked why you're so supportive of the vig claim, you again dismiss it. Tony (and others) also asked how Gamma's kill is provable, you ignored this as well, instead focusing on Tony's suggestion that there may be a roleblocker.
"failure to address points noted."
Name one and I will fucking quote you where I already addressed it."
At this point you had never given a reason why Gamma's claim was a good thing, and hadn't explained how his kill is provable, so thats 2 points you hadn't addressed, you were coming across as evasive at this point.
Gamma's ability to kill is provable. He says, "I am going to kill X." That night, X dies. I don't see the problem here.
Scenario 1) He's the vig. He didn't lie. Cool.
Scenario 2) He's the SK. When it becomes obvious we have an SK on D3 or so, we lynch him. Cool.
Scenario 3) He's scum. He'll probably die soon.
Addendum scenario: There's a vig who now knows Gamma's not a vig. Gamma dies. Cool.
zachattack wrote:What I said was DO NOT CONJECTURE ON WHO IS SCUM PARTNERS WITH WHOM BEFORE WE FIND OUR FIRST SCUM.
If you choose to do that, I will continue to tell you to shut the hell up.
This came after Tony suggested that you and Gamma could be scumbuddies. Much later I suggested Budja and Jersey looked like scumbuddies. You did not tell me to shut the hell up.
Well duh. It's not scummy to defend onself. It would be scummy of me to defend Budja or Jersey (both of whom I suspect, btw) knowing nothing at all about their alignments.
zachattack wrote:Post 220
Corporate is my vote for today until someone convinces me otherwise.
Post 225
Top two: corporate and nekka
I'm going with
Vote: Nekka-Lucifer
for being lucifer
What in between those two posts convinced you otherwise? I asked why Nekka over Corporate, your response was "Guts"
It was guts. If you really want me to, I will scan Nekka's posts again and find the post(s?) that got my bile up.
zachattack wrote:More from page 10
Wall-E: I think, in light of things that have been brought to my attention by people, Gamma should claim his kill after night is over. What say anyone?
Zach: Brought to your attention by who?
Wall-E: Read my posts in isolation. I've already said whom.
No, you didn't, I've read every one of your posts in isolation.
Oh, I misread what Zach meant. This was a clerical error on my part. Sorry.
zachattack wrote:I'm taking a break. I'm on page 10. Questions for Wall-E to answer, or 'fucking quote where he already addressed it'
Why was Gamma's claim a good thing?
How is Gamma's kill provable?
Why is it ok for me to suggest Jersey and Budja are scumbuddies, but not ok for Tony to suggest Gamma and Wall-E are?
Why did you do a complete 180 from corporate to Nekka?
It's not a 180 to go from one's #2 suspect to one's #1 suspect, or vice versa. Don't be a tool.
zachattack wrote:Who brought to your attention that Gamma should claim his kill after night is over?
Anyone want to jump in with anything I missed, or continue where I left off, feel free.
@ Gamma
If someone were to hammer Wall-E, who would you night kill?
corporate wrote:no hurry.
you just dont seem confident.
The uninformed majority can never be truly confident.
