DJ wrote: i understand here, but i am wondering why the post by ecto that i submitted is dismissed in this matter. i wrote in my notes "seems to be dodging questions and accusations". when asked to back it up i clarified it by stating that his play appeared "dodgy" in general. i understand why that looks crappy, but when i back it up with ecto's post i don't see why it's still considered total crap. someone else found it difficult to get something out of spyrex during that time period in the thread. it is a similar gut read to the one i got from reading the thread. i see that as a reasonable defense. should it give me a leave pass? no, but is it unreasonable to offer as evidence? no, its a concurring opinion on spyrex's play during that particular portion of this thread. i believe that makes my reasoning better than simply "poor".
It doesn't make it any better. See, "dodging" is a very specific action; contrast it with SL's accusation that I am "ungenuine". You can pinpoint posts and so on where there is dodging. You can't pinpoint posts where there is "ungenuineness" (as we saw, when SL did try to do that).
It's like saying that you had a gut feeling he was "strawmanning". Strawmanning, like dodging, is something you do that should be clearly visible to others. The fact that you only substantiated this with "gut" is therefore bad, even if you weren't specificallly refering the to one post, a claim which I am skeptical of because it seems bizarre ot make a general observation mid-way through.
DJ wrote:
votes=concrete evidence. yes they are open to interpretation, but it is a fact that you consistently voted for the same players spyrex was voting, and for an extended period of time. then, you simply agreed with him and backed his reasoning against me. this while denying every shred of evidence i offered while not voting with him. that is a statistical inconsistency and that is the only point i am making. to me this showed you distancing your vote, but still working together for a lynch. your claim temporarily debunks this theory, but i am within my rights to point out this inconsistecy.
And this is why reasons are important.
Spyrex and I have been in agreement in our reasons for a long time now. When I simply agreed with him on you, though, it was because I had greater suspicion of others (SL, and then changed to Myk). It's not an inconsistency, unless you are seriously suggesting that Spyrex and I should always be voting the same way.
DJ wrote:
Also, the inconsistency in your logic is what i believe to be this denial of evidence. spyrex misinterpreted a post of mine earlier. i called it a lie and you have no comment(thus far). if his excuse of misinterpreting what i said is reasonable, why is my "misinterpretation" of his earlier posting not? like i said, he is pushing for a lynch, so his lie has much more damning potential than my "lie", which i contend he manufactured through his "gameshow" post.
What was your "misinterpretation"? If you mean the thing above, that wasn't "misinterpretation", that was you claiming you wrongly addressed a general remark to a specific post. I can't remember the specific post by Spyrex, but I think my reasoning was that the post was one that was reasonably ambiguous and so his excuse was acceptable.
DJ wrote:
reasonable, but still results in an inconsistency. how sure are you that spyrex is town? why do you feel this way?
I would give Spyrex about a 40 on my scumdar. Why? Whilst individual instances of agreement in no way make somebody pro-town, a player who consistently reasons well and doesn't show opportunism or inconsistency is more likely town.
Myk wrote:
Look at that claim yourself, is it that strong? What do I see, what you can't?
The strength of my claim is approximately the same as if I hadn't breadcrumbed. My late-crumbing was reasonable from doc-vollkan as a means of at least partially protecting myself from the charge that I claimed on the spur of the moment. Unless late-crumbing is unreasonable from doc-vollkan, then my claim is really as strong as if I hadn't crumbed.
Thus, whilst my claim is not as good as if I had breadcrumbed from the beginning, I don't think you can reasonably argue that I am now lynchworthy because of that.
TDC wrote:
What do scum gain by lynching a doc as opposed to lynching someone else (assuming that someone else is not one of them) and then nightkilling the doc? Put any other role in that spot and it makes more sense (because that role might be doc protected at night), but with the doc himself (how many gmaes have two of them? Not many), the only "risk" I can think of is a watcher. But that's kind of a moot point when everybody can see how you're pushing for the doc's lynch at day.
As Spyrex said, lynching a PR is always better than lynching vanilla for scum. If I am lynched today, they don't have to kill me tonight and can go after other targets.
Moreover, go back to where Myk voted me. Orto had attacked my claim. To Scum-Myk, that would reasonably look like an opening to vote me and have the protection of a claimed mason's endorsement.
