Amished wrote:@Steph: You want discussion. I completely agree with you, but discussion also arises from people talking about the little things that come up. You also said that you don't want people jumping on the little things (sparking discussion imo). While it's all fine and dandy to have discussion over the big things, discussion over the small things shouldn't be discouraged either. I'm also trying to imply that people shouldn't be afraid of what they say period. If they're townie, it should be able to be somewhat determined through the rest of their actions/posts, regardless of what people question them about.
Well, I think that's all I need to see.
110: Amished votes for me because of the "plenty" thing, providing an appeal to ridicule as his explanation.
116: Says my "soft vote" (his words, not mine) is "one more reason" for his supposed thinking I'm scum.
125: Keeps talking about how I supposedly wanted to vote for Wall-E, ignoring the fact that I had quite obviously tried to shift the focus away from him.
133: Amished acts like I claimed he "disagreed" with me about discussion being a good thing. Begun, the semantics games have.
137: Says "scumhunting too hard" (re: my "plenty" comment) leads to weak cases. Talks a lot about tunnel vision.
144: But noooo, he wasn't saying *I* was tunnel-visioning. (While technicially true, go back and read these posts and see how his position shifts when he's called on something. This has been the case with Amished all game long.) Oh and look! Now the "soft-vote" is "still the bulk" of why his vote is on me. As if that had always been his supposed primary reason. Slick.
155: Again claims I want to lynch Wall-E, ignoring that I'm the person who tried to shift conversation in a different direction. And he never saw a townie say something like I did, therefore I must not be a townie. I will revisit this logic in a bit.
156: "What possible motivation would I have for that?" You know something? I HAVE seen lots of scum say that, therefore it's evidence you're scummy. Better logic than yours in 155, and I'm not done with your logic yet.
180: Amished's statement to me is basically incomprehensible. His statement to DDD is "look how protown I am" showboating that Wall-E has been pointing out.
190: Now he's desperate. Realizing he made a mistake voting and building a silly case against someone who was scouring for clues, what does he do? Apologize? Try to move the conversation in a different direction? Perhaps do his own part to get others involved or figure out who might really be scum? No...
those are the sorts of things that a townie would do.
Instead, he is actually trying to convince us all that *he's* been the one who's been trying to facilitate discussion all along!
No townie would be playing games like this.
Although here's one just for fun: I've never seen a townie with an avatar showing Amish people before, so here's a
Vote: Amished
No one has said that; so again, you're completely running off on whatever irrelevant tangent you decide is appropriate with no regard for the facts. If we have confirmation (which is rare) of scum they should be lynched as fast as possible. However, since we rarely have such confirmation we must take chances by lynching those most likely to be scum without true confirmation.
