As of OMG’s last post...Pablo uses inactivity as a negative towards OMG and as I have shown in my early post...Pablo was the most inactive player in the game. You asked for numbers and I gave them to you.Starbuck wrote:This bothers me because Pablo is no where near as inactive as OMGL was.havingfitz wrote:Who says you aren't comparable to OMG? You? Well that's convenient...for you. You used OMG's inactivity as a negative towards him like I am towards you (among other negatives). In my opinion there is a comparision. And my comments regarding your persistent hypocratic play do not revolve entirely on comparisons to OMG (?).
Once it was obvious a replacement was going to take place I was will to give the person the courtesy of hearing their thoughts on the game and OMG. I gave him longer to make a defense than anyone else. He made no defense. The only attempt he makes is in post 198 when he says:Starbuck wrote:havingfitz wrote:Once the replacement occurred (as I've already mentioned) I was willing to hear RayFrost out.Funny enough....since you apparently were so keen to hear from OMG's replacement you may want to note that he had you as his top scum suspect and me as his least scummy suspect.
This post bothers me. You definitely did not care what Ray had to say especially because you were pushing for the lynch to happen before he replaced in.
He had been very active in his short time and had plenty of opportunity to make a strong defense. The only other post of any content he made was his LoS...in which he hit the nail on the head with his townish reads.RayFrost wrote: Imo, his play would be classified as dumb play, but not necessarily scummy play. Some individuals are tentative by nature, so they are unlikely to push their ideas when there is anything even somewhat aggressive toward them. Then some experience mood swings that lead them to be aggressive toward their attackers and then they slip away again after the heat of the moment in a mix of embarrassment and self-doubt, etc, etc.
That's a rambly defense of his bad play, and it's the best you can get out of me in defense of it, in all likelihood.
Starbuck wrote:1. You definitely mentioned Pablo at the beginning of the game, but you rarely mention him (other than your scumlists) until Day 2 when he started mentioning your inconsistencies and scumminess.havingfitz wrote:Also...how is my vote pre-emptive or panicked? I have voiced suspicions of you since before OMG was even gone and with OMG (and subsequently MiteyMouse) gone...you are my top suspect. And I gave numerous reasons for my suspicions. Nothing panicked about it. You on the other hand have a very weak defense/case against me...especially considering the biggest thing I've done to add to you suspcions of me is the editting I invalidated at the beginning of this post.
Um....I mentioned him in my initial analysis (post 107), ranked in my scum list (post 109), post 114 where I also don’t rule anyone out, (post 131) where I describe suspicions of MM (and exhibit my trait for impatience), and (post 171) where I reiterate suspicions towards Pablo and MM...and ask them questions (scumhunting) which went unanswered...which MM was prodded to do in post 212. Pablo never was off my list and once OMG and MM were gone he went to the top of my list (hence the long debates we had on Day two).
What is your point? People get lynched...when they wind up town you move on to the next suspect. If I was scum it would not be in my best interests to NK one of the people voting for and for which I may have been the only one casting suspicions on. But that would be using common sense which does escape some people. You seem to agree with your predecessors point of view on a few things....what about her comments re: building a case on Pablo?Starbuck wrote:2. Reading you in iso, you can find that your suspicions lie with T-chan, Pablo and OMG in this post. This is the one and only time you voice your suspicion of T-chan. You then mention your suspicion of MM here. You post another list of who you think is scummiest here. Then miraculously both of your suspects are gone, and you are free to focus on Pablo.
He stated himself the biggest suspicion he had on me was the editing of his posts:Starbuck wrote:3. Where specifically is his case weak? My guess is that you did not read the whole thing because you only think he's making a case on you based on the editting you did of his posts.
As I have mentioned several times which a few select individuals are having trouble registering....I re-addressed my points on Pablo at the request of Paltry who said “line up exactly what parts of Pablo's posts you see as hypocritical.” How is that scummy? <shaking head in amazement>Pablo Molinero wrote:The biggest thing you've done today to add to my preexisting suspicion is selectively edit quotes for your non-existent arguments.
Starbuck wrote:I sense distancing.havingfitz wrote:I thought TC made some good observations on DN but when I looked closer I think I came to some of the same conclusions Bob has used in DN's defense. I'm not convinced DN is mafia.
I didn’t get it right on OMG...at the time I made these comments TC had confirmed DN was scum...I did not have the same advantage and as such was “not convinced DN” was mafia. I was also focusing my attentions on Pablo and my growing suspicions of ABR.
It’s part of the game...as I have said....it would be pretty suicidal to just go after people who were focusing on me. It would be a smart scum IMO that would eliminate players that were either very townish or whose exit would implicate others.Starbuck wrote:One thing I'd like to point out is that MM highly suspected fitz on Day 1 & died Night 1 and then ABR did the same on Day 2 & died Night 2.
Starbuck wrote:On Havingfitz
I love a bowl of WIFOM first thing in the morning.havingfitz wrote:That sucks that ABR was the doctor. If the doctor had made it through the night town would have been guaranteed the win. Now a town win is more like 50-50 unless TC guessed right during the night. As she had a 1-4 chance of investigating the right person I hope she chose wisely.
How is stating my opinion WIFOM? How is this a good or bad statement?
The town is in trouble. You incorrectly cast negatives on me for tunnelling and not looking at others when you are presenting a perfect example of it here. On the odds that I do go today...I suggest you start refining your positions on Paltry and Pablo because you’ll need it.Starbuck wrote:I'm not sure how I'm feeling about this 1v1 between Paltry and Pablo, because I really don't suspect either and I'm getting the feeling of two townies going at it.
Now on to Starbuck's new laundry list of questions for me....