You failed at reading comprehension for many pages. In fact, if you'd not posted like a moron, the walls of text wouldn't have been quite so large.havingfitz wrote:I have no reason to agree on points that are incorrect
‘tunnelling’ efforts by Acosmist
You had a hard-on for Cojin that was
So did I, but I didn't vote to lynch him, because it's game theoretically retarded to risk taking out a doctor to defuse a potential charade that is impossible to maintain.I have explained my reasons for not wholeheartedly subscribing to his claim (post 368).
Moral equivalence fallacy.Similarly, Acosmist tunnelled Lawls.
Loaded question.Is the Lawls tunnelling only acceptable because you choose to join the Lawls wagon last minute?
So now you weren't entirely tunnelling, but, presumably, I was (you never qualified your accusation of me). Reading this post of yours, one would think I tunnelled more than you did! Thankfully we have the day 1 record to review.I did share a bit of my suspicions with Lawls, Pan, and BaB on D1 so I was not entirely tunnelling. And the lack of analysis accusation is bullshit...especially given the level of effort you put into your Pan and Lawl votes on D1.
And then, in the course of discussion about Lawls, he changed his mind. He posted about it.It wasn’t much prior (EF ISO 27) to your vote on Lawls that you had said your top two suspects were Pan and Nacho and that you were, “finding Lawls less and less scummy with each passing hour.”
You have a unique sense of estoppel. I don't think people should keep quiet about their suspicions because they didn't raise them immediately. This was part of your pathetic case against Cojin. Is EF your new Cojin?And you made no comment of suspicion towards me (at least not in your top 3) despite the fact all your current suspicions were relevant by the end of D1 as well (sans the knowledge of who was/n’t town).
That was your bold, champ. Try to keep up with the game you are in!havingfitz wrote:What are you hoping to illustrate with your added emphasis? Mentioning Cojin was a L-1....so?
The play warrants a lynch line is preceded with reasons...to which only the lurk comment could be construed as supporting a policy lynch but which is not the lone reason for my suspicions towards his play.
This:
is not calling for a policy lynch?But if he is a doc as he claims to be.....I'm not even sure scum would bother killing him at night since surviving would make his claim even more doubtful. His play just warrants a lynch. Then maybe scum would have mercy and NK one of the town wallposters.
I don't even get what that's supposed to mean; if we don't lynch the doc, the scum might outwit us and not nightkill the doc, giving us, what, at least one night of protections? Oh no!
Then why did you want to lynch a claimed doc that you thought the mafia would cleverly keep alive, earning us an extra night of protection?The only policy type situations I have had exposure to that I would support a lynch on are lynching liars and active lurkers....neither of which Lawls or Cojin were guilty of iirc.
Oh? You're voting me? Since when?Apparently yes....unless you can concoct a better example.
Except for the sentence right after the vote.I saw your reasoning prior to the lynch. By the end of the day I would hope you'd have had a few reasons for voting Lawls. I was commenting on the fact you gave no reassoning for voting Lawls when you initially voted him.
No, that's just false. That I took so long to give reasons for my vote and that the reasons were just as applicable to Cojin. We've been through this.It was almost two weeks after your vote on Lawls before you gave any insight into your reasoning (Acos ISO 32), and again in ISO 47. It's interesting to note that once you did provide some reasons they were just as applicable to Cojin.
You said it was scummy for me to accuse you of pushing a policy lynch. Not day 1, but, again, we don't share your pathological view of estoppel, so I'm looking at what you've done today, which is try to discredit me without meeting me head-on. How can I be scummy and not scummy at the same time? Are you a dialetheist?Why is it a surprise? I don’t recall casting suspicions your way on D1. I don’t consider lack the of social skills a scumtell.
So I hear people who try to get doctors lynched are not cool.
Nacho: if you're not the second scum, who is?
Nachomamma8 - 2 (havingfitz, Ellibereth)
havingfitz - 1 (Acosmist)
Not Voting - 4 (Furry, Nachomamma8, Panacea, Elementary Fermion)
With 7 alive, it's 4 to lynch.