mykonian wrote:@antihero
no, because you assume Jack is fakeclaiming to vote Stef.
If Jack is fakeclaiming, he is scum.
But he still might say the truth about Stef.
...and this counters my argument...
Further, your post is too obviously a "damn I got prodded but I'm not really playing the game anymore"-post. Another player would do better at your spot, and the mod has quite an easier job to find a replacement if he can advertise it like: "It is still day 1!". Don't drag this out.
Please, don't be self-righteous. Also, I think people who post text walls are giving everyone else headaches and making the game not fun. How about that?
Let me catch up here. Stef semi-ISO:
Post 5: Random vote, I'll write it off.
Post 35: Votes mykonian based on a fallacious argument. Puts an FoS on Xscorpion with no apparent reason.
Post 40: Continues the crappy theory argument when he's clearly wrong. I gave you the benefit of the doubt at the time, but it's clearly a crap argument.
Post 46: The XScorpion vote, still nothing on why he's scum though.
Post 50: Says that mykonian could have been scummy for being wrong, but no reason why that is.
Post 62: OK ... following your logic, it could also be argued that you're scum just trying to shoot down the confirmation of a townie.
Post 83: This is a pretty clumsy attempt at defending a crappy vote...
Post 84: Stef calls down Jack on the rolefishing (though he doesn't call it that). At the time I misidentified this as Stef rolefishing though. Oops
Oh, and by the way, Jack still has his vote on himself (it's already page 5).
Post 113: Reach? That reason for keeping your vote on scorpion is still nonsensical to me.
Post 123: OMGUS on mykonian... nice.
Post 127: Refuses to give valid reasons for Xscorpion. Brushes off mykonian's prompting as "spam;" You know, deflection is a pretty reliable scumtell.
Post 137: Some vague generalities about the RVS, WTF?
Post 147: Meh, just a bunch of sniping at relatively minor things mykonian said. And yet, his vote goes on RC (with not much explanation I can see besides some vague "you're pretending to know something just for the sake of posting," whatever that means).
Post 154: Stef grills RC on a semantics and then doesn't give us why what RC said points to scum. Talk about posting for the sake of posting.
OK, now I see why I got frustrated before. Because Stef is picking out an insignificant sentence or two out of context and trying to pass it off as misrep. So far, he's failed to address the main argument.
Ugh, I just got to page 9, and it's a quote wall. I'll pick up here later.
