My apologies on not being more active on Day 2. I have been busy with work and actually spending time with the family. I'm afraid that I will be heading out of town for this upcoming weekend, but I will have my computer with me so I will be checking in.
Yosarian2 wrote:When you're distancing, you want to make a lot of obvious sound and noise to create fake hostility between you and your buddy. You don't want to try to undermine a third person making a defense to your scumbuddy, because you don't actually want your buddy to get lynched, you just want it to look like he's not your buddy.
This is pretty amusing since it describes how Yos and BM acted towards one another.
Yos/BM D1 Conduct:
- 06/16 12:49pm: BM
"courtesy votes" Yos for being inconsistent in failing to attack both him and Trip on the same grounds. BM throws out the possibility of a Yos lynch without actually laying out why. The only thing that is any real fodder for this claim is the inconsistency argument (for which he has merely asked clarification). Pretty vacuous of a threat and FOS.
- 06/16 5:55pm: Yos duly
responds to BM's post. Nothing spectacular.
- 06/16 5:59pm: BM
merely acknowledges Yos' post.
- 06/16 6:22pm: BM
addresses in full Yos' post. BM seems to be pulling his punches throughout the entire post. e.g. "I do hope you weren't fake-scumhunting and trying to plant a vote with no real reason... haha" is used to telegraph BM's point in attacking Yos (the message being: come up with a reason why Trip is scummy). It's important to note that at time BM is "comfortable" in considering Yos is "likely scum."
- 06/16 7:01pm: BM
talks to camn about a Yos-lynch. Once again reiterates that he "just can't see" Yos as town.
- 06/16 8:48pm: Yos
details extensively why he finds BM's Incog attack less scummy than Trip's Incog attack (feel free to lol). BM's telegraphing at work.
- 06/16 9:33pm: BM
realizes the error of his ways. Because Yos has merely explained himself, the "likely scum" and "can't be see[n as town]" Yos gets unvoted.
So, in the span of nine hours, BM progressively finds Yos FOS-worthy, vote-worthy, likely scum, unable to be town, and then - contrary to the entire buildup of suspicion - worthy of an unvote (with no immediately new suspicions). In those nine hours, BM ramped up his suspicion on Yos for being inconsistent in his reasons for voting Trip but not BM, BM telegraphed that he wanted Yos to explain why Yos thought Trip was scummy, and then BM deflated his short-lived train of suspicion because Yos was merely typing out words.
BM had a burst of suspicion that went from 0 to lynch in 60 seconds. Then this suspicion was instantaneously deflated. The basis of that suspicion was one thing (inconsistency), but BM was willing to unvote the "likely scum" (Yos) because of another thing (responding). What more would you want for "a lot of obvious sound and noise to create fake hostility between you and your buddy?"
Yosarian2 wrote:I don't think that was an overreaction at all. GC was acting really suspicious in his early attack on me; he really seemed to be trying to make me look bad while pretending that he wasn't, to the point of actually denying he was attacking me at one point while continuing to attack me, and then to attack me for defending myself. The whole thing was just really shifty. I don't see why me pointing out scummy behavior on the part of GC is an "overreaction".
Hey, look. You're still recreating history.
As I have already stated: "I claimed my first "exploratory" post (
here) was not an attack. The fact that you're throwing out a one-liner to bloat that single comment into my subsequently filled-out suspicions (
here and
here) is sloppy re-envisioning of what happened. I also never claimed my suspicions weren't serious, just that it wasn't an attack -- but here you are re-imagining what I said so as to apparently provide yourself with easy ammo to shoot down legitimate suspicions."
I first made a comment that I found a post of yours strange and suspicious. You took a weirdly defensive stance in reaction, calling my initial passing commentary an "attack." I then further developed my suspicions, which you responded to very poorly. There isn't this "shifty" muddled history. I at first found your post something to comment on (not an attack). Your reaction to that led me to develop my suspicions. These subsequently developed suspicions could be considered an attack because I basically found your excuses to be lacking merit and I explained why in detail. There is an obvious progression in my approach to your posting, where at the beginning it was just a comment and then later it was an attack. Your willful misrepresentation of the situation only underscores my suspicions regarding the matter.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
