In post 4504, davesaz wrote:"Have never" as a meta claim is a handy defense the first time you do someting.
"Would never", which you're not saying here, would be trust tell territory for me.
Therefore it proves nothing about this claim.
It does mean that if your case has any obligation for me lying about my role that you would need to justify why you think I would break a meta that I have held for *years* (a meta I hold because I think it is good play) and explain what changed my mind.
If not - then at least just explain how I'm scum who is a 1-shot JKer and work from there.
In post 4504, davesaz wrote:Your overall behavior looks like scum motivation to me. Taking up the majority of D1 with the multiball argument.
I did not do that.
In post 4504, davesaz wrote:The linguistic technicalities -- whether you scum read Muffin for using, or not using, or talking about "quality" (whatever the detail is) the attack
was
connected to the word "quality". And when someone jumps you for that technicality, that person is scum too.
No - it doesn't work like that. You are still spouting off about something while making no sense about what was actually said.
Yes, in a made up world where I attacked him in some made up form maybe I'm scum - but if that didn't happen then what the hell is your case?
He attacked me for using the word quality when I never did and I asked him to back up the claim. That was the "attack". It's not really an attack. It also isn't scummy to ask someone to back up something they made up about you - it's actually a normal response and now you're calling it scummy.
In post 4504, davesaz wrote:I think you're the type of player who could plan to get yourself run up to L-1 so that you can make a fake claim and then skate for the rest of the game. That should be flattering, since not many people would have the cajones to try to pull it off. But I believe that's exactly what you're doing.
I probably could do that.
It would literally be a first for me - and I've won praise on my scum game without playing as poorly as that and have explicitly never shown a desire to ever skate on any sort of claim - so I'm not sure why I would decide to do this now.
It actually is the opposite of what I consider both good town and good scum play, so it's kind of weird if that's my plan.
In post 4504, davesaz wrote:I tried to get you to respond specifically to having a magic feeling that GM is scum, and you not only blew it off but actively discouraged it -- then you came right back and claimed that GM was indeed the target of your ability. How convenient that the target of your flake claim is the player I thought you had to mean, from earlier comments.
Whut?
You're claiming you read me as an investigative of some stripe (illogically) that I denied this - and then I revealed that I was not an investigative, and that somehow this is scummy because the target was the same?
No.
In post 4504, davesaz wrote:Why use that ability at all, before we know how many kills to expect?
Because we learn that info Day 3 regardless of which order I do it in - so this is meaningless.
I didn't.
In post 4504, davesaz wrote:The claim can't be real -- a player of your stature would not use an ability this way.
Yeah, apparently I would either randomly wait a day for no gain, or would use it as a protective shot in a game I lacked town reads.
It's silly I didn't do either of those, really - super scummy too.
This case is very empty and haphazardly put together.
Basically i went from not voting to voting due to claiming a PR - a PR claim that is pretty darn neutral in the grand scheme. Even your raised issues are, at best, that you disagree with how I played it. Well...how does that actually make me scum as opposed to someone who plays differently than you? Also, if you think I'm such a brilliant player - why aren't you questioning if maybe it's you who play badly and I'm doing exactly the most solid option play?
The case doesn't make sense.
You're also still pegging me for "tone" while clearly not having read my posts.
That's screwy as hell and I read it as scummy.