117: d3sisted replaces SV. He attacks ben for numerous scumtells, and puts ben at L-2 as a "pressure vote"
I presented a complete case on Ben. The only logical thing to do after that is vote him.
119: unvotes because of the Jester factor which SSF brought up.
Yes, in a Jester game I am careful about who I vote. Unlike you, I do not throw random votes around.
152: agrees that Jimmy's "he must be the Cop" sounded like rolefishing (ridiculous, IMO), and attacks fleaboy for his reductio ad absurdum.
That's your opinion. In mine, he's rolefishing. And yes, if he's trying to use reductio ad absurdum, I'm not going to hesitate to point the finger.
He also attacks and votes Jex for trying to start a bandwagon on ryan. This is a baseless accusation, and I feel her vote was sound. Being overdefensive is generally a valid scumtell.
I see a scum-tell, I vote him. It is this poking around that constitutes real scumhunting. Overdefensiveness- ok, so whenever someone's getting attacked, you expect them to just take it while you shove it down their throats and say nothing in response? Who are you to draw the line between defending and overdefending?
Ryan might collect a bandwagon? That's another way of saying he's acting scummy.
Never said that. Either you're illiterate, or you misconstrued.
Post 152 strikes me as pushing the Jimmy "wagon" and defending ryan, without coming down clearly on the issue. In addition, I think he is trying to do with Jex the very thing he accuses Jex of doing.
You call one vote on Jimmy a wagon? Also, I defend whoever I think is town. My stance on the issue was very clear: ryan town, Jex scum.
158: backs off his statements on Jimmy and fleaboy. Subtly encouraging people to vote them, but denying it the moment it is questioned.
Jimmy was rolefishing, fleaboy taking quoting out of context. I haven't backed off at all, I still stand behind those assertions.
165: Now does a complete 180, says the vote on Jex wasn't good (maybe because no one else followed suit), and then starts the bandwagon which he accused Jex of trying to start earlier.
Whatever you say princess. I gave you my reason for doing a 180, take it or leave it.
168: "No, I looked over ryan's posts again and I realized his defenses were very insubstantial." Defenses against what? Ryan wasn't under attack except from SSF for taking things out of context, and for Jex for being overdefensive. Now d3sisted attacks him for "insubstantial defenses".
Yes, those are the exact defenses I was referring to.
171: Makes another stupid case against ryan based on his FoS of d3sisted and JDodge, calling it "vote-hopping". I see this as an OMGUS case, trying to deflect suspicion from a scummy voting pattern.
He was vote hopping, and I find that scummy. Didn't OMGUS for shit, my vote was already on him.
179: defends the ryan wagon because it wasn't a lynch wagon. Oh, please!
4/7 is not a lynch wagon.
182: claims he wasn't bandwagoning, simply voting him for scummy behavior. He really thought ryan was scummy enough to warrant 4 votes? The best case against ryan was posted by Jex, which was only four sentences long. And he says that his wagon is baseless!
Why should i care what Jex said? I'm voting ryan for my own reasons.
188: desperate deflecting post. Kerplunk has a vote on d3sisted, and clarifies how strongly he supports the case against d3.
Well none of you guys were scumhunting, so I had to do it myself.
191: tries to get me to join the ryan wagon.
No indication here whatsoever that I want you to join.
192: "I'm also going to unvote now seeing as everyone seems to think ryan is town, and started attacking me for voting him." The "sarcastic" post. He hopes to weasel his way out of suspicion by removing the offending vote. But the damage has already been done.
Again, just thinking about the Jester role.
195: claims he unvoted ryan because he suddenly looks a lot more town. No concrete explanation of what prompted the suspicions in the first place, nor of why these reasons no longer apply.
Scumhunting 101: Find someone scummy, pressure him, evaluate the response. Comes out scummy, keep the vote. Otherwise, take it off.
198: "Who said I'm trying to get out of a situation?" The two votes on you, and the suspicions expressed by a couple others are the situation. Your behavior is obviously trying to get out of it.
Still haven't answered my question. Give me some irrefutable evidence that I am "trying to get out of a situation".
202: Claims his post 192 was sarcastic
It was. You just didn't pick up on it.
210: Votes Atticus basically because he misused the word "smarmy". OMGUS.
Not OMGUS. He eventually admitted the smarmy statement was false reasoning, and I'm not about to tolerate someone who uses false reasoning to justify a bandwagon vote.
216: Claims that ryan's post being non-smarmy makes Atticus's case boil down to nothing. Atticus's reason to vote was d3sisted's voting pattern, not the smarminess of ryan's comments
He tried to fake evidence to exaggerate his claim, which also means he's trying to hurl whatever is within reaching distance at me, relevant or not.
Also accuses Kerplunk of setting himself up to vote d3sisted, then jumping on the bandwagon when he gets back. Ignoring the fact that Kerplunk had a vote on him before the "I'd be happy to lynch him" comment.
Then he's trying to rally votes into a bandwagon. Just as scummy, if not more.
This. Is. [color=red][b]SPARTA![/b][/color]
[color=red][b][i]V/LA Dec 22 - Jan 4[/i][/b][/color]
