"Trying to set up a chain lynch" implies that I was trying to persuade others. I made no posts arguing for Boggzie to be lynched. One vote does not create a lynch. Others made similar comments, including Boggzie himself... are you arguing that Boggzie was setting up a chain lynch on himself?
(And by the way, I have never accused you of throwing around "unwarranted suspicion". I have said you were suspicious of me. I think it's right to be suspicious of anyone not confirmed town, and I confirmed that you were throwing suspicion on me when someone else said of you, "I don't think he's purposely trying to cast suspicion anywhere." You've confirmed that yourself, so I wasn't wrong, either.)
I was accused of being ryan's scumbuddy by Boggzie. My immediate reaction was that Boggzie must be scum, making up a story out of whole cloth in order to attack me. I'm not perfect, I have OMGUS tendencies just like anyone else. The only way to disprove his accusation, which basically was that ryan and I were scumbuddies and that ryan had missent a PM to Boggzie that was meant for me, was for one of us to die, or one of us to be investigated.
Upon reflection, it seemed an impossibly stupid gambit. While I knew that I was not ryan's scumbuddy, it was still possible that ryan had missent a PM meant for his real scumbuddy to Boggzie. It seemed unlikely. But it was possible. So while I knew Boggzie was wrong about me, I did not know that he was wrong about ryan. And I thought it possible it was an honest mistake, after some time to think about it.
Trying to set up a chain lynch implies a level of bandwagoning. I've not done that. Someone who was truly trying to set up a chain lynch would not back off from that because they thought the person in question might be a badly misguided innocent.
So, how would I summarise the (now) quoted post? I wouldn't. It's terse and to the point. I think it says exactly what I meant at the time. Why would you need to summarise three lines of text? Was it that difficult just to quote it in the first place?
I do find it interesting that others said roughly the same thing, as I've pointed out, yet you single me out for it, even going so far as to misquote me for it. But the fact remains: I realised I might be wrong, and I said so, well before you made any comment on the fact. I wasn't getting any "heat" about that. Everyone agreed with me, I think. Why, if I were truly trying to set up a chain lynch, would I back away from that well before I could carry through this supposed nefarious plan? Your statement there is just plain wrong.
Your logic doesn't hold water. By the same token, anyone who votes for another, and says, "If Player A is town, then I think Player B is likely scum," is setting up a chain lynch. It's not a reasonable attitude. And it discourages open discussion, which is bad for town. Admittedly, I don't think you much care about that last issue.
A last note. I wasn't going to comment this, because I thought I would wait and see who seemed opportunistic in attacking me. (I think there are valid reasons for others to suspect me -- they are wrong, but I can tell the difference between honest suspicion and made-up reasons regarding me, none the less.)
Spider Jerusalem posted this:
Spider Jerusalem wrote:Upon a second reading I got this though:
Thanks to some of the accusations from Boggzie, Bookitty was implicated as a possible scum buddy with ryan. She comes out with possible other explanations for what Boggzie saw as a scum tell. Due to ryan's continued emotional posts though she seems to have a change of heart. Her problem is that there is still the onus of suspicion on her and if ryan does turn up scum she is very possibly next. So in that situation an innocent person would be torn between wanting ryan not to be scum to clear themselves and their belief that he is scum.
This could be an effort to distance herself though. However since she was caught in a damned if she did damned if she didn't position (either she defends him and is guilty that way if he is scum, or she votes and if he turns up scum it's distancing) I don't feel much of a conclusion can be drawn at this time.
When Spider Jerusalem was NKed, I did wonder if scum had been trying to set up the lynch for tomorrow. I think (I am not certain) Spider Jerusalem was killed because he defended me at a point when everyone else was angrily pointing the finger of suspicion at me, and that defence was seen as depriving scum of their next lynch target.
Your opportunistic summarisation only makes me think that more likely. I think you're trying to manufacture a case against me, but not very convincingly, in my opinion at least. And I find that very suspicious, indeed.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
