@Mod: I think you missed my vote for Setael in Post 709.
@Setael:
Regarding 302, your point about me forgetting Sudo was valid. But at that point, I had already turned my attention off of him. If mentioning that my scum list matches Mexal's was merely a statement, it was buried between a bunch of other comments that all cast suspicion at me.
Regarding post 339, my motive was in the third paragraph:
I had picked up on the fact that Mexal was unusually quiet about his reason, when he usually explains his logic so well. I figured Mexal might have been up to something, but I didn't know what he was fishing for. The post I made saying that it is best to consider all factors behind a vote was true, and I believe it wholeheartedly, but it was also a subtle breadcrumb to try to tell people to think a bit more about what he was doing. I also thought people were focusing too much on his lack of reason and missing the bigger picture. I wanted Mexal to try to get whatever thing he was fishing for. Apparently, that was to see who was going to defend Anata. I believe this, because I was looking for the same information.
Way back on Oct. 31 (post 374) you said there would not be enough time for an anata wagon and then said "I don't see anyone else making a strong case against any other candidate" so you therefore decided to change your vote to miztef. My points, which I evidently wasn't clear enough about, is that you were talking as if the deadline was Nov. 1 or 2, as though there was no time for anyone else to make another case or start another wagon.
I never, ever said there was not enough time for an Anata wagon. In fact, I never mentioned anything to do with time in that entire post. If you can provide evidence of that, please do. I was looking at who was in the game and the vote counts and trying to figure out if it made sense to keep my vote on Anata. I did not see any way that I could get any more information about Anata and at that point, I did not see how a wagon on her would succeed since the others who voted Miztef did not appear to want to change votes. So I kept my earlier promise because Miztef looked scummy and I thought he was who the town wanted.
Yeah that post (my 656) was on Nov. 14. The deadline was on Nov. 15. What deadline do you think I was talking about?
What deadline?? Please quote me where NabakovNabakov said that. I went back and read all of NabakovNabakov's posts in the entire game and never saw a deadline set. Why did you think there was one?
This seems so off to me. Why say that about being happy to unvote "if something turns up later"? This almost sounds like you're expecting me to be a power role. You're not saying that if I start seeming really town you'll unvote, you say "if something turns up later". Do you mean that if someone starts looking scummier you'd unvote me? Why would someone else looking scummy make me less scummy? I found this sentence really odd. I can't see a townie who really thinks I'm scum saying this.
I don't expect you to be a (town) power role at all. I expect you to come up as scum, at least at this point. What I intended was that if more evidence comes up that suggests you are town then I will unvote, as I knew the vote was early in the day and there wasn't a lot of discussion yet. It was an attempt by me to indicate that I still think you are guilty, but even so, I am not completely convinced you are scum at this point and that I would still be willing to listen to arguments you are town. And voting for someone else would not make you less scummy -- but it's possible that other players could do something scummy enough to become a better lynch than you, at least in my eyes.
As for you not responding, qualifying the statement by saying "after I finished my read" makes a big difference. You did have a chance to respond before then, but you wanted to completely finish your read first before responding to anything. I agree that is not scummy, but I'm kind of surprised that you didn't include any commentary on my earlier points when you did your "I'm caught up analysis". If someone had attacked me like I did you, I would have certainly said something at that point. You could have acknowledged my points and promised to address them when the reread was finished. If you post an analysis, you have to expect that people are going to try to pick it apart, regardless of whether your read was done or not. I attacked you because even though you had some good points against me, many of them didn't seem very relevant. Still though, I admit what I said wasn't very fair, since I probably should not have counted time while the thread was closed. I apologize for this.
I still find it funny that you praised Gunslinger for the theory without mentioning how he first voted me, then only ranked me 8th out of 12 on his most scummy list (post 195). He even said "Note: My vote for jitsu isnt really trying to campaign to get him out. I just wanted to state my concern. If nothing else shows up against him, I will probably unvote." You have no problems with that? Did he just do something stupid as he said, or was he testing the waters on the "Jitsu is acting" theory and then bailed when nobody bit on it? If he would have just stated his suspicion without voting, I would have understood that. Also he mentioned "I figure at this point, a random lynch on someone that seems scummy would be a good idea." You have no problems with that either?
Just because I extract part of your post and comment on it doesn't mean I am twisting your words. As for 279, I don't see how this is twisting your words. I didn't comment on your theories as to what my motive was, because I felt I already explained it in 339 (page 14). Saying "definitely seems like [Jitsu] had a motive" could also be construed as implying that I was hiding something to the detriment of the town.
As for your last paragraph in 733, that statement was my interpretation of what you were doing. You acknowledged my points against Anata, but then cheered Gunslinger for his theory that I was acting and then posted what I did that looked scummy. If you thought I could possibly just be a good townie that started out a bit overzealous, you didn't say that in your analysis.
