Here we go. If…Shteven wrote:When other players use meta defenses I tend to ignore them and the attack made. I will generally say something about not wanting to really read 40 pages and just judge them on the current game. This has lead to me voting Albert B. Rampage/TCS in some other games. Not because they claimed a meta-defense, but because they acted scummy and I didn't feel like verifying it was a universal behavior for them.
…then you may as well be accepting the meta-defense, because you have chosen to ignore the initial case made because a meta-defense was raised against it. Functionally, for all intents and purposes within the game you are playing, the meta-defense has worked, though you never bothered to verify it, because you then ignore “the attack made”.Shteven wrote:When other players use meta defenses I tend to ignore them and the attack made.
And then you use meta-evidence to continue:
So not only, after multiple posts, have you not addressed the basic, seemingly hypocritical contradiction posed by your using a meta-defense on your own behalf and proclaiming they make you nervous when used by another, but you have condensed this behavior by including both in the same post.Shteven wrote:This has lead to me voting Albert B. Rampage/TCS in some other games.
In addition, you have not answered this very simple question. You have done everything in your power to avoid answering it, to misdirect attention away from it. But you have not answered it.
In your 8th post, post number 126 in thread, you write:
You do this while you are under pressure. You provide no reason for this possible change of heart on your part. The pressure goes away and you never return to this statement, either to discount it or to give reasons for it. This is the point of your behavior in this post I would like you to address.Shteven wrote:Oman's case is based on his admitted band wagoning. I voted for this, but in looking back, it seems like Jordan may be the better choice.
Your behavior in doing this seems opportunistic and purely defensive. In suggesting that Jordan might have been a better choice you seem to have been willing to push suspicion on Jordan for no other reason than to displace it from yourself. By offering no further reasoning either within this post or later your behavior seems to confirm this interpretation. Please address this at this time. To do so you must both address why you believed Jordan may have been a better choice, why you never returned to this thought when you were no longer under pressure, and, now, how your belief, as expressed in post 518…
…has managed to displace the position you have already defended in your post 508 in answer to me:Shteven wrote:I was curious about the other camp, which had picked up 5 people's votes (not all at the same time, though) so there were certainly several townies on it at some point.
These quotes are from two posts you made that were 10 posts apart. They outline contradictory positions on this issue. If one explanation above is uniquely meant to signify your thinking when you first declined to join the Jordan bandwagon and the other is meant to demonstrate your thinking only when, under pressure, you raised suspicion of Jordan, then the timing is once more damningly convenient. Please clarify.Shteven wrote:I felt that -3 was plenty of pressure for Jordan. Other players were applying the pressure; as I wasn't convinced of his guilt, I saw no reason to add pressure. If I thought he was scum, I would have been glad to move the wagon to -2...But I'm not going to join a wagon I don't believe in no matter how many votes it does or doesn't have.
Your answers to questions raised about your play throughout this game have been contradictory and evasive. Until such time as you are willing to actually address the points I have raised instead of doing all within your power to distract from them I am going to
When you have answered these concerns I will go on to your contradictory claims about your behavior in regard to Sammich.