Setael wrote:
On one hand, I can't see vollkan scum admitting that he lied about how many kills he has. If he was scum, it seems more likely that he'd pick a story and stick to it in order to avoid getting caught in a lie. Seems like he either would have claimed one shot from the beginning or stuck with the story that he can kill every night. Scum fake claiming would not want to risk the town ganging up with a LAL policy.
However, I guess it's possible that he claimed he could kill every night thinking that would keep the town from lynching him since he's valuable, and then realized he could not defend against the fact that it made no sense for him to not kill N1. Could be just a slip up.
Set, you do the same thing as Albert here when you speculate about me possibly being scum slipping up here. Put yourself in the shoes of "One-shot vigvollkan" - I'm curious as to whether you would have claimed one-shot vig immediately, or whether you would have done what I did?
Setael wrote:
Also, it makes no sense to me that he's saying that he lied in order to attract a NK. If we are believing that he's the town vig the scum would consider him confirmed, and he'd be a target for a NK anyway without having to lie.
Don't forget, though, that we have claimed masons and a claimed doctor. Moreover, I am now powerless and under strong suspicion - making me a significantly less sensible NK target. Claiming "vig" with no specification at least makes me a much more viable target, which not only protects the others from NK, but stops the town wasting a day by lynching me.
Setael wrote:
I also find it odd that vollkan is completely ignoring me and only stating that there's no case on him and albert's doesn't count. Everything I brought up about his scummy interaction with ckd still stands. Though the more I look at it, it doesn't seem like scum would be as complimentary to a scum buddy as he was. He tried to downplay it later though so meh.
I haven't ignored you. I'll go through your all arguments against me and show where I addressed them. This is not only to respond to your suggestion I have ignored you, but is to show people that I have rebutted the arguments made against me.
Issue #1: "Wishy-washy and noncommittal"
Setael
In 477 you first raised the argument about me being non-committal, as well as accusing me of hypocrisy in my treatment of PeteD (I called him 'noncommittal') and of trying to avoid taking any firm stance by my wake-up wagoning. In 496 you then say that you think I am scum pushing the lynch of Bookitty in a "non-bussing kind of way" (I guess this is a case of damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't
) to the point where you say that this "undermines" the Book wagon. You then ask Albert if he thinks I am wishy-washy.
Vollkan
I respond in 501 by explaining that, by virtue of my % system, I in fact committed to a clear stance on everybody and formed a definite prime suspect in BM. On the matter of Pete, it was a matter of his language being such as to subtly-second guess himself - and I drew attention back to the fact that I did not think it was majorly scummy at all. On the matter of wake-up wagoning, I explained that I had already given my positions on BM - so there was a point behind the wagoning, contrary to what you had said.
Issue #2: Vollkan's treatment of CKD vs. treatment of Setael
Setael:
In 599, Setael draws attention to the facts that I had no negative comments on CKD after my initial read and that, in spite of this, CKD merited a 50% on my scale. She also resurrects the charges of me having been noncommittal and wishy-washy in my first analysis
Vollkan"
In 602, I make 3 points of rebuttal to Set's arguments:
1) I had a very similar attitude towards Jordan (Setael I's predecessor) and Albert.
2) There was nothing prima facie "pro-town" in CKD's (or Jordan's and Albert's) play which would justify me placing them below 50%.
3) On the subject of me being wishy-washy and non-committal I referred to the fact that this point had already been dealt with, and reiterated my previous rebuttal.
Issue #3: "HOLD IT! Contradiction!"
Setael:
In 608, Set accuses me of a contradiction because of these two posts:
vollkan wrote: he reason is simply that whilst they were not scummy going by my initial read,
I had seen nothing which suggested to me that they were more likely to be town.
vollkan wrote: CKD makes a good point about Unright putting words into ABR's mouth and votes…
...
CKD gets points for realising this.
...
CKD, sensibly, doesn't buy this.
...
Jordan points out a bogus contradiction from CKD - I call it bogus because he suggests there is some inconsistency with CKD unvoting BM and CKD asking pete d why he thinks BM is OK.
...
11. curiouskarmadog
I have no issues here, since I find myself in agreement with him on most of the matters I look at above. 50%
Vollkan:
I respond in 609 with this:
vollkan wrote:
I don't mean to mischaracterise your position, so let me just address what I understand you to be saying:
"Vollkan finds nothing bad with CKD and expresses two occasions of agreement with CKD. Therefore, it is contradictory and suggests distancing that vollkan would place CKD at 50%"
Again, remember that I did the same thing in respect of Jordan and Albert.
I know full well that just because somebody does a few things which seem "right" to me does not in any way make them more likely to be town. Jordan (Bookitty) is proof of this point.
Nothing that CKD did was enough to make me think that he was probably pro-town. I did not suspect him, but I had seen nothing which would be highly unlikely to come from scum (my criteria for judging a town-tell).
Issue #4: *yawn* Speculation
Setael
This comes in 665:
Setael wrote:
I think there's a good chance that vollkan NK'd me with the intention of claiming vig. Risky, but worth a gamble since they've already lost 2 members of their team. They knew ABR would likely push my lynch today, with me targeting vollkan the whole time and then when I came up town it would look very bad on vollkan. Perfect solution = NK me and claim it as a vig kill. Might give a chance at a win to a scum team that has been dropping like flies.
I also think if he was town he'd be more likely to be a 1-shot. Oh, and if he was town I think he'd have vigged me after Bookitty came up scum. I see no reason for a town vig with a nightly kill to have left me alive after Bookitty's lynch. As scum, he'd definitely claim to be able to kill every night to keep us from lynching him. All signs point to vollkan scum.
vote: vollkan
Here we have an Albertesque speculation about what vollkanscum might do.
And then in 686 we have:
Set wrote: Anyway, vollkan - if you're a town vig that can kill every night, why didn't you vig me after the Bookitty lynch? What about me made you think I wasn't scum to the point of not vigging me, and how did my play yesterday change your mind so quickly?
Shanba (and anyone else who's active but not posting), what do you think of my case on vollkan in post 665, as well as my earlier cases pointing out the link between him and ckd?
Vollkan:
I can understand why you might think I ignored this, but I didn't. The concerns you raised here were addressed by me in 672 where I gave my testimony in the context of Albert's speculation. I then addressed the matter of why I chose not to NK you after Bookitty's lynch in 695 where I revealed that I am only one-shot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If I have missed anything you have said please let me know, because I am quite sure I have refuted every argument that has been against me.
This seriously ought to ring alarm bells.
