@Rotten Snitch:
I don't mind if it goes back and forth, and I'll address anything you want me to. And probably some things you don't want me to.
Rotten Snitch wrote:All I am saying on the WIFOM issue is that everyone at some point in the game is guilty of it. To vote me like that is ridiculous.
That's like saying, "Everyone plays scum at some point so voting someone because they're scummy is ridiculous." Just because everyone does something, it doesn't make it okay.
WIFOM, when purposely added to a game, muddies the waters for the town (and I mentioned that already) which makes it harder for town to properly scumhunt. That act is, whether or not it's meant to be, anti-town. Hence why excess WIFOM is worthy of suspicion, votes, etc.
Rotten Snitch wrote:You say that “by avoiding providing a defense” can be seen as scummy but then in the next comment you say that my overly defensive tone and paranoia makes a strong case. So what is it? Defensive or avoiding defense what am I doing?
Paranoia? No, I just thought it was odd from the reaction I received for bringing up a point I thought was valid.
I still think this pressure is odd.
See, you're definitely not paying attention. I said that you are avoiding defending your own actions and are instead replacing a defense by using leading and often misrepresenting questions. It also comes off to me (though this could just be my interpretation) that you are simultaneously defending and attacking Skruffs. You're confusing two completely separate points of my case against you, and I can't tell if it's on purpose or not.
I'm not pressuring you (you already have my vote, what more can I do?) but I am expecting to see some real answers to the following questions:
1) Why won't you present valid reasoning and defensive cases for your actions when asked?
2) Why do you continue questioning a statement that Skruffs made that is not provable as pro- or anti-town and probably can never be?
3) Are you actually going to bother scumhunting any time soon?
Rotten Snitch wrote:Putting words in your mouth? No I have been very good about making sure I stated and corrected your own vote on me. I said that you corrected yourself many times.
By putting words in my mouth, I mean that you are asking leading questions as opposed to answering questions and case points I present that are a total stretch. I told you why I think you're scum, and yet you keep asking why with leading, and often misrepresenting, questions. I corrected myself once, by the way, and that's not what I'm referring to at all.
Rotten Snitch wrote:I said I defended my point on Skruffs possibly dropping a subtle hint and I said I was defending my opinion. I was not calling out his definition of Gaoler I was calling out his tone when he said it was unfortunate. And again I never defended him against my own attack. You are putting words in my mouth now.
The thing is, the only way you could know whether or not the "subtle hint" was anything noteworthy is if you are scum.
The fact that you keep wondering why he made that comment when it doesn't help town or not in the least bothers me. We have no idea what alignment the Gaoler was (please correct me if I am wrong) but if we don't know what his alignment was, then how are we EVER going to know until the game ends? It's a dead end. Drop it and move on.
Rotten Snitch wrote:What I meant by my last comment was that I asked Andycyca for a little more detail in the reason he voted me. He has not given it yet but now if he does he will not have to use his own words to answer me. He can copy your argument against me.
What, you'd actually let someone use a cop out to get out of answering a question? Yes, he COULD use my arguments to answer you, but the fact is that he already answered you in the post he voted in. He gave you two good reasons that I feel are correct and justified. I'm agreeing with him, really, not the other way around.