Sorry for the delay …
@Tasky
- Your exercise at 244 wouldn’t provide any positive scum-hunting effects. Theoretically exercises are not generally that effective.
Chi wrote:@MagnaofIllusion: Looks like I'm the VI, again.
That you decided to respond to my questions with this self-pity filled junk makes me a bit angy.
ATTENTION CHI –
Answer the questions below in your next post or you’ve won my vote and my concerted effort to lynch you for the rest of the Day.
MoI at 209 wrote:But why do you assert that only one might be scum? Do you think it impossible that RA / Lemon and ACM might be scum together?
On to other topics –
Lemon wrote:And now you have stated it yourself, it is effectively a policy lynch. Not everyone is you, and policy lynching doesn't help us.
If lynching someone for scummy play is a policy lynch then EVERY LYNCH IN THE GAME IS ONE.
Lemon wrote:No, but you even attacked
unsuspicious behaviour
. I can't indicate you are scum, but I will say that I don't completely trust you for your play. And no, I do not expect scum to blurt it out, but I don't expect scum to act inherently scummy.
Why not act pro-town to shake off suspicions?
Regarding your first sentence I am attacking people for behaviour I find suspicious. That you don’t think the same is of little consequence to me. Your judgement is not the Alpha and Omega of what is suspicious and what is not.
The inherent contradiction of the bolded parts makes me chuckle. Attacking unsuspicous behaviour is bad. But you are attacking me in saying I’m acting to Pro-Town. Isn't the definition of Pro-Town not suspcious?
Lemon wrote:Active lurking would make me appear overcautious, but last I checked I wasn't.
Active lurking is not the only way to play in an overcautious manner. Nice strawman. You are overcautious, as I stated in part because you refuse to utilize your vote this far into the Day. In general Town’s strongest weapon is voting. That you don’t feel the need to use yours indicates you are worried about committing to votes and leaving a trail that can be followed. Scummy.
NoPoint wrote:2>
It's not logically flawed.
Chi would be found most scummy by my book. However, a notice of Chi's joining date and his proclivity towards unseriousness really drove my scum read on him towards null-read. I would like a more thorough read on him and if and he improves to decide if he really could be scum.
Emphasis added. If you don’t think the evidence is flawed why did you say it was in this previous post?
NoPoint ISO 5 wrote:3> I personally think Lemon's defense for Chi is justified. I would do the same seeing as to how fast the Chi wagon seems to be moving despite
its flawed evidence.
NoPoint wrote:The opposite of what? If there were more people like you around, Chi would've been quicklynched already and regardless of how he flips, we lose valuable Day 1 info. With all due respect to your play, just don't expect everyone to behave like you.
The opposite of a quick-lynch, of course. You are making up arguments to support that his wagon is “too fast” when fast is exclusively a function of the time it takes to amass votes. Chi never got more than what, 3 votes? And they certainly didn’t come in quick succession. So I don’t by for a second any argument that his wagon is going “too fast” or “can’t be on a scum”.
Your assertion that Chi would be quicklynched by “people like me” is completely incorrect. Can you find evidence where I have ever quicklynched anyone? If not stop making crap up.
I don’t expect everyone to play like me. What in the hell is the point of that sentence?
"I am a leaf on the wind ... watch how I soar!"
Pretty much Geriatric game restricted at this point ... unless there are players I REALLY want to play with.