Ok, I think that it's pretty clear that this whole argument is going to just boil down to me saying "I think he's scum because this reason" and you saying "I don't think that reason is scummy"
Way to not answer the question. You realize if your wrong we've lost, right? Unless you'll win if you're wrong.
Me not answering the question is me realizing an argument that won't go anywhere, because it's already gone back and forth once, and ended exactly where it started. If you'd like to continue with that line, we can do that.
And yes, I do realize that if I'm wrong, we'll lose, but this is honestly the best lead I've got.
It's not just his playstyle, and the more I've pressed him, the more convinced I've gotten that he's scum.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't exactly give me confidence. You see, if you keep tunneling people into the ground, you keep finding information that just adds to their scumminess. Sometimes you just need to step back and look at things from a different perspective.
I'm getting really sick of people telling me this, particularly as the person who told me this the most turned out to later be scum.
I'm hunting, do not tell me that I need to stop hunting.
I didn't mention anything about hunting. Now you're twisting your words. You've seen people tell you to stop using your strategy who turned out to be scum. I've seen people use that strategy as scum to go for a lynch on a townie. I've seen giant town v. town fights erupt and waste time, because a guy thought a guy was scum, and then saw all sorts of things that confirmed their opinion because they automatically assumed from their initial judgment that that person was scum. Closemindedness has lost me Mafia games, so I tend to try and avoid it when I can.
[/quote]
Alright, fine. I'll admit that you didn't explicitly mention hunting, but to me that's how it translates.
But it's still how I prefer to play. And for me at least, it's worked well.
I don't just create more arguments to keep the tunneling going, I point things out as they come up, and if things stop coming up, then that's when I stop.
Good. I've seen you play well with this playstyle (Makeinu's lynch, your first BM, for one), but there is a problem. We still have a fully-fledged scum team, but the only place where the votes stack is you and MOWE. That worries me. THat's what I want you to see. Unless your scum, that should bother you, too.
[/quote]
...Alright, I haven't really been paying too much attention to the vote stacking, I'll also admit to that, and you do have a point on that. That's not something I was really thinking about, because I've been focusing more on scumhunting, without really thinking about what other people are up to.
That's my fault.
I feel like I should point out the unusual turn of events that Opus admits to not wanting to answer me, which is apparently also not scummy in your book, and then he backs off, to let you, a more experienced player, step in to defend him in his place.
I've never said Opus wasn't scummy, just your full case against him wasn't convincing to me. And if I did have access to the scumchat, I'd advice scum Opus to join in, and give him a few points of his own to say. He obviously hasn't liked this experience and wants to quit, and in addition has limited time and I think that if he had support from a scumchat, things might be different.
[/quote]
Yeah, I've seen this general argument before, that if someone
did have access to scumchat, and therefore help from others, than they wouldn't have done this or that, but I've also been fooled of someone's innocence by mistakenly assuming nobody would allow scum to do some of the things they did.
Basically, innocence through ignorance.
In theory, it's something you can argue, but in reality, it can also be used against the very people looking for it.
But the day is about to end in a No-Lynch, it looks like, so we'll see.