Still suspicious that he said it was cult, but we know now that he didn't mean conversion cult.
Oh? How do we know he didn't? "Because there isn't one" is not an acceptable answer. Without depending on assuming Cheese's cult thing was a scumslip, show me evidence that he did not mean a conversion cult. In addition, please explain how the
"cult...is more difficult" claim fits with a non-conversion Cult slip.
Post 6
Now actually forced to be defensive; but still defending by being dismissive, and blames it on switching it around with a different mafia game, an evasive tactic.
And what makes this evasive, aside from your wish to put the word 'evasive' in?
He elaborated/changed his answer once, and when he was accused of being inconsistant for it, he became consistant to an extreme degree. Stubborn, even, to give an answer. This appears to be a tactic to avoid being accused of anything else, an avoidance tactic employed by scum.
It "appears to be"? More detail. Love the way you felt you had to add the bit about the tactic being "employed by scum," by the way.
Post 1
Replaced in. His later claim to have breadcrumbed having an active role points here, but if he had an active role and was goading scum into targeting him with his PASSIVE role, that's a lie. Townies don't have reason to lie.
And here's what really set off alarm bells for me. "Townies don't have reason to lie," as evidence, is the lazy reduction of a sometimes complicated issue to a sometimes false absolute at the best of times, and is especially a terrible way to respond to a PGO claim featuring pretty common PGO tactics (cough cough reason to lie cough cough). Great way to not have to deal with actual stated reasons for lying.
Well, what I mean by looking for a safe fake claim is at every opportunity he's been asking questions (and laying false breadcrumbs) that support almost any claim possible. He could claim Gaurd, and it would make sense. Monster hunter would make sense. Miller would make a little sense. He could support a Thief claim with his posts so far. He's trying to make it so that when he claims, it's believable, by asking questions that fish for answers that can support any fake claim, even if somebody posts to reveal that they found his alignment was scum.
He even does it in this post in his question to Meph. He asks if it's possible for a potential-town-role to be scum; this question was already answered here. But the question was asked with the intent to prove that if his role was one on the Meph post that he previously quoted then he couldn't be scum; which is not true, as demonstrated by Meph's answer.
And here is the conclusion of an absurd line of logic about fake claims, a line he often uses in his analysis of Cheeetar's posts. It was less absurd
when the line was initially created, but now basically unsupportable. Like much spin work, it falls apart when one starts thinking about it. We know there's a werebear, know he didn't kill N2, and know he killed OSG N3. If it isn't Cheeetar, then Cheeetar's picked a claim not only counterable, but almost certain to be countered (even for an SK werebear, which we quite probably don't have, countering here would be a reasonable idea). Are you seriously trying to tell us not only that Cheeetar's questions about the game were (working, you claim) efforts to find a safe and supportable fakeclaim, but that he would then abandon those efforts completely in favour of a quite vulnerable fakeclaim?
Author
Topic: Supernatural 8 - Game over! Town Victory (Read 69352 times)