I never stepped in to protect Deus. You're pushing that link all on your own
I don't need to manufacture links that already exist. You stepped in to make a statement. That statement solely pushed against NQT's points against Deus and their potential application by Wozzy (that is, protected Deus). Wozzy wasn't even treating the points as if they were inherently right (no vote, only suspicion).
But let's say you didn't step in to protect Deus from points you saw as having rather limited value, and that you did not even care about the subject matter. Why, then, did you step in?
... Actually, I'm gonna have to change my opinion. I just reread NQT's posts, and yeah, it was his complete and only basis of his case.
Deus was also suspicious because he seemed to indicate scum hadn't been blocked, but rather had tried to kill me (or someone else nk-immune) and failed. Given that I know scum failing to kill due to targeting me (and me being an obvious target for a kill), Deus's wording jumped out as suspicious. Hence why I'm voting him.
1. Deus Asmoth or his ally tried to kill me but failed due to my one-shot NK immunity
The only reason Deus was suspicious was in connection to NQT's NK immunity.
I love how your evidence so blatantly proves you wrong. You quoted the post in which NQT speculated that another kill-immune player may have been the target. NQT felt there was something to his points even if he hadn't been the target, though he wrongly thought he was the target. His case was not wholly dependent on him having been hit.
Now,
look back at NQT's original attack against Deus, as you didn't. What role would (and did) NQT's idea of him being hit play in this? All it did was strengthen (and not even 'prove') the idea that scum failed to kill a bulletproof. It was not an essential component, let alone the "complete and only basis." It wrongly convinced him that his case was strong, but it was not the basis of the case.
Of course, none of what I just pointed out helps you delegitimize my questions.
it looks like you only stick to superficial questions.
I already know you look at questions in a shallow way. You don't have to prove it even more.
I'm saying that you're not creating real information on other people.
14 posts prior to this, one of my probing questions got Deus to reveal that he's the one who blocked NQT, launching a continuing line of questioning. If that doesn't count as real information, pretty much nothing does.
I'd ask what does, but something tells me that wouldn't help.
Sans NQT's thing, where a townie gambited and then got insta-hammered, you've not done much. I mean, sure you ask questions, but no real line of questioning.
[...]
You've certainly never pressured someone yet.
This is the thing. Even a cursory examination of my posts shows that this is wrong. Even ignoring the ongoing line of questioning with Deus, the successful line with BHK through D3, and this very line of questioning and pressure, you missed the interrogation of TBF D1, the bulk of my D1 activity. That is without a doubt a line of questioning and without a doubt pressure, yet you claim I've never pressured anyone and never do real lines of questioning.
Here's the thing: you're not lying. You're not telling the truth (you're blatantly wrong), but you're not lying. To accuse you of lying would imply that you knew you were wrong, and this would be a terrible strategic lie (ridiculously easily countered). You're not lying. You just don't care whether your statements are true or not.
You haven't actually read my posts, and yet you are willing to make broad and incorrect statements about them. You don't care. Truth doesn't matter.
What matters to you is propping up your position. You want to portray my questioning of you as illegitimate, pointless, and unduly focused on you, so you come up with claims to prop that portrayal up. You claimed that in asking you a couple questions as I asked a bunch of people questions, I was unduly focusing on you and ignoring some lurkers. Obviously false, but that doesn't matter: it props up your position. You then 'clarified', claiming that I don't do real lines of questioning and have never pressured someone yet. Ridiculously obviously false, and a position that only someone who never read my posts could ever realistically claim, but that doesn't matter: still props up your position. You even made an absolute claim about NQT's actions that was disproven by the very evidence you gave to prove it. Doesn't matter! It props up your position.
Not deflecting. Disagreeing with your reasons for asking questions.
First: You outright asked a 'why me not lurkers' question in an effort to push me away from you. That's a textbook example of deflecting. It's hard to find a more perfect example of deflecting. That I was dealing with lurkers just made your argument even worse.
Second: Posting more than lurkers does not magically place you above questioning. It does not magically make you unworthy of being questioned about your positions, and all of those reasons apply to the top posters as well as the bottom ones. Being a mid-frequency poster just means there's more material to ask questions about than with lurkers.
Mmkay. So this is where I sit. [snip BHK stuff]
Alright, thank you. So, basically, your general position is as follows:
*BHK is either absolutely befuddled or very good at acting that way.
*You lean towards him being befuddled.
*Doesn't really matter: his behaviour is a significant threat to town either way, and he did actively mislead the town.
In most circumstances, this sort of support for a lynch regardless of alignment would ring alarm bells. In this case, though, I can honestly see a reasonable townie coming to this position. Utter confusion plus random-result action plus a willingness to mislead: a dangerous combination. Still a bit of a troubling position to lead a wagon from, but less troubling than it would normally be.
It does leave me with a question, though. What do you make of
BHK finally understanding what happened D2?
Poll
8 (53.3%)
Author
Topic: Fallacy's BYOR(5/9): GAME OVER. (Read 59172 times)