Fuck, I had a nice large post here, but forgot to save a copy. Oh well, I'll just retype it. Most of it is quoting Dakarian, anyways, so it's not as big a deal as it looks. Spoiler tags are for pussies.
My first vote was on you.. a randomvote. My first attack was on Eduren, NOT Neruz.
My point still stands, stop nitpicking. Yes, I know they're totally different, I don't know how I mixed the two up, I just know I sometimes do. Worry not about that, focus on the things I say, not the people involved.
It makes a BIG difference. It makes me sound like I was after Neruz since day 1 all the way up to his lynch.
I attack him then wait for his response. He didn't write ANYTHING during the Web/Dakarian battle, so while I was waiting for Eduren to speak to me, I fought against Web. Once I was done with Web, I was STILL waiting for Eduren. Eventually Eduren speaks answering my original question and that's that.
Then what might this be?
That's what we're finding out.
That's your reasoning post, considering it was less than 3 hours after your vote. You do nothing but talk about Zai and how scummy he was, so yes, that was covered already. I'm talking about after voting Zai, you did nothing. Good job on missing the point, btw.
YOUR point was that I did nothing all game. At this point I've shown that I've been heavily active for all of Day 1. That's half the game already (since you first accused me at the very start of Day 3).
Alright, fine. There was some small talk about Leafsnail's role, THEN you jumped on ExKirby. That's just different enough to be the exact same thing.
The point of THIS, is that I used a connection between Leafsnail and ExKirby to accuse ExKirby. You claim I had no reason to do it. The 'small talk' WAS the lead up to that reason.
Btw, when you include ExKirby's attack, that's all of Day 1 and 1/3 into Day 2 that I've been active.
To me, bad reasoning and no reasoning are the same thing. Think of when I say "no reasoning" to be shorthand for "no good reasoning".
Crap logic mixed with a change of attack. There's a mass of difference between "a reason YOU don't like" and "No reason". I DON'T like policy lynches. If someone lynched another for a policy lynch I can't say "You had no reason!". The Policy lynch WAS the reason, no matter how much I think it's stupid.
I'm not you. I use my own mindset and my own scumhunting techniques. If you don't like it, fine, but attempting to rename it into whatever you please just to mark me scummy is Crap Logic.
Just like everything else you've said since day 2, you have not, in fact, "demanded" anything. You asked for a prod. You then pretty much say to Neruz "You think somebody else is scummy while I... think you're scummy. Show you're town or we'll see what happens."
So the scan declaring Rash as passive didn't happen first off.
Secondly, I thought the argument was "I did nothing". Now you're showing me as going after Neruz.
This is your problem.. you have several accusations that contradict each other.
The neruz issue took up the 2nd third of the 2nd day. So now "did nothing all game" turns into "did nothing for the last third of the second day"
Though I did notice that during the 'do nothing' 3rd section is when the fight with you began. That was 'nothing' tough.. right?
Fumbled? He made and quickly corrected a mistake. If you're going to get on everybody's case for making mistake and correcting them, you might as well lynch all the beginners now. (WIFOMingly, scum usually don't "make mistakes" on their claims, it's both stupid and attention-grabbing). Making a mistake on one's claim that they then correct on their own is not scummy in any way, shape, or form. That's just a mistake on the user's part. Hell, I've had to reask who I targetted on past nights in other games, it's not something to be ashamed of. It's also something both town and scum would do. Thus, null-tell. However, I usually find that the people who say null-tells are scummy are usually scum themselves. Strange thing, that.
You didn't seem to have a problem with it when I first posted it. I flat out said I was after him because he fumbled. I don't see any protest. In fact, soon after that, you were saying it was time to hammer hiim..then pulled back.
So why is this out now, after he's dead?
You're trying to box me into two choices. That's scumlogic. There's an obvious third option: I made a few mistakes (Seriously, Neruz and Eduren are NOT the same person, self).Your decision to use "A or B" style reasoning is plain old bullshit.
The question was retorical. It's what I have to decide from you.
Meanwhile, you made a good deal of mistakes beyond the name switch. You declared me as doing nothing when I've been active most of the game. You declared that I had no reasons for my attacks when I have stated my reasons (reasons you don't like are NOT 'no reasons'). You slipped on when I voted for who and who I voted for.
That's just about the entire sum of my activity you've made mistakes on, and threw hard and cold accusations based on it.
Alright, two things. First, a question. Second, something I just want to show you.
I don't know Eduren's meta. Meanwhile, Toony disagrees: he says that self preservation ISN'T part of his meta. That's why I'm on him. I'll take your idea that he DOES act like this normally into consideration, but I want to hear more from him before I leave him alone.
And yet you voted him because of his meta? So in other words, you voted him because TOONYMAN said so? Note that ToonyMan himself didn't actually vote Eduren, why did you take his word so seriously when he himself didn't?
Another misread.
I voted for him because he overreacted. When Toony spoke up I asked if that was part of his meta and he stated that it was not. In other words, I attacked him for a scumtell, then doublechecked to see if Meta was at issue.
Toony did NOT cause me to vote for him, only helped make sure there wasn't a quicky explanation.
1. I didn't suspect you Day 1, web. I fought with you and got a read on you, but had nothing to suspect you with so I left you be. I noticed the bandwagons were half because of the fight between you and I and half because they wanted to punish you for your additude. I went meh then and I do Meh now.
BUUUUULSHIT!
@Web
-snip-
I suspect you. Yes, I DO suspect you. As such I'll push you. I don't have a second vote so a FOS will do: since it's brought this result I'm glad I left it like that, since Eduren needs a LOT more pressure than you do. Do I want you dead? No, not yet. I make THAT time very very clear and you aren't there yet. Your emotions provide a very nice shield so it's hard to crack you, whether you are town or scum. I want to say you cracked but if so you won't be readable till later. For now, I'll need to be content where you are.
-snip-
Changing your reasoning is THE most scummiest thing possible.
Grats. You found a mistake that I had forgotten from nearly a month ago. I didn't know I had suspected Web in Day 1 during our initial fight and not just kept him on watch. You'll note though that soon after the fight was over and I had finished with Eduren I did NOT go after Web, even when the bandwagon started..even when others were using MY argument against him.
So, you tell me, how strong was that suspicion I had on Web on Day 1 when it never leads to a vote? How strong was it when, after I unvoted, I had to do a Wide Scan just to find a new target? How strong was it when, afterwards, everyone and their mother had reasons to kill Web and I was stuck on Zai the whole time?
Author
Topic: uPick Mafia: Panda Edition Day6 - Mafia wins. Cheeetar calls Shenanigans. (Read 298543 times)