1. Your statement prompted me to give them. You said "you're doing exactly the same thing you're accusing the other guy of!" and I said "No, I'm not."
His third pick is my first pick, behind the two noobs. There is a difference.
2. I'm saying that lurker- and noob-hunting is a fairly standard scumtell. I'm not saying my targets are especially hard (I rate them a medium or so, with Zai and Webadict being "hard" and Elegy/Tack being "easy").
Toony isn't an especially easy player to lynch, in my point of view, especially since we have you to back him up and go "hurr, let's never lynch Toony because he's usually town and I can't read him!" That is buddying and chainsaw defense, scumbucket.
3. I don't know how you turn "You're attacking me for my behavior. Obviously, I could just do whatever the hell I wanted, but that wouldn't be very good for the group as a whole--now would it?" into "me criticizing you for scumhunting." Overreaction noted.
Behavior is the basis for scum suspects. My point is that if I don't want to be suspected pointlessly (i.e. because I am town), I had better keep tabs on my behavior.
4. Let's go over this again.
a. Jokerman says his targets are Elegy, Tack, and Toony.
b. Vector thinks "Hmm, those are 'easy targets' and he hasn't even been attacking them or questioning them at all. Plus, he's not even bothering to vote."
c. SirBayer says "YOU'RE HYPOCRITICAL FOR VOTING TOONYMAN"
d. I say "No, this is about target-profiling, not about voting ToonyMan in and of itself. I am not doing what I think Jokerman is doing--i.e., attacking a portfolio of weak targets. In fact, here are my suspects, so that you don't have to take my word on it."
e. SirBayer says "OH MY GOD WHY ARE YOU MENTIONING YOUR SUSPECTS ARE YOU SCARED HUH HUH HUH"
f. blah blah blah blah blah
5. I haven't launched an attack on Webadict. I have my hands full dealing with two people trying to crack me, the majority vote on my head, and two people I'm trying to crack myself. I don't have time to get into another brawl with Webadict right now.
As you may have noted, I haven't been stirring anything up with Webadict (remember how he started the recriminations and the yelling and the attacking?). In fact, that's what you're accusing me of--failing to stir things up with Webadict. That's bad logic.
I don't have anything specific, and no... I'm not going to drop my suspicion just because you wish I would. Sorry, sweetheart, that isn't how it works. I'm not sidelining on him. I'm not even attacking him. I'm just leaving a trail. A reminder. "When I die, please look at Webface. Don't just be scared of him. I can't see anything conclusive, but there's something there--so look, damn it."
You want to talk about "not helpful?" Go kick the lurkers! I'm not being lynched because I'm not helpful. I'm being lynched because two people voted and left, because Webby is either trying to get rid of a high-level player or really wants to know my alignment, and because you found somebody to jump on and twist around. EVERYONE is waiting on the lurkers. We can't do anything else! I'm not waiting on them to defend myself, to find someone to attack... none of that. I'm waiting on them to show up, decide whether they want to hang me or not, and get scum-hunting. To be present. If you aren't waiting for them, then you must not care whether or not we actually discover anyone's alignment.