4. Why did you take small snippets of questions from the linked posts, specifically the ones with questions you had already answered, and focused on those instead of the intended restated unanswered questions? I find your evasion massively scummy, since you a) know better, and b) intentionally skipped the questions in the post to which you replied.
You have long posts, some I probably just missed. The rest I either didn't think were important or had already been answered. Obviously you and I disagree on that point.
[...]
For the third, now fourth time *I didn't evade them the first time*.
You did evade or wilfully skipped them the first and second times. Don't be disingenuous. Several of these, that you only answered now, were asked
repeatedly and you continued to skip them to focus on answering the same three things again and again, and then linking them. I still say you were evasive then, and are dishonest now when you say you didn't.
But I don't expect you to agree. Rather, I point people to the
"quite a post" to see just
how many times the questions you answer now were asked and evaded. It doesn't help that I've not been able to be as active as I'd like, but I hope to have more time the rest of the week and next week.
Compare this:
5. You also say "while there were far scummier targets." What targets? Please list them out. Who was scummier than MBP at the time yesterday? You evidently think Arg was, so as I ask above, compare your Arg case to my MBP case, and see if you can honestly say "far scummier targets" were there. Or was it someone else? If so, why didn't you vote them?
Org, essentially unlynchable. ToonyMan, hoping he'd turn around and be useful. Leafsnail and Jokerman-EXE, lurking but they always do that.
and this:
9. "Easy Lynches" I want specific answers to your clearly spurious and fallacious comments about how Arg went for "easy lynches". Jumping onto a bandwagon or otherwise getting a free lynch is indeed scummy, but he's not done that; he decided MBP was his target, and he committed to it, even when it was no longer an easy lynch. He was then still voting the same way than when you said he went for the easy lynches. Was he still scummy for it?
MBP, I'll give you that he stuck to his guns on that one.
His last choice was Org/Toony. Everyone had Org/Toony on their list. Saying Org was an Easy Lynch was completely wrong, more accurate would be Easy Target To Say Is Scummy. But that's a lot of words. More or less the same for ToonyMan at that point.
This reveals your scumminess when you put together Arg's case. You explicitly voted him for "Going for easy lynches", but now agree that a) MBP [you know, the guy he voted and pursued] wasn't it; and b) that Org/Toony weren't easy lynches, and he wasn't pursuing them anyway. So what was your cased based on? I'll tell you:
nothing, just your desire to you yourself go for an easy lynch, and supporting it with (now admittedly) fabricated arguments. This is the sort of "case" the scum builds.
You had no real scumminess of him to latch onto, beyond the common "lynch the kook" complaint, so you went out of your way to add "distracting" and "easy lynches" to your bullshit case, and now you admit that both were baseless and fallacious.
7. You "almost guaranteed MBP wouldn't be guarded, and decent chance of being NK'd". Several people seem[ed] to think [MBP] is town, so why wouldn't them guard him if they can? Wouldn't you guard someone you think is town? And were he town, why would he get nightkilled? The WIFOM is useful for the scum, and it's not like he's is an asset.
He's town, but has a worthless role and hasn't been active enough to make a strong town center. Why would people guard him? I would probably guard someone that is town, but I wouldn't have guarded him. Nightkilled was probably more than expected. You're quite correct, the scum would probably leave him alive both for the Kooky-WIFOM bits and because he's not that dangerous to them.
You don't know he has a worthless role; if he's kook as he says, it doesn't mean he's a
vanilla townie kook. He could be a kooky detective, or guardian or whatever, and just hasn't claimed that part of his role. And you now agree that thinking he's town is strong enough reason to guard someone, so if you were a guardian, and had one person you think is town, and nine you're not sure, you'd guard him even if he's kook. Plus, you agree you used wishful thinking as argument; he's more useful to the scum alive than dead.
In short, you're backing out of your previous statements, because they were vacuous and dishonest. It was scummy for you to make them then, and it's scummy of you to backtrack now when you're trying to clear your name.
8. Distracting: if he was doing that instead of content, I'd see it. Otherwise it's a non sequitur, and it's your job not to be distracted. Do you think he was actively and intentionally trying to distract us away from seeing suspicious things by posting a head-explode picture in response to an Org comment? how is "distracting" is a scumtell (while also posting content)?
Minor issue. Probably even more minor that I made it out to be.
But you lynched him for it. It's so minor, that I say you couldn't have made it by accident, but instead by wilful construction of a bullshit case.
This is my point and now you agree with it.
I leave this as further confirmation:
I think there are two reasons for this:
- You first decided to vote him, and then set off to find "justifications" for it, starting from the beginning. You latched on whatever low-hanging fruit you found. Oh, look, a youtube link! Shiny!
To the first, it's mostly true. It's all I had time for. Didn't get time to do a full read until the beginning of Day 2.
12. Refute this: Your arguments [were] still way insufficient for a fourth on bandwagon vote, you ignored the most important parts of the situation, you ignored several of my earlier questions, and your "list" is completely made up after the fact to justify your jumping onto the bandwagon instead of an analysis and cause for a vote.
This is contained in the other questions, why I wanted you to make a list in the first place.
Insufficient arguments: I disagree, see answers to (8 ), (9), and (10).
Ignored the important parts: Which were? Talking with Argembarger about the situation (11), what else did I ignore.
Made up list: No. Not made up. Went back and looked for it after the vote, but I didn't make it up.
Bullshit. 8 and 9 are you agreeing with me that "distracting" and "easy lynches" are insufficient arguments, so that point stands, and
you agreed with it above, so don't say "I disagree" now.
Ignored the important parts: yes you did, see above, and the "quite a post" for multiple important bits you chose to ignore again and again.
Made up list: Yes, made up. That's what "I voted first, then latched onto "enchanter" and youtube links" after the fact, even if I didn't really thought they were scummy" means. And you said this "is mostly true."
My point remains: Your case is the case a scum builds. Your arguments were way insufficient for a fourth on bandwagon vote, you ignored important parts of the situation, ignored several of my earlier questions, and your "list" is completely made up after the fact to justify your jumping onto the bandwagon instead of an analysis and cause for a vote.
You are still scum, and should hang today. Dariush is scummy too, but I see his jumpiness and contradictions more as noobtells and clouded thinking than the work of a scum (though I certainly don't clear him). You, on the other hand, are a crafty creature with a silver tongue. You went out of your way to build a bullshit case and mislynch a townie yesterday, even with multiple arguments (which you now recognise as solid) against it, and have D2 done a great job of talking yourself out of it. You are not only scum, you are
the most dangerous kind of scum: adept at talking yourself out of your scummy acts. We won't let you get away with it.
Author
Topic: Bastard Paranormal - Game Over! (Read 68401 times)