Also, you didn't address my other concern: You were suspicious of Shakerag for not scumhunting, but the only scumhunting you were doing was calling him out on it and asking him what he meant. Doesn't that strike you as problematic?
Not actually, no. Because what I called him out on was a general lack of scumhunting. I was scumhunting in my views, and I seriously fail to see what you are expecting here. Just because I make mistakes it doesn't mean nobody else does.
I'm not assuming that if someone attacks you they have to be scum. I'm assuming that it's odd to automatically assume that someone's going after you for genuine but bad reasons rather than because they're scum. What makes you think Urist is town? Do you have reasons, or do you just assume everyone is town until they do something horribly, horribly scummy?
I have explained this exactly in the part you quoted. Urist is not acting scummy, he is doing his townie job. On just what base would I attack him? You are repeating your points, seem to be of the opinion that hypocrisy is scummy, yet you are not doing much better,
IronyOwl.
All I can find at the moment, so I'll have to go back and properly address this later. I find your general drifting with votes suspicious in general, though; unvoting and then just sitting there while the lynch went through D1 strikes me as suspicious, for instance, since while it's not a bandwagon, it shows a definite disinterest in who's lynched.
Your train of thought shows a definite lack of thought behind it. My vote would not have changed who's lynched. Why should I then just vote someone? You are making points and asking questions which could have been easily avoided if only you thought more about it, and all this gives me the feeling you are just attacking someone for the sake of attacking and looking town.
So, Mormota and Powder Miner, you need to get on the board. Solidify your scumpicks and come out swinging. I want a vote, a reason, and examples to back them up. Let's go, there's only one day left.
Yet you are not doing it either.
...Because he still replaced someone that appeared scummy? A replacement cannot change roles in the process of being replaced so all those previous scumtells were still valid reasons to vote. This just doesn't make sense.
This is completely asinine. I can not vote someone and call them scum if I haven't seen them in action.
So? I found examples and reasons and I articulated them. I reasoned, I exampled, I prooved. You on the other hand BSed and backed off the second you were questioned on your reasoning. You then lurked the day away hoping no one would notice you when I pointed out these flaws, in fact you lurked so hard you got prodded. Not just called on it, but fucking prodded. Now you come out against me, and you have what? One reason for voting me? There is nothing wrong with repeating a point if you have other reasons to back it up. I did, I do I always have.
Why do you feel so offended by being attacked? Then you claim that having a few points is not a problem, but call Powder out for only having one. Uh... right? Well. No. Not at all.
His explanation for not voting for an extension also seems scummy - why would a town player not want to hear their target's defense?
(By the way, I'd like an answer to that, Mormota)
Which you didn't answer.
If I am confident that someone is scum, then why would I want to hear more from them?