imaginality wrote:Litral's responses to my case against him are inadequate. His explanation of why he voted Wumbo (121) and then switched to chenhsi (137) is basically that he "only barely read the posts" when he cast his vote on Wumbo, and switched votes after "careful reading" of the same posts.
First of all, it's not actually an explanation after the event, seemingly made to cover myself, because I said it right when I voted Wumbo. If the explanation made no sense, then it seems that your attacks could have been made then. Nevertheless I will address your points.
The problems with this explanation:
(a) He's saying he voted Wumbo (to L-2) after 'barely reading' the recent posts: it seems unacceptable to cast a vote so lightly, why not hold off voting until he'd had a chance to read?
Is that necessary? I realized I was going to be accused of lurking if I didn't show up; I skimmed through the topic, knew that Wumbo was nowhere near being lynched, found his claim suspicious, and stuck my vote there... only for one day.
(b) it didn't take much attention to see that Dark wingstalker was in the hot seat; I still find his lack of comment suspicious, when combined with his attempt to stay clear of that debate later (183)
My lack of commenting on DWS... equivalent to my attempt to stay clear of the debate... has been explained. I actually did comment after re-reading, saying that I didn't get enough scum vibes to justify a vote.
(c) saying "I get town vibes out of Wumbo's final defenses" (137) is a conveniently vague get-out clause for switching his vote; what were those townie vibes that stood out clearly after a reread but not when he cast his vote?
I don't think Wumbo is the sort of person who'd go "look at these guys after I die, and then these guys, and you should do this and do that, take care town! *sob*" as scum - after careful reconsideration. Of course, not going to use this from now on.
(d)In explaining his "not going to bother with this discussion" post (183), Litral says, "Since you did not explain why my arguments saying that DWS was not scum to me are bad, I cannot argue with this." - but at that point, he hadn't given any reasons for thinking DWS was not scum, so this doesn't answer my point at all.
A misunderstanding; sorry. In response to that post you said that it makes sense if DWS and I are scum together. My sentence was meant to say "You're linking DWS and I together because I'm defending him, but I'm defending him with reason, which you did not question."
Litral wrote:Litral wrote:while DWS did seem to misinterpret and misspeak at times, those misinterpretations are not meant to be malicious or anti-town, and to me, not intentional.
And? You mean to say he made those mistakes on purpose. I see no scum-benefit in that.
No benefit in 'accidentally' voting someone to L-1 without good reason? I think there's a clear benefit for scum to do that: the chance that someone else might then hammer that player. And there's also benefit in misinterpretations when you're scum, if you hope you can thereby confuse the case being made against you or hope to shift the focus away from your actions and on to semantics.
"accidentally voting someone to L-1 in the hopes that someone hammers" does not feel like scum strategy. If you do not believe that DWS can be truly careless enough to vote someone to L-1 without reconsidering, how can you believe that there would be a player who actually carelessly hammers? And if such a player is not expected to exist, then the strategy is useless. The rest of the town can unvote, too.
