In post 1594, NorwegianboyEE wrote: In post 1301, northsidegal wrote:Cycle Men (7) Deimos27 (588), humaneatingmonkey (902), Isis (904), Firebringer (1234), Green Crayons (1240), Elements (1245), Alisae (1289)
Elements (4) Cycle Men (1002), NorwegianboyEE (1101), votato (1187), Albert B. Rampage (1251)
NorwegianboyEE (1) Looker (456)
This is a surprisingly polarized vote count. And ABR flipping town makes me wonder if 2 if not all of the scum were voting Cycle Men as a planned buss. Looker could be scum as well though. Idk how i feel about him sitting out the major wagons. Theoretically this could mean something completely different if Elements was scum too. But i'm not really going to consider that too much atm.
Scum either:
was bussing Cycle (Deimos, humna, Isis, FB, Crayons, Elements, Ali)
was voting Elements counterwagon (Norwegian, votato)
or was not voting (Looker)
Norwegian's theory here is that scum was not voting the Elements counterwagon alongside Cycle-scum, which (A) asks the town to avoid scrutinizing the Elements counterwagon which he was one; (B) allows him ignore votato, who would the only potential scum on the Elements counterwagon if Norwegian-town, which is useful if votato-town and Norwegin-scum because now Norwegian doesn't need to come up with bad reasons to vote votato-town; and (C) avoids the obvious sequence of, if votato is town, then Norwegian is the other scum alternative on the Elements counter-wagon.
Now, it's entirely possible(!) to legitimately come to the conclusion that scum was not on the Elements counterwagon alongside Cycle-scum. But that would require doing the legwork of looking at who else was on the Elements counterwagon.
Norwegian hasn't done that. He's simply gotten to the conclusion that best benefits him as scum, but would actually be a detriment to him as town because he's ignoring votato as a potential scum candidate based on wagon analysis.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).