Oh I expected you to argue over what is "gut". No surprise there.
Of course its not a surprise. You go "Your case is gut" and I say, "No, my case is because of these reasons." I'm glad your not surprised?
The enemy loves confusion statement still allowed Vollkan to give his original intention for his self-vote and gave my own opinion on the likelyhood of whether a self-vote would still be valid. The mods statement certainly narrowed the options for the original self-vote being a valid one. Giving my own interpretation of a mods ruling is hardly an attack on a player, especially when you allow the player in question an opportunity to address it.
The implication of "the enemy" sets a tone for it. It wasn't "this statement could be causing confusion" or "Your self vote is confusing"
It was: The enemy loves confusion after the implication that his voting himself was, in fact, confusing. Thus, he would be the enemy, no?
As for your scummy moves Spyrex, as you say, its all in how you are doing it. If the 2nd post I made was the issue, then why did you label it as point 1, and then post 2 more quotes taken out of context without Vollkan's responses? It looks like you were simply trying to 'pad' your case (which I consider anti-town at the least, possibly straight out scummy). It took another response by me for you to cull your attack back to a specific part of a post you feel was negative. Why? Why did it take so many posts and refutations for you to finally find your real point?
Ok, hold up a sec.
Your first post wasn't what made
me
start to wonder about you. Hence, it wasn't a point in my response of the question of "strongly" attacking.
How in the name of everything does my not putting Volkan's posts modify at all why I found
how you were attacking
suspicious?
As for padding..what? My last response had nothign to do with the other things I've said. You made this statement:
Is that: "I didn't. My "strong" push on Vollkan was for some of his subsequent responses, that I did, and still do "strongly" disagree with. But there was not, as much as you two insist upon it, a "strong" negative attack that kicked off this entire conversation.
By the time we get to anything that can be considered "strong" or "negative" was after we had gotten into theory debate and well past the self-vote itself.
My reply, was that the "ENEMY LOVES CONFUSION" is heavily negative in connotation and that occurs before any of the rest of the argument. That, in fact, your statement above is in my eyes totally false.
Which brings us back to you and your actions. You spent pages arguing without bringing up the nugget that was central to your argument and that nugget was on page 1. That tells me (and my gut), that you were trying to inflate your position, forcing me to refute your points along the way, until finally you were backed into your last point of refuge in regards to your case.
Thats not a nugget. That's part of a larger issue. My first statement about this would be the "nugget" - your large set of attacks that then vanished. The fact that you started this all out with "The enemy" is icing, nothing more.
My gut also tells me that you will complain that I gave you nothing to defend yourself against. Not true. I give you your entire course of play to defend yourself against. My sympathies go out to you that you created such a large mess to defend. You've moved way beyond being able to point out a phrase on page 1 that could, admittedly, be interpreted in 2 ways (or more). You should have gone for that right off the bat. Instead, you get to explain why it took 4 pages of accusations to finally fall back on it.
I'm am glad I have your sympathies. WOE IS ME FOR THIS ATTACK IS SO STRONG NONE COULD STAND AGAINST IT.
I haven't fell back on anything. I'd love you to show me where I fell back on anything.
I'll try to summarize why you are saying I'm scummy since it is apparent that this is to be an impossible task for you to clarify (hmm, what could the reasons for that be).
1.) The 2nd post you made was my first point, not the first.
2.) I took your statements out of context.
3.) I culled my attack back to a specific point.
--- That point could easily be interpreted multiple ways and was on page one.
----- If that is the main point, why didn't I start with it?
4.) I am inflating my position on you by adding in other details.
5.) I am using "gut" for this attack and yet condemning you for it.
(If I missed any big points, let me know. Honestly, I can't really pull anything else out of it).
Allow me to give you a simple rebuttal as well as the above.
1.) Your 2nd post was
MY
first point because I personally dont care as much about the 1st (Why would you) as the fact you painted it instantly as part of "the enemies" arsenal.
2.) I didn't attempt to hide context. Its there if they want to see it but the point I was making was in your words
themselves
. The method of the attack as it were.
3.) I didn't "back off" my attack.
--- Everything else I have mentioned is still suspicious.
--- They are all part of the large pie of your play I dont like.
------ What you are saying is my "main" point is in fact a minor one.
--------- If you hadn't said that statement but did the other things I would still be very suspicious. If you hadn't done the latter and just said "THE ENEMY" then I wouldn't be as suspicious.
4.) I am not inflating my position. See above.
5.) Taking all of the things you've done together and finding them suspicious != 'gut'.
But, this exchange is enough for me to toss the vote. (Please, ohh please, let someone scream OMGUS)
Unvote, Vote: Ecto
This isn't just stupid townie business above. This is malicious and designed to push forward a weak lynch. This just makes me further feel that the whole "pushing for pushing" was designed with the exact same thing in mind.