Fucking hell, I am SO TIRED OF BEING MISREPRESENTED AND MISUNDERSTOOD.
I'm not voting BB because he's not my TOP suspect, which is Goat, for reasons I have stated, and will state again, and I've proven, and I would prove again, but people don't like to read my proofs because they are in quote wars, and somehow "pulled out of context" though they always are kept within context, there's nothing that changes meaning when addressed in order. That's a blatant fallacy.
Reasons Goat is top suspect:
His defense is to paraphrase, contort, misconstrue, misrepresent, and otherwise completely ignore my points, something scum have all the motivation and inclination to do.
He (and GIEFF now) are trying to control my vote, something scum do.
He refused accountability, which is the bane of scum's existence.
His mindset while attempting to appear pro-town on the "lynching for information" matches a scum-mindset.
He's been defensive of both panzer and mykonian, on separate occasions, who I also find scummy.
His oversimplification of players serves to distort their image, helpful entirely to scum.
All of his points against me are based on misinformation, a valid scum tactic.
Now, to address Goat's posts without quoting them because apparently that breaks their context, though it seriously doesn't.
On the "vote stretching," you can call me a tunneller all you want, but that's how I roll. Check my meta. I don't drift around once I think I have a lead.
On the SK discussion, you missed
this post. It was stupid when I didn't have a handle on the game and the situation, and now it's not so much about what was being said but who said it. I'm suspicious of those people who advocate an SK witch-hunt when we don't know if there is one, and that includes myk and panzer.
Both you and GIEFF have misunderstood my intent on "being suspicious of nobody defending panzer." I mean you are suspicious THAT nobody is defending panzer, but then you fill that role by defending him. I've seen scum do this countless times. "Oh hay guize this wagun luks to EZ, lol! Thay must not B scum
!" Turns out both the person being pushed and the person who said the wagon looked too easy were scum.
As for inconsistency on who is scum and who I am pursuing, that's not true at all. I am voting for my top suspect now, as I always have been. Perhaps if you take the integral of my suspicion over time, you might say I'm not voting for the person with the most area under their curve, but I've always voted for the top suspect on my list. Mykonian is still my second suspect. Panzer and Birthday are third but in different facets; Panzer is more "group suspicious" and Birthday is more "single suspicious."
On "aggressive defense," you obviously don't know what my argument is, hence your misconstruction. It's the polar opposite between you and BB, and yet those extremes show scum behavior. BB's example, he tries to wholly own his scummy mistakes and therefore somehow nullify them. As if because he's the one pointing out his scummy behavior, hey, it's okay! You are the other kind of scum, that overreact to any suspicion thrown their way. See Charter in my Family Guy meta.
On "linking instead of text," that was for your current opinion on panzer, nothing else. Opinions that are outdated are no good. Arguments that are still valid are perfectly acceptable linking material. Opinions, however, are far quicker to go into expiry than arguments. Furthermore, I answered your BB question and ALSO provided a link. You're also generalizing between the birthday and panzer things, the irony I was going for, without heeding the specifics; namely, the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then, so you'd obviously had a difference in opinion. Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post, and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.
On "hasty dismissal," again, your "case" was three one-off lines. I'll admit I'd hardly read anything at that point, but whenever somebody switches their vote from somebody who hadn't defended themselves for somebody else who hadn't posted in a while and their listed reasons are "lack of scumhunting, suspicious disengage from Panzer, and wishy-washy stances," of course I'm going to be critical. That is a weak case, no matter what. There's no way that those reasons are enough to lynch anybody, and there seemed to be no outstanding catalyst for a changed vote other than the MacavityLock wagon was stuck in a rut.
Also, you say you wanted to "test reactions," which is a common scum justification for just about anything they do to try to get a wagon moving, especially if what they did was scummy to begin with. Note; this has been done multiple times in this game, by many people.
"Persuit of me as scum depsite being less likely to be scum if BB is scum." Yes, I'll agree with that, but now you're arguing the opposite of what you argued when it was Panzer and mykonian instead of you and BB. If I had to give it up between you two being scum, I'd pick you right now. This is the same reason I persued mykonian instead of Panzer. Between those two, I found Mykonian more likely to be scum. If mykonian started pushing you, or you started pushing mykonian, that wouldn't affect where I stand on either of you, though it would give more information once either of your alignments are known, making both of you more valuable lynch candidates.
On "inability to read posts," the same could be said of you, except that you're actively contorting mine to fit your wild arguments. You argue that I pull quotes out of context; what would be more clear "in context"? There's nothing missing from them that would be further explained by not addressing the points as they come up. I'm trying to get to the root of the problem because so much of those "out of context" things are because I try to point out exactly where your inaccuracy causes your entire case to fall apart. If you were talking about plants and how they are horrible because they eat kittens, and you make a detailed post about how plants eat kittens and what happens to the kitten populations, I'm going to stop you as soon as you say plants eat kittens. There's nothing about that statement that needs to be "in context" to be fully understood, and it is wrong.
Also, "that's the definition of strawman"? Unlike you, I answer every single part of those posts. I've only cut standalone statements that are not part of any argument. When you engage in your side of a quote war against me, you constantly incorrectly paraphrase me to destroy that actual intent of the argument.
On your example: "lynching for information." You commit that exact fallacy. I debated at length about the logic of lynching for information, and I debated why it is logical if panzer is town. You then CONSTRUCT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT by ignoring that, and instead attacking from the angle that panzer will be a mislynch while birthday will not. You ask why I'm arguing the validity of lynching for information? Either you or some other player it up as if that was what the people who were advocating panzer's lynch were doing, and I explained how that was an added benefit to the panzer case, that his lynch would provide additional information while birthday's would not, and that was completely independent from reasons to lynch them. Instead, you (yet again) misconstruct that argument as though I am saying lynching for information is better than lynching for scum, or that I had even been addressing that point to begin with.
On Zilla/BB theory, you've basically said "regardless of BB's alignment, I could be scum." Congrats. Regardless of Panzer's alignment, you could be scum for the same reasons.
On "justifying her position from a town standpoint," nice psycological construction, trying to associate suspecting you with scum. I'm voting for my top suspect. I know you've been making the rounds to see who will follow your BB bandwagon, though that only makes me critical of your attempts to protect panzer.
Aware of that. However, you are attacking him repeatedly. Assault and battery can lead to death if sustained over a period of time. ~ Cybele
