Because it's not what you actually said.Dourgrim wrote:But this statement is also misrepresentative of what I said becauseI was not at any point reasoning against a BB lynch! All I said was that I believed Panzer's case to be stronger, and I thought we would gain more information from a Panzer lynch than a BB lynch (which is a point we haven't resurrected in quite a while). Why is the difference between those two sentences so obvious to me and yet seemingly so hard for me to clearly communicate to you (or for you to understand)?
See bold below:
It is clear that you FIRST present reasons why the B_B lynch is less-than-ideal, and THEN say "OK now that I've established your case is not as 'solid' (your word), let's go back to my other two cases, GIEFF and Panzer." Then you rule out a GIEFF lynch, and therefore settle on Panzer. You said yourself that the first 2 paragraphs informed the conclusion of the 3rd, and your first 2 paragraphs are riddled with reasons why you don't find the B_B to be as solid.Dourgrim wrote:OK, see, theBeyond_Birthday wrote: Dour: I know I am town. I think Zilla is scum. I have nothing more than this and I believe a few, even though they think that I am scum, would agree that under the assumption I am town in this situation, Zilla is scum. However, I have no way of proving I am town right now, and can only hope my future play better reflects my alignment.problemhere is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However,the worst part about itis even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which meanswe could end up mislynching twice in a rowbased ona crappy WIFOM decisionif we just blindly followed.Bad Town play.
Here'sthe other problemI'm seeing: it seems like many of the rest of the Town have you and Panzer at the top of their scum lists (including me), and both of you have Zilla near the top of your lists.How can the Town in good conscience follow the leads of the two scummiest-looking players in the game? Also bad Town play.
So, how do weavoid the WIFOM problemwith you vs. Zilla and yetstill pursue a valid lynch?Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, butI don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory.
So I disagree with your assertion that you just found Panzer more scummy. This looks like process of elimination-type logic to me, with Panzer being the only one left. And I found it scummy because I don't agree at ALL with the logic you used to find the B_B lynch less "solid," and I get the feeling you don't either, especially based on your inability to be truthful about your reasons for unvoting.
I did not fail to answer it.Dourgrim wrote:You failed to answer the first of my two repeated questions above. What is the relevance of all of this, aside from you attempting to paraphrase my posts?GIEFF wrote: Yes, I believe you may be scum, but you're not going to be the lynch today, so we can drop it and focus on Zilla/B_B.
It is relevant because I found it scummy. Yes, I genuinely believe you may be scum, as I said before.Dourgrim wrote:Also, can you please help me understand the relevance of all of this? Do you genuinely believe that I am scum?
------------
Goat, I am not "going back" to Dourgrim, I am just responding to his response of a question I asked about 6 pages ago.
Waiting for Zilla to respond to my latest post about which points of my case she thinks are valid, and why, if they are indeed valid, they left qwints as neutral in her eyes.Goatrevolt wrote:Now that qwints has responded, could you answer my question?
------
I don't think it's time for Zilla to claim yet. She still needs one more "potential" vote. Nobody actually vote her, just express your intention to do so (if you have that intention).
---
I'm sorry if it feels that way to you, but it is not the case at all.mykonian wrote: good post though, I agree with your question on GIEFF, again a: "I don't agree with you and here you are scummy"-vote.