VP wrote:I don't have to probe anything about you to have a feeling about your play in this game. It's not like I'm pushing for your lynch without putting out a case. If I feel you have been scummy enough that I want you lynched, I'll bring a full case.
Meh. Fair. I thought you listed me in a top 3 scum. But going back to look for it, apparently I was mistaken.
My question about not probing in my direction while being on a top 3 scum list still stands to PapaZ though.
VP wrote:er...out of actually trying to lynch scum. I posted my case and Raskol didn't respond to any of it, how am I supposed to judge his actions from there? Maybe he had a good explanation for the things he did that I just wasn't seeing. That is why I asked him to stay until the end of the day at least and give an account for himself. I wanted to hear his responses and see if my suspicions were grounded. That's how scumhunting works. Lynching a replacement solely on the actions of their predecessors is probably one of the worst things you can do unless it was something blatantly scummy.
I still have questions over this. You believed him scum enough to place a vote. You had questions out true. But you believed him scum. The response to the replace is to remove your vote? How is that trying to lynch scum?
Yes, you lost the opportunities to see reactions to your points on your target. That sucks. But you suspicions should remain no?
And no, I wasn't claiming you should blindly lynch your target if that is what you are implying. I am claiming that you had a vote for pressure, you supposedly had suspicions of the player slot. Your response to the replace was a vote removal? Why? Why not keep it there to add pressure to your future discussions?
VP wrote:It was a stupid question when crypto asked it and it remains so when you repeated it.
See this just sits with the unvote to. The player slot is something that you supposedly were HUGELY suspicious of like 2 days ago. But the replace has you removing your vote, and apparently your suspicions too. You trust the replacee enough to not look at something that could easilly have scum motives, and instead write it off? This is not a stupid question, it doesn't make sense to me that you would not be critical of the replacee.
VP wrote:Wow, that's amazingly vague. Explain to me how my end of the day voting was not logical given my explanation.
I already have. If you have time to come change your vote before deadline, why not leave it where your suspicions lie. You said you would be back by the time deadline approached. However, you decided that your strongest suspect is not good enough anymore and subscribe to an end of day either/or? I see this as a bit funny and worth looking at. Why am I wrong?
VP wrote:I'd like you to explain my motivation as scum for carrying out the actions you are accusing me of. I don't understand why it's a "fairly big black mark" or how it would help forward any goals as scum.
Heh, you would like me to lay out WIFOM. Cool... cool. First step of avoiding a trap is knowing of it's existence I suppose.
One possible motive. You were adding pressure on someone that eventually replaced. Seeing that they replaced, you lost the nerve to follow through and risk the town seeing you push towards a townie lynch. The replace was a good time as any to remove your vote and 'look elsewhere'.
Less negative on playstyle motive? You realize it is getting towards end of day, and that your target is not going to be the lynch. You need to free vote up so that you can press towards people with more townie interest on them. Replace came along and gave you a good excuse to remove your vote and lose your suspicions.
Why it is a black mark for me at the moment? I don't understand it. Raskol was the top of your scum list. You just went back and reread day 1 and he was a topper of your list, you were in the process of pressing in his direction. However he replaced, and you remove your vote and start treating the slot much less critically. I don't understand the town motive for that, if you are truly trying to catch scum.
VP wrote:So it would be impossible for a town player to think a wagon was bad at that point because he or she doesn't know alignments for certain...that's completely ludicrous.
I really have to go into theory? Wagon's are tools. Pressure helps get real reactions out of people. It doesn't matter if the target was good or bad really. The pressure is the goal.
VP wrote:What were you "reading between the lines" exactly? What could I have been 'manipulating' by saying "wtf" to a one liner from PZ?
Well, sense he was talking about the NK, I was reading between the lines that him laughing was at the NK, most likely? Because it seemed to be a push from scum to make the town look at him.
What was the manipulation? You took a post of his that seemed to be a lame off the cuff comment post and turned it into a declaration of him making no sense. "That post of PapaZ is a big WTF?", while me and others could see what he was talking about? Ok... maybe you truly didn't get it. Or maybe you wanted to toss suspicion his way and were using the situation.
VP wrote:What big point? I never made a big point against PZ. Please quote that. Also explain how me looking at suspects other than PZ makes me scummy.
I messed that up again. One of your first points against someone today was PZ... but we are talking about an observation I made and turning it into a full fledged case point at this point in time, and it was never meant as such. It was just something I was looking at.
Also, I never said you looking at others was scummy. That was another observation. I was saying your first point against someone in day 2 was PapaZ. Then you moved on, so meh...
VP wrote:I don't understand what "theory smoke" you are referring to. No lynches on Day 1 are bad...that's not theory, that's common sense. That's why you're wrong.
This: "No lynch should never be an option on Day 1 and I like to do what I can to make sure that isn't going to happen."
But the theory wasn't my point.
You were on PapaZ. You supposedly had him as your main suspect. But were going to be away towards end game. But back in time for deadline. You change your vote to the developing either/or anyway, and say that when you get back you will change it if necessary?
PapaZ is your main suspicion. You will be back to help prevent the no-lynch before deadline. You switch anyway, are you trying to tell me you thought without your switch at the time, we would have no-lynched? Meh.
My last post had a fail vote at the bottom of it.
Vote: VP
