We have 2 claims outstanding (Puzzle’s and Thok’s) which not everyone has responded to yet. I would like to make the following proposal:
I propose that we go through and deny or admit to being from the basic Civ3 game. {Americans, Aztecs, Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians, English, French, Germans, Greeks, Indians, Iroquois, Japanese, Persians, Romans, Russians, Zulu} Also, if a player has not yet commented on Puzzle’s claim, they should do so at that time, and likewise counterclaim Thok if they can. Then that player names the next player to go, and so on. I am willing to go first. When this is done, assuming I am still under suspicion, I will make a full claim.
In the meantime, I’d kindly ask that I not be lynched. I’m currently at 8 votes, and that’s without Thok or Vesuvan.
If this proposal is deemed unsuitable, I’ll *immediately* claim. I’d rather defend myself directly (be it now or after my proposed run-through), but as I can’t really do that against most of my accusations, I’ll take what I can get.
HezL:
I don’t see *any* statement that you’ve made that indicates your town. Which is what I’ve said from the onset of this debate. So my offense is that I stated that something you say doesn’t make sense. I’m provided reasoning and evidence. You haven’t shown anything. So, I’m not really sure how else I can respond to your accusation. Because at the moment, there isn’t any evidence. The only thing I seem to be guilty of is skepticism, and you still haven’t shown any reason why I shouldn’t be skeptical.
Vesuvan:
Vesuvan [347] wrote: Emp, HezL should not explain his comment. That falls under being "bad for the town".
My telling you that my findings on Astro were irrelevant was because when taken into context they were irrelevant. Discussing irrelevant points at length only serves to derail the town (unless of course, the town is sitting around doing nothing, which was not the case)
So, if a player makes a statement that seems off, they can avoid clarifying it when pressed by using the excuse it would be “bad for the town”? Fox guarding the henhouse?
As for HezL: I have already explained why I believe that his comment requires more explanation. *He* himself offered to explain. Your allegation is that I should have known X if I were town, for reason Y. But you won’t say what X or Y are! If they were this obvious, then, well, why doesn’t the rest of the town know about them?
In fact, after I asked about it in [286]: VisM agreed with me in [293]. Puzzle does in [294]. Mr. Flay seem to have also in [295], though it’s a little ambiguous. No one thought my question unusual until you- who also didn’t think the question unusual initially- FoS me in [312], touching this off.
Since then:
d8P says he see it also, though to be completely honest I think he’s playing along, but I don’t have a good handle on his style. In any case, he was willing to say what this alleged fact was in twilight. So temporarily assuming it to be correct, then everyone would know by tomorrow anyway, so how would any revelation be bad for the town? Unless you can’t reveal your logic because the alleged reasoning against me is spurious.
HezL, strongly supported by you, has refused to explain either the initial comment or the reasoning for why he must be so secretive. You claim that “it’s obvious”. I don’t think so, and
And as for you: I was not certain that the whole matter with Astronaut was irrelevant, which was why I was asking about it. But *you* decided it was irrelevant- and that clearly should not be your unilateral decision, in a matter which might indicate *you* suspicious! I wasn’t looking to discuss an irrelevant point, but rather I thought- and think- that they might have *significant* relevance! Fox/henhouse again.
(Lest I get speedlynched, the deal with that was that I thought that there was a very small possibility of some interaction between you and Astronaut. I figured that there was no harm in examining this possibility by seeing what the posts you misread were, and how reasonable your explanation was. Improbable? Perhaps. But worth checking up on, I felt.)
armlx:
No reason stated for you’re vote for me, seems like a simple bandwagon. Not sure how I can reply to it.
rajrhcpfreak:
No reason stated for you’re vote for me, seems like a simple bandwagon. Not sure how I can reply to it.
Mr. Flay:
No idea what the basis for the vote in [367] was. Not sure how I can reply to it.
inHim:
I have *no* idea of most of what you are alleging in [344]. I keep rereading it and it makes even less sense. You make 5 accusations:
1) “the Hez thing” [see above]
2) “counting people”- [again, no idea what this means]
3) making the statement that a 4:1 innocent:guilty ratio seems too high [which, um, isn’t it?]
4) “dropping early clues” [where have I done this?]
5) “seems to have information” [where have I done this?]
The “HezL thing”: okay, fine, judging by other reactions, this might be a reasonable basis, albeit vague. But the rest???
Astronaut/d8P/Puzzle:
No, I was not wondering whether we have innocent barbarians. I was wondering whether we have guilty civilizations.
Thok:
Kind of lost by the wayside, but I think I’m good for now regarding my points against you. Not that I’ve had a good night’s sleep, but you can address those suspicious. I do have some comments about your claim, but it’s silly to make them now.