I would have thought that I was being fairly straightforward; I am more suspicious of David than Michel. David is trying to twist my words,
yet again
, in an all-out effort to make me look bad. As for the statistics? They mean nothing. All they were supposed to convey were my respective suspicion levels against David and Michel. To be perfectly clear, neutral is 0%, town is -100%, and scum is 100%.
AGar wrote:For being consistently hesitant and non-committal without good reasons to be. His disposition against bandwagons reeks of scum trying to avoid being on mislynches, and his wanting to wait on voting Michel has nothing to do with the potential sanity of DP, but rather the fact that he find it suspicious that DP got a guilty on a player who was against him. If DP just lied about a guilty, you ever think that that might be a 1-for-1 type deal?
I'm not sure what you expect me to say to this; you're essentially voting for me because of my playstyle. I have said before, I will say again, and I will not change on this stance, that I am in general a cautious player, unlike you, who apparently wants everybody to attackattackattack without thinking. Is it such a bad thing for me to not vote until I am convinced of, construct, and argue a case?
You seem to be quite convinced that your sanity argument is the
only
argument; I point out that you seem to believe that the only reason that anyone would not vote Michel is that they're concerned about David's sanity. I don't see how being suspicious that David got a guilty result on someone who is targeting him is, in and of itself, suspicious. That said, your unreasonable suspicion of my suspicion is suspicious.
FOS: AGar
-----
Concerning the Michel or David issue, I think that if it came down to it, Michel is the better lynch. If Michel is anything other than scum, as David claims, then David is unreliable (or scum) and can be lynched. If Michel is, in fact, guilty, then David gets the benefit of the doubt for at least one more day, pending his N2 "investigation" (can't rule out the possibility of blind luck, or bussing).
However, if we lynch David, then even if he were correct, and Michel is scum, we'd lynch Michel D3 and have zero information from a potential PR. Slim though the chance may be, assuming David is indeed a cop, and if for some reason the scum let him live, then we'd have another night's worth of information. I admit that this is an unlikely outcome, but its chance is greater than zero, which is what our odds are if we lynch David first.
This is simply the cold, analytical approach. Personally, I would like a David lynch, as I am extremely unconvinced of his claim, and his behavior is unreliable and slightly anti-town (he seems to be the proverbial person lashing out and clinging to whatever he finds, exemplified in posts
#357 and
#366.
Lingering on #366 for a second, it strikes me as odd that a claimed cop would hesitate to lynch someone they have a guilty verdict on. I understand the implications of sanity...but wouldn't a guilty result, sane or not, be worth lynching? If nothing else, you discover your own sanity and can then report the opposite of what you find, if you are in fact insane.
