Since Strike does not want to make his case on me, I will copy all his comments towards me and try to build his own case.
1. Chainsawing for Empking.
ISO 4.
strike wrote: Also, Crazy
you could just as easily be
chainsawing for EMP right now.
ISO 5.
strike wrote:Crazy, your chainsaw
occured
when I vote for EMP and then you suddenly post a wall of text on p1 explaining why I'm mafia.
First: I post walls of text most of the time. I analyze the game. I provide information on the rest of players. Regarding my observation, I did not explain why you were mafia, but merely described one scummy observation of you. You can read back my post after your vote and see how the final two lines state clearly that I would not use the word SUSPECT for these episodes because I like slow play.
Second: The wall of text links you with IS, as described in my summary of you. I had started my observation on IS before your vote. Obviously, I only could make my additional comments on you AFTER your posts/votes. The fact that I wrote after your vote does not explain at all why I was chainsawing for any player. The fact that I was observing IS and the person who posted around him (you) is a signal that my post has nothing to do with chainsawing but with scumhunting.
---
Once explained, I want to add something. Substrike did not mention any type of chainsawing after my first wall of text in his ISO 3. It was only after he perceived the additional pressure on him that he "defended" this way, in an increasing way, as the boldface of ISOs 4 and 5 demonstrate. It is clear not an offensive scumhunting observation. In the most favorable interpretation towards hims, it is a biased-townie defensive stuff.
2. Simplification of his answers.
strike wrote:
C) none of the above. Try again next week though, for better random results of attempting to simplify my answers into options a or b without actually reading my justifications.
First: Again as in his first accusations, he just throws an accusation without any evidence. Labelling a player as "simplifying your answers" without the evidence, waiting for people to buy this argument. It is especially relevant since I post a lot, and some less interested people might be tempted to read me as "oh...another wall...surely she is manipulating and stuff..."
Second: Regarding the simplification itself, my answer points out to my own summary on Strike. I think he was inconsistent in the lurking stuff regarding MS. If more clarifications are needed, I am happy to describe in more detail.
3. Grasping for straws.
strike wrote: And Crazy you're really grasping for straws on that 3 scum thing, I want everyone else to note that.
First: I pointed out how you were pretty convinced of the structure. I did not call it a serious scum slip, and my case on you is not built upon this, but every piece of information is relevant.
Second: I especially found interesting that you avoided to include MS in your teams and, as much, you refered to him as LURKER in these teams. I described it, and it is not any kind of grasping because we had pointed out repeatedly on your "inconsistencies" regarding voting lurkers or not.
4. Buddying with Empking plus extra stuff.
strike wrote: Crazy, your buddying with EMP is obvious. Your hypocritical arguments in dealing with him versus dealing with me, and in twisting the words of almost everything I've done, is noted. You're mis-repping me, you've been mis-repping me, and I'm done trying to argue with you about it. You and EMP are our remaining scum.
First: Again, labelling a player without describing the evidence.
Second: Contradictory. Buddying your scum-mate?
Third: Strike has not discussed my arguments on him, as he said very quickly "im done with your stuff", so hardly we cant discuss about the validity of my arguments or the misrepresentation.
strike wrote:
He tried to bus you and you've responded by "taking the high road." You point out his lack of a case towards you, then you attack me based on my "lack of cases" on people, which I think is bullshit, by the way.
First: More labellings, no evidence
Second: I pointed out his lack of a case and I mentioned in my analysis of him that this modified a bit my view of him. However, an observation is not enough to find someone scummy. Obviously, I have not based my attack on you "on your lack of cases". That is a clear misrepresentation, evidence can be seen in my summaries of you and the extended case I have described after.
strike wrote: You're acting like you know more than the rest of us, you've been acting that way since day 1. Your third point about me going after townies gets into nothing but WIFOM. I went after town because I didn't know if they were town. Your calling that into question makes me believe that you have information that we don't.
Evidence, please. I have not built my case on you based on the flips of your attacked players. These are minor observations that add up to my general case. I think there is a minor positive correlation between helping scum-lynching town and being scum. Not high, but i think it exists. How is that connected to having "more information" than you?
5. Wishing to lynch everybody.
strike wrote: CQ is there anyone other than your bff EmpKing that you don't find scummy, honestly? Or are you just content with lynching everyone but your hard won ally?
First: lack of evidence in the accusation again.
Second: Describing possible scummy behaviors by players and finding all of them scummy are two very different things. I have obviously stated degrees of scumminess in my summaries that can be read by everyone. I have dedicated time in very different amounts, with a clear interest for the players I found scummier and described as scummier. IS accused me of stopping a lynch and my behavior is clearly promoting the transmition of information and not rushing/wishing blood and lynches. I think all these arguments are correct, but it is difficult to say more since you do not present any evidence in any of your accusations.
6. Random play and trying to appear town.
strike wrote: CQ's playstyle has been random and an attempt at appearing town.
First: lack of evidence, again??
Second: difficult again to say how my play is not random. If i had to argue about it, I would say I am quite analytical and participative as a constant, and my observations on players are usually of scum type more than town type, I dont make "you are town because of this" observations many times, so that is a constant too. I tend to make summaries of my observations to share information, and I have done it consistently at adequate moments of time, so I dont see any randomness there either. I have no interest in appearing town more than the small benefit for the town that this would have. I think my style is tiring for some people and I prefer to keep it because I want to share as much information as possible. I think "appearing town" would advice to reduce the length and amount of my posts because there are many impulsive non-analytical players around, but that would imply reducing the share of information and accelerating decisions, and I think both things are bad for town.
No shit it was rhetorical. That still doesn't explain why did you ask it?
As I said before, his reaction to my questioning is scummy, because I wasn't attacking him at this point, yet he was acting like it. Scum are more likely to be nervous that they'll get attacked, because they know they deserve it.Fugitive wrote:Thinking out loud mostly. I tend to do that.Next you're going to tell me that's a scum-tell?