In post 1175, Global Warming wrote:*ahem* I told you so.
Let's lynch another wolf now.
Vote: The Fonz
His defence of Jack is bad, his ignoring of the Maxous wagon is bad and his end of the day posting was way too scummy to leave him alive.
Might come with reasoning this weekend as I do not have enough time to show why now. (And Ray is busy as well)
- CS
Tries to restrain rage...
I did not IGNORE Max. I thought it was a mediocre wagon, and pursued what I felt were better scumtells. How the fuck was my end of day posting scummy? My defence of Jak was good. There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he was anything but the usual VI who derps himself into a day one mislynch. I continued supporting the wagon on the player who I felt was scummiest, namely, Dry-Fit, as I had been doing since I entered. Looking at the evidence as of the end of day two, I would make that exact same decision over again in a heartbeat.
In post 1177, Ghostlin wrote:Bogre, I believe that Fonz not acutally placing his doublevote on sorgster when he said he did.
Except that I did. Look at the wagon. It never got to L-1 on 'public' votes. Whispersilk made the mistake of saying it was L-1 when she miscounted.
On the subject of whisper, I stand by the assertion she was scummy. Having had the chance to re-read overnight, she is correct that her vote was D1, I was mistaken in thinking it D3. In my defence, it was only eight posts from her sorgster vote to her max vote, and I'd made seventeen posts between the start of the day and that vote. I saw her sorg vote, thought "Well switching between the top two this late is kinda scummy," so looking at her ISO quickly (because I believed that Sorg had been hammered) I saw the vote for sorgster only a handful of posts before and thought 'Man, this flipflopping makes her obvscum' and rushed to post it in the thread before it was locked. I didn't realise that she'd been lurking to the extent that eight posts prior was actually two full days before.
Let's take on Ghostlin's four points:
1) You absolutely can. I felt that Sorgster was incredibly scummy, and here's GW trying to discredit the wagon by accusing it of not having basis (there was a strong one) and ignoring the Max wagon (as I said, I at least had spent a great deal of thought on the Max wagon, and decided it wasn't necessarily scummy but looked poorly reasoned and confirmation bias-y). So he's using underhanded tactics to undermine a wagon I thought was the town's best bet of hitting scum. Obviously, I had to think why he wasn't even willing to consider the case on sorgster. The obvious answer was that he had to stop the sorgster wagon by whatever tactic he could muster.
2) My 'defense' of Max amounts to pointing out that claimed roleblockers rarely live very long, and the case against him wasn't very good. This is true, and I'd have been perfectly happy to leave him to be nightkilled if he weren't confirmed scum. Players who claim strong power early on in large games don't tend to last to lylo. See Simpsons mafia for a recent example of me making this argument (after town stupidly hammered a claimed cop D1) and Mafia vs Wolves Redux in the archive for an old one (where I successfully protect town cop N9V from a push by the scum to lynch him after he declares a guilty on an innocent man).
Look, it's fairly clear that GW had incriminating results, and tried to cobble together a wagon on him with whatever arguments they could muster, and took the same approach to discrediting the rival wagon. That's fine except that
it looks exactly what scum do
- decide on the outcome they want then manufacture arguments to advance that position.
3) No, and this is I think the worst piece of distortion in the whole pile. You have player A. A is a claimed roleblocker, is not particularly scummy, and is outed. His role has value to the town if he's town, and even if he's scum he can't go around blocking obvtown and power roles like a scum RB normally would. He's a likely NK candidate. Player B has another player claiming 100% accurate role information that makes him scum.
Surely you can see that there's no contradiction whatsoever in treating these two scenarios differently? It's like the difference between a claimed vig who's killed reasonable vig targets every night, and a confirmed SK. 'Is either a town RB or scum RB' and 'Is definitely a scum RB' are COMPLETELY different scenarios.
4) No, I'm obviously town. Scum with secret second votes don't claim them. They especially don't claim them when another player is being attacked on the basis that he might be said role, on day two of a game with multiple scumgroups. I tend only to point out my obvtownness when I'm at my most frustrated, namely, being attacked based on ridiculously stupid reasons when clearly town.
Basically, one and two are reasonable arguments. They're wrong, but I can see how you believe them. Being on the opposite wagon to dead wolves both days doesn't look very good, and I'm not going to bother with the whole I wouldn't do that as scum because frankly, as scum I can do just about anything. If I
were
scum and had chosen not to bus Jak, I certainly couldn't have afforded to bus Max as well. I have no intention of continuing any argument on the basis of these points, because frankly, you either believe that I found Dry-Fit and Sorgster scummier than TheJak and Max, or you don't. If you're willing to lynch me on the basis of that, go ahead, because if my positions alone are enough to convict in your mind, then I've got better things to do with my time. Sometimes, you just back the wrong horse. What I will say was both of those wagons I was on were basically given their momentum by me, so it's not like you can claim I saw a scumbuddy being wagoned and jumped on the counter.
3 and 4 are not in the slightest bit valid, and I'm going to contest those all the way. Though not now, since my top suspect on my overnight re-read was Alabaska by a LONG way, so I need to get my scumhunt on with the new information.
