Mini 380: Artifacts- Game over

[Jules]

Random

vote: Nai

[Jules]

Ha bad mistake coron, baaaaaaaad mistake

unvote nai, vote coron

[Jules]

Agree. It looks suspiciously like you're trying to avoid attention like what I got from Zindaras for putting a vote on coron.

Zindaras, I'm happy with my vote where it is. I don't see any reason to change and I most certainly don't see how this makes me scum

[Jules]

I'm back on the site

unvote Coron

FOS Nai

- I can't remember the reasons for voting you before and I think it would be unfair to vote without any evidence, but I know you looked suspicious

[Jules]

vote Nai

[Jules]

I put FOS in all my games on the person I had voted on because all the evidence was lost. We're not going to get anywhere if we don't start putting pressure on again though so I the vote went on

[Jules]

What have you all got against Nai? I don't see anything in particular...

The evidence was all destroyed in the crash

[Jules]

I'm back

Ok, my vote for Nai...

The evidence I had gathered and had posted was lost in the first crash. I had gathered enough evidence to come to my own conclusions that Nai looked the scummiest out of what we had seen so far. I don't expect others to follow me in voting because I don't have any reasons I can show you, but just now we are lacking in anything concrete to go on. Thats as deep as my explanation goes I'm afraid

The response from others has been interesting though...

[Jules]

Vote: Jules

I understand why he voted Nai (ok, not really, but I accept the premise that he actually had a reason pre-crash), but I don't understand why he initially FOSed Nai and later changed the vote with no substantial change in the information known. Also, This is the first time since last time I posted that I have been able to check the thread, and no substantial shift in the conversation occurred, so I might aswell try to get something started.

Haha read Post 79 Stewie. You'll find that the EXACT reason you give here is the one I FOSd then voted for Nai

[Jules]

Post 101 lol

[Jules]

I'm gonna read through the thread when I've got time. Got exams coming up just to let you know I'm still here

[Jules]

Just had a reread. I find it slightly ironic how you can come out with this Nai...

Well, there's also this other small thing. See, you built an entire case against me off of absolutely nothing (i.e., the reaction I made to your post in the beginning), and then have been subsequently adding things to it as if they make your argument any more valid. You made stuff up to begin with, and are adding things to it to make it seem like more than a house of cards.

I'm just voting you because you're doing that, and have been doing that, and your overconfidence about absolutely nothing is part of that.

...when you've built up your case against Coron in exactly the same way. Your biggest reason for voting for him is because he is being overconfident haha

My biggest reason? Being completely overconfident in himself with absolutely no reason to be so, probably, followed by defending Jules with a made up story.

[Jules]

My case on him has been built on the fact that he is overconfident, and his building a case off of nothing is part of that.

It's worth noting that, when Coron was defending Jules before, Jules is defending him now.

I'm not defending him. I'm pointing out that you accuse coron of building his case against you out of absolutely nothing when you did the same yourself

[Jules]

What are you thinking CTD?

Conflux made 7 posts before asking to be replaced, 3 of which were posts made so that it looked like he was active and not lurking

[Jules]

So you think Coron's scum do you Kelly?

[Jules]

Interesting how Nai no longer has anything to say...

[Jules]

2 days is a long time when you've been one of the most vocal players, and you're targetting a player you're almost is scum. He has posted elsewhere

Still waiting to hear from CTD...

[Jules]

So I am haha

The missing word is "certain"

It should read...

2 days is a long time when you've been one of the most vocal players, and you're targetting a player you're almost certain is scum

[Jules]

Haha this must be some kind of joke Nai. Base your argument on fact next time please...

Jules - He's been playing for Coron most of the game. He's also shown that he's vote-hopped, as well as trying to (in the quoted post at the top of this post) throw suspicion on me for nothing. He has also deliberately defended Coron, after Coron defended him.

As for how he's been batting for your team? Really simple. He's sided with you this entire game. His vote has rarely left me. He, very early, voted for you, which might have been a newbie-style (since, I'm not sure, but I think he's a newbie) distancing tactic. After that vote, he's basically argued against me (when he posts anything but "I'm here"), argued for Coron, voted me, and that's just about it. There were a few votes, if I remember correctly, of him voting for someone that was arguing against Coron.

You're not even arguing with me, you're arguing with yourself. One post says Jules is vote hopping. The next says my vote has rarely left you. (I should point out, the second is correct. I initially placed a random vote on you, voted for Coron when it looked like he may have information about the number of mafia, then moved back to you sometime during the crash and have stuck with you). Why should it when I believe you to be scum?

So are you trying to say that when more than one person thinks you're scummy, only one is allowed to argue?

There were a few votes, if I remember correctly, of him voting for someone that was arguing against Coron.

You made this bit up aswell. I've never voted for anyone apart from you and Coron. Worrying how you claim to be townie and yet you use phrases like "if I remember correctly", when if this is the case, you obviously have the memory of a goldfish. Looks more like a contortion of facts however

[Jules]

I call the initial bit of changing votes between me and Coron vote hopping, thank you very much. I also recall, during the crash, that you HAD changed your vote to someone else before returning to me. Can't remember who at the moment, and we can't check, unfortunately. I never said that you CONTINUED to vote hop. Just that you did, which implies at least once, which is the case.

That was at the start of the game. I random voted you, then changed to Coron, then back. Maybe later on, an accusation of vote-hopping would be credible but not at that stage of the game

Unfortunately, I can't remember either how my voting went during the crash but this would've carried more weight had you brought it up when we first returned

And I'm not arguing with you at all, and that wasn't the intention. I was first asked my opinion on other players, which I gave. Then I was asked by Coron how you were playing on his team, and I gave answers to that, too. Who's arguing with you?

Good point. No-one. I should've said accusing

And no, I'm not saying only one can argue against me. But you weren't doing that. You were jumping in front of an argument against Coron and defending him. Not arguing against me, just defending Coron. There IS a difference.

Where have I defended Coron?

And the phrase "if I remember correctly" was used because I can't get the posts anymore, due to the crash. Much of my statements against you can be found in posts you've made. The only thing I can't show is that second time you vote hopped on another person, which was pre-crash.

I've explained everything you've hit me with. Apart from this...

Interesting how Nai no longer has anything to say...

...which I felt was perfectly reasonable given I had seen you post elsewhere during that time and that, with the incoming of replacements, your argument with Coron had slipped from being the main discussion point of the thread and we now had the opinion of the replacements to consider

You seem to be trying to discredit my arguments by attacking ME, not my arguments, which is known as an 'ad hominem', which is a fallacy itself. That's nice and all, but if you can't make a good argument, just don't, hmm?

Apologies if that's the way you took it. Looks like you're trying to give as good as you got

[Jules]

That wasn't so much a defence of Coron as an attack on your argument. In this case, they equate to the same thing, but I would have made exactly the same point no matter who made the comment about whoever. The argument looks flawed in that I interpret what you accuse Coron doing as being exactly the same as what you yourself did. I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

You've given me food for thought. I'm not as sold on you now as I was at the start of this page, I can say that

[Jules]

Ok, hit me. I will defend all I have to I will claim if I have to and the town want me to because I have nothing to hide. If I miss anything, bring it to my attention

You made this bit up aswell. I've never voted for anyone apart from you and Coron. Worrying how you claim to be townie and yet you use phrases like "if I remember correctly", when if this is the case, you obviously have the memory of a goldfish. Looks more like a contortion of facts however

It's not necessarily attacking the character of the person. It's just attacking the person to make their points seem invalid, instead of defending against the points themselves. "Why should we go to a marriage counseling with a priest; what does a priest know about marriage?" is not attacking the character of the priest, but his qualifications. That's how the ad hominem works. (I took an extended set of classes on fallacies.)

Jules was saying that, for instance, that since I can't pull up the missing posts, it must be my memory that's the problem. He also says that my arguments are just made up, for the same reason. As well, the "base your argument on fact" is not targeting the argument. It targets my ability as a debater and a player, saying that I don't base my arguments on fact.

If your argument isn't based on fact, there IS no argument - not an attack on a person but an attack on an argument. When you posted the original post and I attacked it, there was no mention of the crash. The crash never even passed my mind - I searched the thread with just my posts to see what my voting pattern had been and found that what you said was incorrect and made that statement. I was assuming, incorrectly, that you were basing what you were arguing on having read the thread "remembering" but not bothering to actually check. Only in your next post did you bring up that you were referring to the crash and what was lost, at which point I realised what you had been referring to and agreed that yes, I may have voted elsewhere but I honestly didn't know

[Jules]

Posts 297-299

Not sure what to say to Stewie's. It comes over strongly and it was intended to come over strongly. My reaction was that Nai this was scum trying to make

me

look like scum. What other reaction do you expect when someone has posted evidence against you and it's completely false?

Just for the record - I have only completed 1 game on here, in which I was town

[Jules]

You made this bit up aswell. I've never voted for anyone apart from you and Coron. Worrying how you claim to be townie and yet you use phrases like "if I remember correctly", when if this is the case, you obviously have the memory of a goldfish. Looks more like a contortion of facts however

Scummy, with that last line.

The withdrawal in 292 seems off or premature to me.

Nice contribution to that exchange Coron.

See my explanation above. The last line and my withdrawal in 292 were based on the fact that my argument in 287 in which I was all but certain Nai was scum trying to pin things on me, was based on a misunderstanding

[Jules]

Hey Stewie, don't you think the votes cast by perfect and luna are typical for new scum?

Yeah, he's overreacting a bit, but I'm not seeing it as typical of new scum...

You are basing you vote on perfect on two posts which, although suspicious, I see them coming from newbie town. Even if I considered perfect's posts newbie-scum, there's still only two of them, against 20 newbie-scum posts from Jules. Furthermore, there's more written in Jules' posts than in Perfect's, meaning more scumminess to extract from them.

Likewise, most of luna's posts are one-liners, and only one of which I really find suspicious (the one voting for Coron). Could have been a newbie mistake and if it wasn't then once again we have much more of these suspicious posts from Jules than from luna.

Finally, what I think is the most important reason as to why we should lynch Jules and not luna or perfect, Jules is still here and can answer questions, while luna and perfect cannot. I still didn't get a satisfactory answer as to why he FOS'ed Nai and later changed that FOS to a vote without any new evidence or explanation.

Posts 79 and 101. If I added anything to that I would be lying

[Jules]

*pouts*

I still say I'm right, but I guess I won't get anywhere with them today.

Anyway, I decided to do a reread to take a look at Jules's scumminess. And the first 5 posts made me giggle. These are 4 of them:

Random

vote: Nai

Ha bad mistake coron, baaaaaaaad mistake

unvote nai, vote coron

I'm back on the site

unvote Coron

FOS Nai

- I can't remember the reasons for voting you before and I think it would be unfair to vote without any evidence, but I know you looked suspicious

vote Nai

Reading his posts in isolation also make me realize how little he has commented on. He's mostly been busy with Nai, and he hasn't voiced

anything

regarding

anyone

else.

I'll agree that Jules is quite scummy.

Unvote

(if applicable),

Vote: Jules

. I believe that puts him at Lynch-2.

So you're voting me:

a) Because of a random vote
b) Because I voted for Coron when it appeared he may have inside knowledge, at the stage of the game where everyone is trying to find their feet, get some talking going
c) Because I came back to the site and unvoted Coron who I hadn't been voting for anyway at the time of the crash
d) Because I put my FOS on Nai because I had been voting for him during the crash but didn't have any evidence to put my vote back on
e) Because I decided to put my vote on Nai

Read posts 79 and 101 for the answer to d) and e)

I find the difference between 303 and your previous posts slightly disconcerting and the ease with which you change your mind on me is slightly worrying. One minute, you don't think I'm particularly scummy, the next you're putting me to a lynch -2. If I get lynched, I would appeal to the town to look closely at Zindaras. Bit too easily swayed opinion there when it really matters

[Jules]

I think that, at lynch -1, you should probably be claiming right now. So yeah, I'm requesting a claim.

I am a traveler, with no special abilities

[Jules]

I could see Jules' ignoring of his switched vote during the crash as hoping that nobody remembered it (possibly not knowing that scum players can be pretty observant). However, my problem is that if he is in fact scum, it doesn't make much sense to immediately fold on that argument, since that pretty much does nothing than admit you 'lied' to the opposition.

If I had to vote for someone else, that person would be Nai. Over the course of his debate with Coron, he hasn't used very sound logic (most of the arguments stem from Coron being overconfident, which isn't enough of an argument IMO to deserve over 6 pages).

For now,

Vote: Jules

. No more votes on Jules till we get a defense/claim.

I'm not sure what your argument is

[Jules]

I could see Jules' ignoring of his switched vote during the crash as hoping that nobody remembered it (possibly not knowing that scum players can be pretty observant). However, my problem is that if he is in fact scum, it doesn't make much sense to immediately fold on that argument, since that pretty much does nothing than admit you 'lied' to the opposition.

If I had to vote for someone else, that person would be Nai. Over the course of his debate with Coron, he hasn't used very sound logic (most of the arguments stem from Coron being overconfident, which isn't enough of an argument IMO to deserve over 6 pages).

For now,

Vote: Jules

. No more votes on Jules till we get a defense/claim.

I'm not sure what your argument is

Exactly what I outlined in the first paragraph. I could quite easily take your forgetfulness of the vote switch as a 'hope they don't remember' kind of thing. This is further supported by the fact that you yielded on the argument, essentially meaning that you admitted that you did remember those posts. I wouldn't exactly see attempting to hide actions like this pro-town.

Also, additional evidence embodied in the 'I was protown in that game' comment.

I have never said that I remember them because I don't

[Jules]

Hey Stewie, don't you think the votes cast by perfect and luna are typical for new scum?

Yeah, he's overreacting a bit, but I'm not seeing it as typical of new scum...

You are basing you vote on perfect on two posts which, although suspicious, I see them coming from newbie town. Even if I considered perfect's posts newbie-scum, there's still only two of them, against 20 newbie-scum posts from Jules. Furthermore, there's more written in Jules' posts than in Perfect's, meaning more scumminess to extract from them.

Likewise, most of luna's posts are one-liners, and only one of which I really find suspicious (the one voting for Coron). Could have been a newbie mistake and if it wasn't then once again we have much more of these suspicious posts from Jules than from luna.

Finally, what I think is the most important reason as to why we should lynch Jules and not luna or perfect, Jules is still here and can answer questions, while luna and perfect cannot. I still didn't get a satisfactory answer as to why he FOS'ed Nai and later changed that FOS to a vote without any new evidence or explanation.

Posts 79 and 101. If I added anything to that I would be lying

Ill quote those:

I put FOS in all my games on the person I had voted on because all the evidence was lost. We're not going to get anywhere if we don't start putting pressure on again though so I the vote went on

That doesn't really answer my question, because when you put pressure on someone, you do it so that they explain something that's actually there, much like the 5 votes on you actually pressured you into responding to anyone. However, there was no evidence against Nai at the moment, therefore nothing to put pressure on. At first I thought you may have meant "to get the game going" but that is not logical, because to get the game going the best thing to do is vote the person with the most votes, who at that time was Coron (not gonna double check, but I'm pretty sure that's how it was).

I'm back

Ok, my vote for Nai...

The evidence I had gathered and had posted was lost in the first crash. I had gathered enough evidence to come to my own conclusions that Nai looked the scummiest out of what we had seen so far. I don't expect others to follow me in voting because I don't have any reasons I can show you, but just now we are lacking in anything concrete to go on. Thats as deep as my explanation goes I'm afraid

The response from others has been interesting though...

That explains your vote, but it doesn't explain why you went from FOSing Nai - and explicitly saying that it would be unfair to vote without any evidence- to voting for him after a couple of irrelevant posts, ie: with no new evidence.


My Argument, Condensed:
My main problem is that you said:
1. There is no evidence against Nai.
2. It would be unfair to vote without any evidence
3. FOS: Nai because you know that you found him suspicious pre-crash

... and then you voted for him without any new evidence, claiming that it was to put pressure, which doesn't make sense because, as you said, there is no evidence for him to defend against.

At the point where I put my vote on, the game was as dead as a dodo. Maybe putting pressure on was the wrong term, but we needed to get people to speak. I had had my reasons for thinking Nai was scum therefore it was only logical that he would be the one I would target. I quite clearly said that I didn't expect anyone else to follow me in the voting as there was no evidence. However, from that sprung the Coron Nai debate. I placed FOS's in all my games. In this one, I took it to a vote because I can remember that at that point, I did have a case against Nai

[Jules]

a) Because of a random vote
b) Because I voted for Coron when it appeared he may have inside knowledge, at the stage of the game where everyone is trying to find their feet, get some talking going
c) Because I came back to the site and unvoted Coron who I hadn't been voting for anyway at the time of the crash
d) Because I put my FOS on Nai because I had been voting for him during the crash but didn't have any evidence to put my vote back on
e) Because I decided to put my vote on Nai

I find the difference between 303 and your previous posts slightly disconcerting and the ease with which you change your mind on me is slightly worrying. One minute, you don't think I'm particularly scummy, the next you're putting me to a lynch -2. If I get lynched, I would appeal to the town to look closely at Zindaras. Bit too easily swayed opinion there when it really matters

f) You haven't said anything about anyone but Nai and Coron. I think that's exactly what scum would want to do, especially if they're both town. If everyone focuses on just them, the (rest of the) scum can just sit back and relax.

F is my main reason, together with your voting behaviour, and I'm amused by the fact that you're ignoring it, even though it was in the post you quoted.

Maybe because until about 4 pages ago, everyone else just sat back and watched, including yourself, checking in every so often to ask questions about things that had been said in the debate, or giving an opinion on what was happening

[Jules]

Nice you've decided to join us GreenLiquid. You've made 6 posts the whole game, 3 of which have been in the last 2 pages, joining in only to jump on the bandwagon

If/when I get lynched, I would appeal to the town to look closely at GreenLiquid the lurker aswell as Zindaras

[Jules]

However, from that sprung the Coron Nai debate. I placed FOS's in all my games.

I'm sorry to tell you, man, since you seem to think you were all important here, but you had nothing to do with the debate between me and Coron. I completely ignored your vote or all purposes EXCEPT noting it that, for some reason, you applied your vote there.

A slight deviation, and I want everyone to keep this very important point in mind: Jules was, very easily, remembering that he had a vote on me. However, it completely slipped his mind that he voted ANYONE ELSE during that time.

If/when I get lynched, I would appeal to the town to look closely at GreenLiquid the lurker aswell as Zindaras

You look like you are grasping at straws now. All your arguments are falling through, since most of them are illogical, so now you are trying to put a legacy in to get other people lynched. Amazing.

The first part... is that not what you like to call ad hominem?

Second part... we shall see when I've been lynched

[Jules]

My Argument, Condensed:
My main problem is that you said:
1. There is no evidence against Nai.
2. It would be unfair to vote without any evidence
3. FOS: Nai because you know that you found him suspicious pre-crash

... and then you voted for him without any new evidence, claiming that it was to put pressure, which doesn't make sense because, as you said, there is no evidence for him to defend against.

At the point where I put my vote on, the game was as dead as a dodo. Maybe putting pressure on was the wrong term, but we needed to get people to speak. I had had my reasons for thinking Nai was scum therefore it was only logical that he would be the one I would target. I quite clearly said that I didn't expect anyone else to follow me in the voting as there was no evidence. However, from that sprung the Coron Nai debate. I placed FOS's in all my games. In this one, I took it to a vote because I can remember that at that point, I did have a case against Nai

(Deleted most of my post for sanity)

As I said before, if what you wanted to do was get the game going, the right thing would have been to vote for Coron, who at the time had the most votes. You even go as far as to admit that you didn't expect anyone to follow you in voting... so how does that get the game going? PS: the Nai-Coron argument did not come from your vote.

I didn't find Coron particularly, so I didn't vote for him

When you look back, you will find that the Nai Coron debate did flow from my vote. Not solely my vote but that was one of the factors leading up to it. Before my vote, there was precious little. After my vote, Nai started saying stuff, as did others, which Coron latched on to

[Jules]

Jules, do you have any artifacts? You did not mention that with your claim.

Not any more. I started with one which I used and passed on

[Jules]

Actually, no, that's not an ad hominem, kthnxbai. That's me telling you that me attacking Coron had absolutely nothing to do with you. You really aren't that important in terms of that debate. Yours was just a vote, which I didn't care about because, hey, it was vote 2 on me and we need 7 to lynch.

Fair enough

[Jules]

I didn't find Coron particularly, so I didn't vote for him

But you weren't trying to vote for someone suspicious, you were trying to get the game going. If you were trying to vote for someone suspicious, then we go back to the fact that there was no evidence against Nai, and it would be unfair to vote for someone without evidence, so your argument goes in circles.

When you look back, you will find that the Nai Coron debate did flow from my vote. Not solely my vote but that was one of the factors leading up to it. Before my vote, there was precious little. After my vote, Nai started saying stuff, as did others, which Coron latched on to

I looked back, and I didn't find anything which led me to believe that your argument sparked the Coron-Nai debate, even in part. If you want to convince me, you'll have to go back and quote some posts which make it clear that your vote was a factor leading up to the Coron-Nai debate.

Nai: six. Six votes to lynch. Point stands though.

I didn't find Coron particularly, so I didn't vote for him

But you weren't trying to vote for someone suspicious, you were trying to get the game going. If you were trying to vote for someone suspicious, then we go back to the fact that there was no evidence against Nai, and it would be unfair to vote for someone without evidence, so your argument goes in circles.

When you look back, you will find that the Nai Coron debate did flow from my vote. Not solely my vote but that was one of the factors leading up to it. Before my vote, there was precious little. After my vote, Nai started saying stuff, as did others, which Coron latched on to

I looked back, and I didn't find anything which led me to believe that your argument sparked the Coron-Nai debate, even in part. If you want to convince me, you'll have to go back and quote some posts which make it clear that your vote was a factor leading up to the Coron-Nai debate.

Nai: six. Six votes to lynch. Point stands though.

Yeah but there's no point in getting a game going by accusing someone who you don't think is particularly town IMO. Because then, as has happened in my case here, people interpret what you say as scummy when it isn't.

Nai says it didn't have any effect on the his debate with Coron so I will stand corrected. However post 115:

Um, it's perfectly reasonable imho. He says "I remember I was voting him, I probably had a good reason

FoS

" Then he comes back later does a reread to decide what the best lead is and

votes

It looks like you're trying to pull stuff out of your rear end.

and 116:

Actually, his exact wording was:

FOS Nai - I can't remember the reasons for voting you before and I think it would be unfair to vote without any evidence, but I know you looked suspicious

He says the he doesn't want to vote me without evidence. Then, without evidence, he procedes to vote me. Then he votes me, but only to put pressure on me. There is no more evidence that he gives, it's just a pressure vote.

Coron, it REALLY looks like you are trying to defend Jules right now.

seemed to me to be the start of the Coron Nai debate, as a result of my vote and the discussion that followed

[Jules]

I have never said that I remember them because I don't

If this is the case, why did you suddenly brake on the argument when you were challenged?

Also, one more thing, can you stop responding to posts in seperate posts? No offense or anything, but it's kind of annoying.

Which post are you referring to when you say I break on my argument?

[Jules]

Jules, do you have any artifacts? You did not mention that with your claim.

Not any more. I started with one which I used and passed on

Ok... what was it, when did you use it, who did you use it on (if applicable), and to who did you pass it on?

The Ear of the Diviner. I used it Night One and passed it on as it can only be used once by each person. It cannot answer directly however - so I never got a response from it - I assume it is in the first writeup although I haven't been able to work it out. Purely randomly at that stage, I asked if Stewie was scum and took a random guess by giving it to luna - now ShadowLurker, figuring that it was better to take a chance at that stage rather than waste the use of it for a night

[Jules]

I could ask it a yes/no question. It could not answer me directly. It is an ear. It can't speak. I assumed the answer either lies in the Night One writeup - if it is, I haven't managed to work it out yet, or another Artifact will give me the answer

[Jules]

I don't think it would be wise to have a mass roleclaim yet, especially the mouth of the diviner. We need to remember that the Artifacts can be lost if the person dies

[Jules]

Do you believe Stewie is a subset of that?

[Jules]

What about GreenLiquid?

[Jules]

I of course know I'm scum and don't think Jules is scum and do think Nai is scum

Ding ding ding

[Jules]

Pretty sure it IS because I have any sort of momentum going on me now, and Jules doesn't.

There is noone with any momentum right now. The reason why I voted Jules as that time because he was the only plausible lynch target who I thought was scummy. Right now, there are no real plausible lynch targets, so I'm going with who I think is scummiest.

But the thing is, you had been saying all game you didn't think I looked scummy. Then suddenly, Post 303, "I'll do a reread to see Jules scumminess", you quote my first 5 posts for some reason, you change your mind about me and put your vote on to put me to -2

BTW what are your views on Nai and Coron?

[Jules]

Jules:

Very Suspicious
Poor logic and not answering questions posed to him while trying to skilfully dance around them, not liking ad hominem and mocking tone of arguments

I have answered the question. I said I didn't know my reasons because they were lost in the crash

I'm back

Ok, my vote for Nai...

The evidence I had gathered and had posted was lost in the first crash. I had gathered enough evidence to come to my own conclusions that Nai looked the scummiest out of what we had seen so far. I don't expect others to follow me in voting because I don't have any reasons I can show you, but just now we are lacking in anything concrete to go on. Thats as deep as my explanation goes I'm afraid

The response from others has been interesting though...

I have explained my ad hominem attack and mocking tone of my argument which only came in one post when it looked to me like Nai had made an argument against me which had no factual basis at all, when i thought he was trying to say there was

If your argument isn't based on fact, there IS no argument - not an attack on a person but an attack on an argument. When you posted the original post and I attacked it, there was no mention of the crash. The crash never even passed my mind - I searched the thread with just my posts to see what my voting pattern had been and found that what you said was incorrect and made that statement. I was assuming, incorrectly, that you were basing what you were arguing on having read the thread "remembering" but not bothering to actually check. Only in your next post did you bring up that you were referring to the crash and what was lost, at which point I realised what you had been referring to and agreed that yes, I may have voted elsewhere but I honestly didn't know

[Jules]

I have answered the question. I said I didn't know my reasons because they were lost in the crash

If you can't explain yourself, don't vote. Simple as that. If you don't even know what the reasons are, how can you think someone is scummy? This makes absolutely no sense. On top of that, you didn't actually explain that you didn't remember the arguments until just now, when you could've said that a long time ago.

I've said all along I don't remember what my argument was, but that I had had one

[Jules]

I used ad hominem ONCE. You've duplicated you're argument against me.

If you don't know why you find someone scummy, then voting for them is pointless. Plus, no, you never actually clarified anything until just now.

What I said just now is what I've being saying all along

If you don't know why you find someone scummy, then voting for them is pointless. Plus, no, you never actually clarified anything until just now.

I used ad hominem ONCE. You're making it out that I use it every time. I didn't know what it was at the time, now that I do, I know that I used it. I have explained it. You've also duplicated that point against me. In two of your arguments, you use the post that starts "haha" against me

Jules:

I of course know I'm scum and don't think Jules is scum and do think Nai is scum

Ding ding ding

This is so blindly ignorant even a complete newbie would get the gist of it. Jules is looking more scummy by the second.

In what way is that ignorant? Coron says "I am scum". If I’d actually believed someone would come out and say this, I would’ve put a vote on. It was a joke. You neglected to mention that immediately following this, Nightfall makes an ad hominem attack on me by making out I’m too stupid to spot Coron’s slip

I’m also wondering why the sudden burst of activity when prior to you jumping on my bandwagon, you had only posted thrice in 12 pages?