I am making one post about this. I will not be talking to you again about my scumread on you because getting bogged down in an argument is what you want. I know, if I do, it will only make people skim and not read. I am aware you will spam stuff about me being scum and probably reply to this with a huge wall. Again, I do not care, and will not be responding. The only thing I will ask people to read about you, is this post.
House tells us
he hasn't read the game and doesn't plan to do so.
He then says that
he could be wrong, but he doesn't think HI is scum from his ISO, and won't hammer/vote him.
After that, we're again told that
he doesn't think HI is scum but he could be wrong.
It's fair to say that this stage House has demonstrated he isn't scumreading HI, but the read is definitely not strong or definite.
At this stage, I'm voting for the guy I was scumreading all d1, Hostile Intent. It's my belief that scum will know if there is an SK due to team sizes, and thus would rather keep HI alive. Everything up to this point is basically background, but it's necessary to understand.
So I say that
HI's not necessarily scum, but people backing him probably are.
House replies:
"So why are you still voting him?"
My response:
"Just because he's not necessarily scum doesn't mean he's definite not-scum."
If anyone other than House has a problem with the above, feel free to tell me - but I can see no fault with it after copious re-reading of it. It's a basic logical statement without much complication. The below is where House begins to show his colours.
House votes me for that statement using the justification:
I hate hedgey bs.
It's quite clear I didn't refine my claim or act as if said refined claim was the original. That's bullshit. House's reason for voting me, in other words, is non-existent.
I tell him that
I'm not hedging and ask him why he's so keen to get a wagon off Hostile Intent.
His reply is as follows:
I don't know anything about HI, he's not my person of interest, but your vote should have conviction.
This is blatantly false. Firstly, he has already told us in the above he will
not
vote/hammer HI - that's obviously a sign he has a read on HI. Secondly, he says my vote has no conviction. If he ISO'd HI,
, he would know I had been pushing HI all d1.
This is the first contradiction of his. If he had ISO'd Hostile Intent he would have KNOWN that I had been advocating his lynch and so would not have posted that my vote lacked conviction. The only way he could have posted that is if he DIDN'T actually ISO Hostile Intent.
And if he didn't ISO Hostile Intent, why would he be against the lynch of HI?
It's because he wants to keep him around to find the Serial Killer, because he's groupscum.
After this, House, in response to me asking him why he's so keen on getting away from the HI-wagon,
asks me why I'm so keen to deflect. This is a regular feature - instead of responding to me about his HI-townread, he tries to push the pressure back towards me by pretending my actions are scummy.
So, in my next post, I step it up a little. I ask him
why he's dodging questions about his Hostile Intent townread, and refute his point about my vote lacking conviction.
Again, House
does not
answer the questions about his townread on Hostile Intent - rather, he posts that I am misrepping as well as hedging and that I look scummy. Again, as said above, this is his tactic to avoid talking about his read - insinuate that I am scum instead in an attempt to make me drop it.
Hilariously, he then posts that the reason he hasn't responded is that
the world doesn't respond around what I want to discuss. I'm trying to count the number of excuses he's posted at this stage because that's at least the second, and neither have been half-valid.
I'm, at this stage, done being lenient.
I vote him and summarise my reasons into 2 sentences and request votes for House.
House, realising the shit he's got himself into, panics. He
immediately characterises my vote as blatant OMGUS, admits he has not read the part in Hostile Intent's ISO where he claims, asks me to stop deflecting,
asks me to stop bullshitting, and
asks me to show him where he called me scum.
This is another huge problem with House. His original claim was that, after ISO'ing Hostile Intent, he didn't really feel he was scum. Almost the entire case on Hostile Intent is centred around the time of his claim. You wouldn't have to read the game to know this, since it's been a hot topic today as well. This is further evidence which conclusively proves that House is
lying
about having ISO'd Hostile Intent and not thinking he's scum from that.
Aside from that, his reaction to my vote is really awful. He discredits me three times within 3 posts without any basis for doing so. And he asks me to show him where he called me scum when one of his posts is, word for word,
"My my, how scummy you look over a simple question."
In summary, House's read on Hostile Intent doesn't make sense with his actions and words. His vote on me is reasonless and he refuses to answer any questions, instead calling the questioner scum. His reaction to being voted was shit. But, again, his stance on Hostile Intent has a myriad contradictions. They're all above there, if you're interested in lynching scum. I've done all I can - it's up to you to vote him now.