Why? Because of 'distancing' implications, or something else?Mr. Flay wrote:This is the first basis of my caf19-armlx pairing.caf19 wrote:Minor FoS for this post. It seems far too certain at such an early stage. Mike had only made a couple of 2-line posts; I don't think I could ever be sure someone was town on so little material. Scum are the ones who are certain, as they know who is town already.armlx wrote:I'm quite sure Mike-zim is town for now and probably tomorrow too.
What I did here was express suspicion of Qman but said I'd come back to it later. I stopped short of actually advocating his lynch on subsequent days, precisely because that wouldn't be the pro-town action. There's a difference between "looking for answers" and "I think we should lynch him".Mr. Flay wrote:caf19 wrote:I don't like people trying to direct our D2 and D3 lynches eitherHypocrisy much?caf19 later wrote:FoS Qman; as I'm currently inclined to believe that Bazza is scum I won't push this much today, but if that changes or we lynch Bazza and he turns up town, then I'll be looking for answers.
I think I clarified that statement shortly afterwards, here's the relevant quotation:Mr. Flay wrote:Huh? Can you explain this last sentence? You didn't want to be seen as pushing for mike's lynch because of armlx' statement?caf19 wrote:Of the two, I'd say Bazza takes number 1 spot for me. Mike has a couple of redeeming features that Bazza doesn't have. Firstly, there's a possible 'noob town' explanation, and secondly, though I don't really see or agree with armlx's declaration of a town-tell, I feel that pushing for mike's lynch might be somewhat as a reaction to armlx's confirmation.
Basically, a part of people's reasoning for voting for mike was as a negative reaction to armlx's declaration of him as town. Which isn't actually that valid a reason (because it isn't drawn from mike's actions), compared to the more valid case on Bazza. Wasn't anything to do with how I wanted to be seen, rather an attempt to scumhunt properly.caf19 wrote:With the argument over armlx-Mike's connection, people could just be voting Mike to react against armlx or 'prove him wrong', rather than due to the actual scummy behaviour that has come directly from Mike (which is what I think we should be focusing on in that situation).
Firstly, saying "Bazza has been consistently useless; at least that's consistent!" isn't that much of a defence. Secondly, I made a point in post 431 about the contradictions between Bazza's unshakeable certainty and his endless vacillations ("Darox is scum... no wait, it's caf... no, it's Darox"); I believe it still stands regarding his inconsistencies.Mr. Flay wrote:What makes you believe that inconsistency is the hobgoblin of scum, rather than village idiots? Has Bazzacaf19 wrote:I really think Bazza is scum as opposed to VI; his inconsistencies are too great to overlook.reallybeen all that inconsistent? He attacks everyone who attacks him; he thinks armlx is obvscum, and he posts too damn much. He actually suspects more than just armlx, but that doesn't make him scum, just frustrated. I don't believe he's come out and said "Darox, armlx, AND X are all scum!"
Fair enough, I guess I can expect to take some suspicion for going for the easy lynch. But he's not exactly a terrible lynch. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "too scummy to be scum" argument pretty fallacious (in a similar vein to "too townie")?
VC here