Mini 1794: Gunslingers Ahoy! {Game Over}

[Dunnstral]

I'm not going to pretend my case is stronger than it is. My initial reasoning was very weak. Sure. It was based on a page of RVS. I disagree with this if you replace poor with weak:

Breaking RVS does not serve as justification for voting with poor reasoning.

Then I found the way he left the discussion after casting a vote suspicious.

Huh? Are you responding to something aimed at something else?

Also you're actually just saying the same thing on repeat now; yes, we know what you think

[ɀefiend]

@BlackStar

That wasn't really a defense. I just thought it was silly that

we were rushing towards a lynch

. I also think it's scummy that you're trying to force an association between me and him before he even gets lynched

Several of your posts are giving me bad vibes.

When do you think it's appropriate to start trying to lynch someone?

There IS an association between you and MURDERCAT now. The nature of that association remains to be seen. Also, I believe that was the first time you actually called someone's actions as scummy. Yet, you aren't pushing or pursuing discourse with Dunnstral for his actions.

All you've said is that he gives you a bad feeling, and then outta nowhere, your vote on MURDERCAT is now serious.

Your progression in this game is all over the place. Stop "observing" and start scum-hunting, please.

[MURDERCAT]

Not really, I addressed your misunderstanding and clairfied my vote. You found my reasoning for voting Dunnstral invalid, that's fine I don't really see how to respond to that. I did find it valid that's why I used it. I'm also not sure how to respond to you disliking my phrasing.

As I pointed out to TBG, your reasoning as it stands is invalid.

So far I've found that most of your posts revolve around defense.

Can you provide a case against Dunnstral commensurate with Accountant's case against you?

I'm not going to pretend my case is stronger than it is. My initial reasoning was very weak. Sure. It was based on a page of RVS. I disagree with this if you replace poor with weak:

Breaking RVS does not serve as justification for voting with poor reasoning.

Then I found the way he left the discussion after casting a vote suspicious.

[Accountant]

Dunnstral can you explain your read on BlackStar? The only thing I see so far is #130. Is there more to your case?

[ɀefiend]

I'm not going to pretend my case is stronger than it is. My initial reasoning was very weak. Sure. It was based on a page of RVS. I disagree with this if you replace poor with weak:

Breaking RVS does not serve as justification for voting with poor reasoning.

Then

I found the way he left the discussion after casting a vote suspicious

.

This is blatantly a misrep.

I mean, the guy is literally still here and participating in the discussion.

[MURDERCAT]

I've literally said the same thing 5 times now as Dunnstral pointed out.

[MURDERCAT]

I'm not saying he did nothing. I'm saying he didn't push me directly. You don't think it's weird that someone votes with the intention of adding pressure but then doesn't actually ask any questions or provide any real criticism? 80 and 81 came after actually.

You and chumba had some relevant commentary that came with your votes. Drunstall disappeared not literally, but from the conversation. He joined the wagon but didn't push me.

[Derek12]

I'm not going to pretend my case is stronger than it is. My initial reasoning was very weak. Sure. It was based on a page of RVS.

I disagree with this if you replace poor with weak:

Breaking RVS does not serve as justification for voting with poor reasoning.

Then I found the way he left the discussion after casting a vote suspicious.

I don't get this at all? I'm not sure if you get to change the way people's arguments are worded when you defend against them.

[Accountant]

I'm really eager to hear from BlackStar now.

MURDERCAT: I think you are scum trying to drown out legitimate discussion in futile circular arguments. Every serious argument you've been in so far has been repetitive and unproductive. Any response?

[MURDERCAT]

I'm saying I don't think my case was poor, but it was admittedly weak. But I also think that's fine to try to get out of RVS which it did accomplish.

[ɀefiend]

@Accountant

since you are interested in what people think of BlackStar what do you think of my #151?

@MURDERCAT

your entire play feels like a fabrication, starting all the way back with your initial vote. Your current scumread of Dunn and townread of Blackstar are very shallow.

[MURDERCAT]

Accountant, my argument is people keep asking the same shit so I don't know what you want.

[MURDERCAT]

I never said they weren't shallow.

[Derek12]

MURDERCAT: Do you have any major thoughts on non Accountant/Dunnstral players?

[Dunnstral]

Dunnstral can you explain your read on BlackStar? The only thing I see so far is #130. Is there more to your case?

Not much yet but I actually didn't like post 60, I don't like that he's "getting a bad feeling" from me as if he's getting ready to push on me with murdercat in case the wagon ever headed that way, while still being able to go back and say "it was just a feeling" if nothing happened

Also him being in the thread but not really having an impact

[MURDERCAT]

Well I commented on Black star. Generally I think those that have jumped on weakly are more likely to be scum such as zefiend and chumba. TBG's posts I could see coming from scum or town. Same for you, maybe a slight town lean.

[Dunnstral]

I never said they weren't shallow.

Yet you keep on bringing it up

[Dunnstral]

those that have jumped on weakly are more likely to be scum such as zefiend

Huh?

[MURDERCAT]

Because people are asking me direct questions about it. Pretty crazy stuff.

[Accountant]

@zefiend: I think your argument makes sense and I did not notice the #87 association. In a void, I'd say it's a strong case against BlackStar, but I want to see his defense before making up my mind.

[MURDERCAT]

those that have jumped on weakly are more likely to be scum such as zefiend

Huh?

154 looks fake, like he didn't really read what I wrote/have written.

[Accountant]

Accountant, my argument is people keep asking the same shit so I don't know what you want.

I think you intentionally give bad answers that are vague, irrelevant, don't answer the question, flat out wrong etc. Then plead ignorance and frustration when people re-ask because they don't have a proper answer. I also think you

intentionally

ignore people when they tell you why your answer is bad.

[MURDERCAT]

Point out examples and explain what's wrong and I will try to answer them better. I think I've been perfectly clear.

[Dunnstral]

those that have jumped on weakly are more likely to be scum such as zefiend

Huh?

154 looks fake, like he didn't really read what I wrote/have written.

...I don't see anything wrong or "fake" with 154 and you've given another really weak reason to scumread someone

[MURDERCAT]

If he was reading closely it should have been clear what I was saying.