Imat wrote:If you won't vote somebody who you think others will vote for, and you won't vote someone if you don't think others will vote them, then when will you vote someone? And if these contradictory statements on your part hold true, why did you vote so much yesterday?
The flaw with your argument is thinking that not wanting a quicklynch is the same as not wanting votes in general. That assumption is obviously false.
Imat wrote:And no, you didn't answer to all my posts. You convenietly ignored the fact that I was calling you Scum trying to guess at a reason for the Nameclaim not to work, even though you completely recognized that most Townie roles don't have names. So, there it is. I'm saying you're intelligent Scum who can make a resonable deduction. You seemed to miss that particular point when you went over my other analysis.
Yeah, the only possible response to that is "you're wrong". The fact that I didn't respond that way doesn't mean a damn thing. I can't refute your speculation, only the actual points you make.
Imat wrote:And again, if you like pressure votes why did you unvote Khel who had one vote on him instead of keeping pressure on him? Either you believed him to be a Power Role, which is silly because you said many times before that that you didn't, or you didn't actually want pressure on him.
The thing about pressure votes is that just one usually doesn't do a damn thing. When I think my vote can be put to better use, I put it to better use.
Imat wrote:I'm trying to hunt Scum here, Matt, and you fit the bill. Comng out with OMGUS doesn't refute the evidence I've stated. True, I've looked at it from the MattScum perspective, but I hardly think the MattTown perspective will hold up.
You seem to ignore the fact that I've refuted all the points in your first analysis, and that your second analysis ignores most of my posts. If it makes you happy, I'll go back and refute every little point you made.
Imat wrote:Post 71: Again, this is such a pathetic vote. You give so many reasons for Khel being a Power Role, you even say your gut tells you he is a PR, then yu vote him with the flimsy excuse "I guess he is too fishy to let go..." Whats worse, this comes from CoolBot's persuasion. I can't see Town falling for CB's cased after defending somebody so much. I can see Scum looking at their partner's easy case and following their lead.
Where did I ever say that my gut said Khelvaster was a power role? What reasons did I ever give for him not being scum other than "scum wouldn't do that"?
Imat wrote:Post 75: You say we sould vote for Khel because he'sthe best case. Two big things worng with that: 1. You are undecided either way, and 2. Zyrc is lurking, which you openly say you'll give him a free ride for. Usually Lurkers tend to be better cases than someone with no strong feeling either way, wouldn't you say? Also in this post you sa that Khel is associating Fellowship with PR's. Which isn't necessarily true. Certainly if we ony have 2 or 3 Fellowship members Khel would do so, but personally I think he was thinking, and he stated this himself several times, that the game was a 9-3 Town to Scum ratio, so having all 9 Town in the Fellowship wouldn't be unheard of. He was trying to break the game, to find Scum though the easiest method, not to out PR's. Also, is it aother typo which made you say a Townie WOULD try a mass nameclaim on D1? Because that would mean you're leaning Khel for Town, yet you still vote him. Nvm, you explain it as a typo.
Sorry, try again. I never asked anybody else to vote for Khelvaster. The fact that Khelvaster's actions puzzle me is completely irrelevant, and I never said I'd kive Zyrconium a free pass, just that I thought Khelvaster was a better option.
Imat wrote:Post 82: Once again you say a Mass Nameclaim "would probably benefit the Town more," yet you say you don't know why someone would call for a Mass Nameclaim or why Khel did, specifically. This seems to me like oyu'r trying to accuse someone with blame you don't truly believe. Which is something Scum do, not Town.
Sorry, try again. I've said many times why I thought that Khelvaster would call for a nameclaim as scum, such as thinking he could find power roles. Again, not being certain about someone's intentions doesn't mean you can't make a case against them.
Imat wrote:Post 89: Not much here really, just speculation on my part: You feel the need to summarze your argument against Khel once again. Was this to try to get others to believe your case? Or were you havng your own doubts about it? The action seems Scummy, but not terribly so. And once again you ompletely miss Khel's point in asking for people outside of the Fellowship. You seem to do that a lot.
So I should believe the scummy person's after the fact explanation for his actions with no questions asked? Well that's just stupid.
Imat wrote:Post 91: Bad. Very bad. You unFoS Eljcko after having an off-topic discssion with him, then you UnVote Khel becaue you don't want the day to end too quickly. I can understand you Unvoting ifyou didn't believe your case anymoe, or even if he had votes on him, but you fet others would knowlingly quicklynch him if you kept your vote on him. So, beside the obvious fct that if you'reworried about a quicklynch, chances are others are as well and won't do it. However, on the offchance that people do vote him, they wouldn't vote to lynch. Scum might, if they wanted to out themselves for practically nothing, but Town has he same ideas as other Town. Your Unvot was completely unnecessary and, IMO, very Scummy.
Sorry, all I can hear from this is that not wanting a quicklynch is bad. And I never said they would quicklynch him intentionally.
Imat wrote:Post 101: See posts 102 and 103. Yea, I'm referring you to posts by two players, Massive and Khel, who both completely disagree with your logic.
Sorry, how does this point to me being scum?
Imat wrote:Post 112: You say you wanted answers from Khel, yet you needed to be sure others wouldback you up. Are you so uncertain of your case at this point that yu can't possibly accuse him by yourself?
Again, it takes a majority to lynch. If I don't think I'll get anyone else, then why bother?
Imat wrote:Post 130: Can't see this as Town or Scum, it was a bad post either way. If youre Town, which means you weren't lying about being a nameless Vanilla, then CB's not saying he doesn't have a name is just as supicious as you not saying you don't have a name. Which is what you did, BTW. On the other hand, why throw your partner under thebus so quickly with so little pressure? Hence why I can't see this coming from either pespective, quite honestly...
I'm giving my opinion. Is there a problem?
Imat wrote:Post 168: Again, you ned anoth player's support to vote somebody? Why not just act on your suspicions, take the lead. If we allwaited for someone else's support, the game would never getanywhere.
Again, if I don't think I can sway people, why bother?
Imat wrote:Post 174: I lol'ed at. "Other than me voting you and saying you were suspicious, what makes you think I wanted you to get lynched? " Usually finding someone supicious AND voting them is pretty telling of your desire to see them lynched, at least at that point in time. What makes you hink people want yu lynched, they don't vote you and take great pais not to look into your actions?
Pressure votes. Answers come before lynches.
Imat wrote:Post 183: Are your suspicions of Khel gone by now? Because once again you're defending him.
How in the heck is this defending him? I'm answering somebody's question about Khelvaster. Please try harder.
Imat wrote:Post 217: After numerous cases against you and suspicionsrunning rampant, you questio why a player wants you lynched? Why question it? The answer is pretty obvous...
1. Talitha made no case. Asking for reasons is in no way scummy. 2. Notice the damn smiley?
Imat wrote:Post 232: You state opely that Fellowship implies Town and vice versa. This is completely diferent from your idea of the Fellowship earlier, when you said Fellowship had to be Power Roles, which is what you accused Khel for trying to exploit. When did your view on this change?
Well, it's pretty damn obvious that the Fellowship Khelvaster mentioned was the named people from the books. My PM called me fellowship, but I wasn't anyone from the book. I explain what fellowship means in the context of my PM. Please try harder, because this is just boring.
Imat wrote:Post 252: deleted by the Mod, but you post a summary o your role PM. Its possible that you expected the Mod to delete this post and so did't worry about the content. Its possible you guessed at the basic jist of the PM, since this was a summary. Its also possible that you are a Townie and truly though summarizing your Role PM wouldn't gt you in trouble with the Mod and would clear you. Personally, I want to believe the latter is the most likely, but your actions beforehand force me to rethink the validity of it. FTR, I can't remember what was posted in this post, just that you summarized your PM.
You're speculating again. And you're assuming that the mod would delete a random guess about the townie pm.
Imat wrote:Post 275: Say you're waitig for a votecount, but don't post for another two days. i something come up IRL? I'm not really accusig you here, it just seems wierd. Like when I said I'd post tomorrow a few days ago and then things came up...
Yeah, I don't always get online every day. Please keep things relevant.
Imat wrote:Post 285: You want to drop the whole name thing. I can see this from an Unnamed Vanilla, or from Scum in general, unless they do have Safeclaims.
Funny how this is admittedly a null tell.
Imat wrote:Post 328: You condemn Eljcko for not having a name, yet you can't see why people thinking you're Scummy for claiming unnamed?
See, this is why you need to learn to read. Saying "this is just a coincidence, I swear" didn't make his claim look better. Besides, his lack of a name wasn't why I wanted him lynched.
Imat wrote:Post 340: "I could have quoted my safeclaim." Now we know why you believe Scum to have safeclaims. Its because you have a Safeclaim! Which inevitably implies you are Scum.
Yes, I point out the fact that I'm not confirmed, so I must be scum for clearing up confusion. Try harder.
Imat wrote:Post 353: Did you form any conlusion based on the fact that I voted Talitha for what I thought was Scummy behavior?
I came to a conclusion that a case made by a serial killer probably isn't a good case to follow.
Imat wrote:Post 355: Why do you think a Vig wouldnt kill CoolBot? Wasn't he one of the top suspects of Day 1?
Post 373: Ah, this explains it. You felt he looked less Scummy than the other two...
Yeah, I thought Mrs. "I want to lynch this guy just to find his alignment" and Mr. "I'm not providing any real content" were scummy.
Welcome, Shamrock.