ting =) wrote:You deliberately answered a different question to the one I asked. Where, in the unvote post, did he give his reasons? The answer is nowhere.
o.O You said that he never gave reasons, waaaay in day 1, even
after
he had. I pointed that out - by quoting his reasons.
That's an outright lie. I
never
said that.
The Fonz wrote:Greasy Spot wrote:Well I can't let all the other claimers have
all
the fun. I am the Mafia Godfather. I will always show up innocent.
Korts wrote:Actually, if some people would be willing to vote armlx, that'd be all kinds of great.
I will
vote: armix
. This is standard armix scum play.
The top part is clearly a joke. Period. Wagonning him on it makes no sense.
The actually interesting part of this post, which few people seem to have picked up on, is the second half. Given the amount of energy he's put into calling IAAUN scum so far, why is he unvoting him and going after someone else, with only one line's worth of explanation?
This is my first Greasy vote. As you see, I vote him for 'unvoting without giving reasons' here.
The Fonz wrote:Korts wrote:
GS has a history of being a prick. See Killer Scarecrows from Vegas. I think ting deserves a chance, at least.
Hmmm. Yes.
Though I do think there's a not small likelihood that GS was deliberately distancing from a buddy, considering how strongly he represented his suspicions, and how quickly he ditched them.
This is post 'reason' post- note no reference to 'never gave reasons.'
The Fonz wrote:
Really? Because it increases mine. I really thought the manner in which GS pushed IAAUN before dropping it with no explanation looked like distancing.
I said he dropped the IAAUN thing without explaining why. I did not say he NEVER offered an explanation- after all, it was ME who demanded one, so it's fairly obvious i saw it, even though it's a terribly weak one.
He dropped it without explaining why- he dropped it, and did not offer an explanation as to why he was dropping it AT THE TIME HE WAS DROPPING IT.
And now, your argument is... me giving you his reasons don't matter because you wanted him to give it on a particular post of your choosing? Really?
No, the reason is that you are lying and misrepresenting both me and your predecessor. I said he unvoted without giving reasons. This is true. That he later gave reasons does not entirely alleviate the suspicion caused. It was the manner in which he dropped his case on IAAUN entirely, without even feeling a need to explain the sudden reversal, which made me feel those suspicions were not genuine.
Your attack on him since day 1, and I can quote you - is that he didn't give his reasons. The issue wasn't when, the issue was that he hadn't. I showed you he did. Don't twist this. I can quote your posts and include date stamps of everything if you want me to.
You, sir, are the one who is twisting this. Put it this way, if you leave your house without your umbrella, then later go back and get it, is it the case that you have never left the house without your umbrella? That's the equivalent case to the argument you're trying to push. I did not say- I am suspicious of GS because he NEVER gave reasons for unvoting IAAUN. I am suspicious of him because he
unvoted without
giving any kind of reasoning. Namely, that he dropped his suspicion way too easily given how strong he represented it as being. Now you're trying to get off the hook by twisting and distorting my words and making bullshit semantic arguments. It won't fly.
----
Later, when I pressed him on the apparent absurdity of dropping a vote he'd confirmed four times without even acknowledging that he was doing so, he then gave the weak, cop-out type explanation that no-one else really seemed to be buying his case- even though, iirc, IAAUN was copping significant heat from several people (for his suggestion of vigging GS), armlx I think only had rofl on him when GS switched (so wasn't really any more viable) and the single biggest wagon had just died due to its object claiming vig.
Sure, because one vote, and 'some heat' are obviously going to get a guy lynched when there's already a halfway full wagon on someone else.
IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE THREAD, you would know that the halfway full wagon had just collapsed because its target claimed vig, and that there was no-one else on more than a couple votes. IAAUN was one of a handful of people that were being heavily criticised by a number of other players. Having been there at the time, I can assert that an Iam lynch was at least as likely as an armlx one at the time he switched.
Also, if the existence of this 'halfway full' wagon made IAAUN unviable, how is armlx viable? armlx also only had one vote at the point where GS switched.
The point of mafia is to try and lynch scum. There was no way IAU was going to get lynched that day. He was never the biggest target, and reading through, there was no way a wagon on him would have ever outgrown a wagon on anyone else.
He said he would never unvote IAAUN. He did. He lied. What is your explanation of this?
------
Furthermore, all he said of the person he was moving to was that 'this was standard scum behaviour for him' without any explanation at all.
This is true, yes. I agree that this would go against him/me. I don't know what he saw because I've never played a game with armlx, I don't have a meta on him. I won't begrudge you if you hold this against me.
It strikes me that, given the defence of GS you have presented, the person he moved to would have to be at least as close to IAAUN in scumminess, and more viable. The armlx switch does not really fulfill either criterion.
-----
Do I find it scummy to not tunnel?
I find it scummy not to tunnel when you're convinced you've found scum, and Greasy's posts prior to the unvote appear to represent himself as convinced that IAAUN was scum. In which case, I'd expect a townie in that position to fight tooth and nail to get the suspect killed, and never let up until a) the suspect was investigated innocent or b) one or both are dead.
In fact, Greasy even SAID that is what he was going to do:
So, yeah, hypocrite much?
Can you
honestly
tell me that everyone in this game so far has gone for their first choice in lynching blakadder? Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure I can remember others also making compromises. I think greasy was stubborn, yes, and I think that yes, he changed his vote when he said he wouldn't. I don't think he was stupid. He did everything he could to lynch IAU, even repeated himself here and there. No dice.
Again, mafia is about the town coming to a consensus in order to lynch scum. That often entails that certain members of the town have to make compromises and go for someone else if no one wants to lynch their first choice.
We both know this happens in nearly every game, and we both know that saying townies don't make compromises is a lie.
Oh, town makes compromises. All the time. But tunnelling town don't. I can show you numerous occasions where, as town, I 'locked on' a player like Greasy did, and I only ever shifted with deadline imminent. The way GS represented himself, it seemed like he fervently believed IAAUN was mafia, and no other lynch was remotely as good.
Your argument basically boils down to 'a rational townie would have unvoted there' but Greasy Spot couldn't be further from a rational townie, nor was he representing himself as such. He confirm voted four times, ffs. He promised to continue voting until one of them was dead. Are you telling me it's perfectly normal to represent a suspicion like that, and then drop it without bothering to explain why?
I'd expect a townie in that position to fight tooth and nail to get the suspect killed, and never let up until a) the suspect was investigated innocent or b) one or both are dead.
It'd be a very stupid townie who'd tunnel someone who obviously isn't going to get lynched.
I do it all the time, so...
.
