Schez wrote: 1) Things such as what? Did you have anything specific in mind when you made that statement?
I wasn't thinking of anything specifically, but what I did mean was that my reread found a number of things which were scummy and which discussion could take place on. Obviously, the mason claims through a spanner in much of that, but what I guess I am trying to say is the idea, implicit in some of the recent posts, that the time has come for a compromise lynch is invalid.
Schez wrote:
2) You don't think that your lynch might help us to lynch bionicchop2? You haven't said it in so many words, but the tone of your posts, especially when directed against bionicchop2 seem to go beyond mere resentment of his attitude and dogged pursuit of you. Do you think that bionicchop2 is unlikely to be scum? I notice how high his score is by your system--the highest score of any player not claiming mason. If your lynch could expose bionicchop2, do you think it's valid? Isn't a one to one exchange a gain for the town? Or is it not likely to be one to one in your eyes?
Well, first off, my PBPA speaks for itself in that, next to the masons, I find bio scummiest (which means Bio would be my pick for lynchee, seeing as I am prepared to accept the claims). There are a number of points where I criticise Bio in my read, my rebuttal against some of his arguments have also shown my issues with him, and his recent posts have had this implicit idea that, somehow, I am today's default lynch. In essence, more than anybody else, the manner of his attack is less directed towards legitimate questioning and argument and more directed towards securing my lynch. His argument has shifted from BG's meta, to my being shifty, to your case on BG, and now to this weird sort of "shrugging of the shoulders" compromise/information lynch, interspersed with ad hominem attacks on me being a "skilled debater" and "grandiose" and so on. I think the term is "tunneling".
In pre-emption, this is not OMGUS - which is where you attack somebody
because
they are attacking you. Were I OMGUSing, I would be taking issue with far more people than just Bio. My problem with Bio is the way he has attacked me.
Now, it's true that my lynch will help advance the lynch of Bionic. But a genuine debate about the problems in Bio's (and other's) attitudes towards my lynch doesn't require my death to occur. In the scenario that I am lynched, what causes Bio to be singled out from others? Sure, my arguments against him will obviously play a role - but what singles him out will have to be scummy actions on his part, a factor which is operative independent of my own alignment.
Do I think Bio is obviously scum? Definitely not. There's a pride factor, and a generic emotional factor ("gut") which can operate to give townies tunnel-vision. What I am trying to say here is that there is a legitimate debate to be had right now about Bio, and any other attacks on me (along with anything else). The solution is not simply to make the gross assumption that either Bio or I are scum and lynch accordingly.
Shez wrote:
3) The two players with the highest scum score on your list have claimed mason. What exactly do you think of that claim, if you don't mind me asking?
Good question. The scores I give are reflective of "How scummy is this person's conduct?" not "What are the chances of this person being scum?" The reason for that is partly because the only way discrepancies usually arise is because of claims, which I can factor in my head - I don't need to have a numerical record thereof. The other reason is meta-based: to make me see whether what I identify as scummy actually is on review by me (that is to say, it's meta for my own research benefit in the future)
Shez wrote:
4) Now that you've completed your read-through, we can see who attracted the most of your attention. However, I don't think that's really a case. Do you intend to do more to scum-hunt? If so, what? And what have you waited for thus far?
My hope was that each person would go through the PBP and challenge me on specific points, with debate ensuing. I have the title "The Interrogator" for a reason - that I rely on questioning and arguing as my principal means of scumhunting. Usually, the way I do things when I don't replace is to compile a PBPA on each player and then debate my findings - with the way people conduct themselves in the debate further influencing my suspicions. I've been doing the same sort of thing here from the beginning. I don't see a black-and-white distinction between "defending" and "attacking" because, in the course of defending, the scummy nature of certain attacks is revealed (bio most obviously as an example). What I would like at this stage is for people to end their self-fulfilling prophecies of the day having reached its standstill and to have a look at what I've put forward (not restricted to Bio either).
I spent ages typing out an answer to your above points, only to read this. 
