In post 824, orcinus_theoriginal wrote: In post 821, acryon wrote:Maybe we can get some updated reads to see where people are at, but last I checked, there was no way a C+A lynch would every happen today.
ok so this rings very off to me because there's 5 days left and i have no idea why you're trying to play the diplomacy game especially since replacements shake up gamestate by their very nature and i'm playing along with you as hard as i can and you are not taking my olive branch and i don't know why
hmmmm.
I'm not at all. No offense, but if you actually read through the thread when I presented my case on C+A, there was incredibly strong resistance to basically every part of the case, so C+A would have to do something particularly egregious to get people to change their minds.
In post 838, Cane + Able wrote:Imagine a cop coming up to you as a child and saying you broke the law, and when you respond, "I'm six", he replies "well your uncle that you see once a year knows better!"
It's bullshit.
While I agree that part of my premise for that part of the argument may have been flawed, this seems like an absurd way to describe what a hydra actually is.
In post 873, Rudolph the Reindeer wrote:Acryon – until someone says coo-coo, you're not a Doc-coo, I believe his tweet-tweet, not lynching him this space and time. (Proven town until someone prooves the opposite.)
That's a bad idea. I don't advocate two people CCing to prove he's a fake; I advocate lynching him to prove he's a fake. Play thus far doesn't show he's a doc, it shows he's scum.
I also would never advocate two people CCing if I were fake-claiming, but lynching me to prove I'm fake is so dumb. Not only does it kill a PR if I'm telling the truth, but it weakens our other PRs. Too much damage if you're wrong (hint: you are). The case on me is frankly terrible, and no where near strong enough to outweigh the negatives of possibly lynching one PR and weakening another.
Some reads:
Orcinus - He is going about it the complete wrong way, but I believe he was just trying to rule out action from House as non-alignment indicative, which makes complete sense. Those still weren't issues I had, so my read will stay where it is on C+A. Lean-town.
I need to hear more from Texcat, specifically in relation to this:
In post 698, texcat wrote:I, of course, did notice C+A asking me numerous questions. I can tell you what I was thinking at the time, but will wait to hear from Wake.
Can you follow-up please.
It's also awkward that you would mention lynch all lurkers when you have posted less than anyone in this game by far. Which means you can;t possibly believe it to be a scum-tell, because if you are town, you just invalidated that idea for yourself. Makes me question whether you actually believe those to be scum-tells or not, and if you don't, why did you mention them?