@copper:
Having reread your exchange with TTH, my opinion has not changed. None of the reasons you gave for orc's scumminess in 1084 are persuasive.
In post 1084, copper223 wrote:
- 1v1 on C+A and not even to scumhunt but just getting personal, completely broke the game until he left, I fail to see the town motivation for this behavior and it is apparent why this could possibly be scum play, he sows confusion reducing the chance of town coming up with a good lynch, he may also get C+A lynched, assuming C+A is town, if C+A gets scumread for his emotial outburst. The fact he picked C+A, who was already being scumread by the semi-confirmed doc. made me question him even more.
This would just lead to an increase in the amount of pressure being put on orc himself, which is against scum wincon. Sowing confusion only works if you don't make the players as a whole openly hostile to you, which orc wasn't even trying to hide. His open hostility is what led to the wagon on him in the first place, which you were part of.
- Proposing the follow the cop strategy again, it's all too easy to do that and then if something happens say: oopsie I didn't mean to out the cop/doc.
I dislike talk of setups in general because I assume power roles know how to play their roles and butting in is only a good way to give scum hints on who to look at for the NK.
Not reading the thread is not alignment indicative. And setup discussion is not alignment indicative; the only times I've ever been successful as town is through process of elimination and setup wrangling.
- Asking for information from people and then not using/reading them.
This could have just been because of the massive slapfight he was having with House at the time. Not alignment indicative given context.
For comparison, here is your first orc-directed post, unedited:
In post 874, copper223 wrote:@Or
After wasting town resources left right and centre instead of doing your own homework you proceeded to not read what you were given, proposed a strategy which had already been discarded and is mafia sided, questioned other players intelligence for pointing out mechanics that maybe only you would find difficult to figure out, the fact you assume scum is moronic speaks volumes about your own intellect, and now are resorting to personal insults.
Being an a-hole is maybe not alignment indicative for you (someone that played with him?) but just based on this I'd be happy to lynch you out of this game so that the grown ups can get back to business.
This looks for all the world like you were willing to lynch him for being an asshole,
while claiming that being one is not alignment indicative
. You hedge with the word maybe, but it's clear that you at least at this point were not claiming it was scummy.
Your next post concerning orc was the vote post, which was this (sans vote):
In post 942, copper223 wrote:
@All
Can we lynch this guy? I was about to post the same as C+A about wanting out if he continued but I like a lot of players here so I'd rather get rid of the problem, or maybe he is playing like this to be disruptive as mafia, one can only hope and that would at least make sense somewhat.
Again, this sounds like you did not believe he was mafia being disruptive; that was just a theory you were advancing to make some sense of his hostility. But the main reason (according to this) that you were voting for him was to get him out of the game, NOT for the three points you advanced later. That's why I believe that you were giving those reasons to legitimize this policy/suspicious vote. I'm not saying it would have been bad to policy lynch orc for being a dick. What I'm suspicious of is your attempt to retroactively claim that you had fancy reasons for it when, for all appearances, you didn't.
I am unpersuaded by TTH's other arguments against you, but this one is correct. Your orc vote appears opportunistic and the came too far after the vote (and was in conflict with your earlier statements) to be credible.
I also support giving RDR as long as possible to claim.
