Appealing to emotion by raising the fear of a possible (improbable) LYLO, and by making a veiled threat to go after me as scum, does nothing to bolster your argument, nor does it affect my current perception of you. Let's move on.Elias_the_thief wrote:Does it bother you that the "evidence" towards me being with Dybeck depends entirely on wifom interpretation, and could mean entirely the opposite of the way Vollkan is interpreting it? (pretty likely, because I'm town). I'm starting to think you're our third scum. I've already presented evidence as to Korlash having ties to Dy, though nothing compared to what Vollkan did. Second, I'm pretty sure we're in LYLO here *at the very least, potentially). Are you really going to trust the game deciding lynch on the fact that theres nothing better then a weak connection case?
Most of my suspicion against you boils down to the single key point we've been talking about since D3 started: Dybeck treated you differently than every single player remaining in the game. I think this is notable.
So far, what I've seen in response is conjecture on the other side of the fence: he COULD have been doing this as an elaborate plot to frame you. This is true. But it's just as plausible to me that he simply failed to bus you until he had already committed to locking in on Originality, at which point it was too late for him to switch gears without dooming himself.
I don't think this is an ironclad argument either way. What I'm saying is that it does create a serious level of suspicion in my mind that you may be mafia. While I agree that Korlash's behavior does inspire suspicion, I would not go so far as to say that the case against him is markedly stronger than the case against you. Both could currently be described as "weak connection cases" at this point. Fortunately, we're not under a deadline and there's plenty of time left to talk turkey.
One point that we haven't really discussed: you took the time to analyze and respond to Vollkan's consolidated case against Dybeck at some length. But you needed to be prompted to look at shaft.ed's summary case against Oman, and did not look at the additional points I raised vs. Oman at all (though you said you were going to). Again, one interpretation of this would be that you had a vested interest in poking holes in the Dybeck case, but didn't see any reason to interfere with the case against Oman. What is your side of the story there?
A few side points for other players ...