Also, FancyPants, no answer?
Oh boy... that means I get to project whatever baseless accusation I want <3
FancyPants'
post irks me significantly more than such a small post should. It accomplishes the following three things:
- It establishes that my point against Gorny is nonsense;
- It disencourages you to post nonconclusive evidence;
- It votes Gorny.
I shall reply to all three of these points.
Point 1:
I admit that my point was a very weak tell, but I do not think that means it should not be said. First, during day 1 there is generally very little evidence available and we must grab onto whatever we can get. Also, you could've defended Gorny without a personal attack.
Second, more importantly, pointing out a mild flaw in a scum's behaviour can get them to react, which can get more scumtells out of them. Many tells can not be found in generic posts they write, but they can be revealed by questions asked or remarks made. In this case, Gorny did not have any scumtells in his reply, so I'll drop the point. If I were to get the impression that he was like "OH NOES I SCREWED UP" and try to cover it up poorly, I'd press the matter.
Point 2:
Like I just said, you're free to accuse me of whatever. It gets the discussion going, which is a good thing. I am, however, more vexed by your attempt to
supress
discussion with the phrase "seeing scum tells in pedestrian behaviour gets you paranoid town points". That doesn't apply to just me, it scares of everyone to state their suspicions fearing "paranoid town points".
Notably, you called them "town points", not "scum points". So you're not even accusing me of being an overzealous scum lyncher? Of course you aren't—you'd earn massive amounts of "hypocrite" points if you did. And we can't afford that, can we? "Hypocrite" points are bad after all. Don't touch them.
Of course, you're going to say "I didn't want to accuse you, I only wanted to defend Gorny against your inane accusations." (despite adding a personal attack a bit earlier in the same sentence.) That could be true, but I suspect that there is an ulterior motive, see my next point.
Point 3:
Voting Gorny, the guy you just defended... like, why?
Alright, I know your answer already. That was just an RVS vote, right?
But why RVS vote Gorny? Why not me? Why not anyone else? Or rather, why vote anyone at all?
I can explain: because voting Gorny is the most townish-looking choice. It accomplishes the following:
- It distances yourself from Gorny, preventing you from being accused of being in a mafia team with him;
- By explicitly voting somebody other than me (rather than simply not voting) you really drive the point home "I do not vote people based on "pedestrian behaviour";
That's it. I cannot think of another reason why you would put that vote in a post like that other than to increase your townishness. Normally one would put no vote in a post like that, and a vote on Gorny just seems too convenient for the circumstances; it gives me the impression that your post was carefully orchestrated.
So, what point am I making? I get the impression from the attention to detail and convenient wording that FancyPants' post was not just a common post to help Gorny, but rather a convenient post he could make to appear townish. Of course, townies could attempt to look townish, but scum try harder.
Tl;dr:
FancyPants tries too hard to look like town.
.