In reply to this post...
militant wrote:Thanks for the explanation. It was only a random vote though, opinion did not come into it because I choose GIEFF's name at
random
at the beginning of the game during the random voting stage. There was no opinion behind my vote, if I remember correctly I choose him because his name is all capitals, something totally irrelevant to the game.
I think you may have misunderstood the explanation. I think what uriel was saying is that either you are scared of being lynched, or you're original opinion regarding keeping your random vote on was not really you're opinion. He's not referring to your random vote, rather you're reasoning to leave it on, and then later change that opinion. I'll quote the original opinion to clear things up.
militant wrote:I disagree, I prefer to just leave it there unvote someone who actually warrants my vote comes along.
You later went against this, by unvoting when asked to. This is a contradiction and therefore is suspicious.
The other possibility is that you felt pressured or are scared of being lynched. This is scummy looking because it was only 1 player and you changed your opinion just because he didn't like it. Here's some further quotes that imply this.
militant wrote:Why exactly is unvoting to appease someone scummy?
militant wrote:Fine Unvote
Happy now?
That is why this is also suspicious
This post is also answering GIEFF's post 178. So in short, no I don't think the logic is faulty/scummy.
militant wrote:I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.
Why are you interested in me particularly when you haven't found anything? Are you rereading with a particular preset bias to me? Why would I be more "interesting" than any other person here?
The only answers to these questions I can think of is OMGUS. Which is also a bit scummy