charter wrote:You're pretending to not understand what I'm saying. I said you breadcrumbed a bunch of roles, then claimed another one once you realized that someone else had all those.
No, I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm just not arguing the same issue as you. You contend that the original quote was me breadcrumbing a loaf of roles (including scum, for some reason) tied to a particular flavor that you think I planned on claiming, despite the fact that Oman had already suggested that it might be his flavor. I have never contested the point that I had intentionally dropped tells several roles, and I even announced it during my claim, even though no one had brought it up sooner. I have also explained that I was attempting to bait a nightkill, which I can't prove and you can't disprove.
I shouldn't need to point out that
that
example is
not
an example of breadcrumbing, because it is in no way believable as such. Just saying a bunch of rolenames in the same sentence is likely to be taken as poor proof at best when using a part of the sentence as support for a claim. In fact, that statement was nothing more than a warning to avoid outguessing the mod on flavor. Since you picked such a poor example, I'd guess that you entirely missed my tells. After I announced them, you went looking to see if there was anything you can use. I likely made the tells too subtle, since I wanted scum to pick up on any
one
of them, but my failing provides evidence that supports my theory that you didn't know that I
wanted
to be targeted, and thus attempted to kill me N2, when you were sure I had some kind of role.
charter wrote:It's apparent because you never did it, when you said you would before. This really isn't a big point against you, so I'm not going to keep going at it.
Because I never did what? I'm saying that I
wasn't
playing particularly cautiously, which according to your other posts, would make me
less
suspicious. I note that you didn't find any examples of you accusing me of playing cautiously, or relate my suspicion of you to cautious play. Now you're ready to drop the point because you can't find any evidence?
charter wrote:No, I'm saying that you waited a while in mafia time to make your mind up, after others had given their opinions.
Less than 24 hours is too long to reread four pages and decide on suspicions during a work day during which I was the only person from my department at the office, shortly after my boss was fired, during the pre-holiday rush of custody disputes and last minute court filings attendant to working at a law office? In the off hours, before you ask, I was occupied with preparing for our Fourth of July party. The posts from me during this time were tossed off in a few spare minutes and my dinner break. In them, I add my brief opinions to matters already under discussion, propose some minor suspicion that required no serious consideration or research, and joked with Oman. There is a reason the post voting you came at 1:00 am my time. Suggesting that I should have been paying more attention to
mafia
during that time is unreasonable, and frankly offensive. I do not judge you based on your personal life, and I would appreciate it if you extended the same courtesy to me.
charter wrote:Darla was scum. You not wanting her to contribute reeks of you not wanting your scumbuddy to contribute so they can continue laying low. Do you honestly not see how town wants scum to post as much as possible? It increases the chances of them slipping up, and gives a lot to go on when their role is revealed.
You accuse me of having wanted darla to post more, I agree that I
did
want her to post more, and you turn around and accuse me of
not
wanting her to contribute? Without searching too hard, I note
nine times
that I asked Darla to clarify something or contribute more. Are you sure you're not reading your own posts, instead of mine? Because with the same amount of effort, I note that you ignored her entirely for Day2, and on Day3 until
after
she fell under suspicion. I'd say that "reeks" of you wanting your scumbuddy to "continue laying low" much more than my actions. (I doubt it's still relevant, but I just noticed that Darla did address me, one time. She was agreeing with my claim order)
charter wrote:Twisting my words again. I don't say you're always flip flopping, I say you flip flopped (not always) so that you were always advocating the popular idea on the massclaim issue.
I was the first to oppose the massclaim idea. I held firm despite several other players were for it, hardly following the popular belief. I was also the first to bring the idea up again after I'd changed my mind, and I only did so after my objections had been rendered moot. Is it the changing my mind with changing circumstances that you find scummy? Because at no point was I following the crowd.
charter wrote:I disagree your conclusion was reasonable.
On what grounds, and how does the conclusion make me scummy? I've already provided my reasoning, and the evidence supports me. The burden is on you to disprove me, so you can either present some evidence or concede the point.
charter wrote:Darla was outed based on her flavor. Muerrto could easily have been as well.
No, Darla was outed by an educated guess fueled by limited process of elimination. The flavor points merely helped everyone feel confident that they were doing the right thing. She could have
easily
been telling the truth regarding her flavor. And Muerrto
could
have been outed by flavor, but you're playing apples and oranges trying to compare scum who claimed vanilla and guessed at the flavor when there was a townie in the setup to scum who claimed PR and either used his actual flavor or just made something up because there was no one to compare it to and if he got counterclaimed he'd be dead anyway.
charter wrote:Well, I still don't know who killed Oman N1, so how do you know that kiwi was RB'ed N1?
I bolded that so CWR sees it and can change his vote in time. I feel like sthar8 just slipped up bigtime. I haven't seen any proof, or anything more than mere speculation as to what happened N1. We don't know who kiwi targetted N1, or if he targetted anyone at all. To speculate myself and answer your question, scum could have not RB'ed kiwi trying to outguess him and RB'ed someone else who they thought might have had a better role.
Are you kidding? We just spent most of a page talking about this. We have the most complete information about night 1, therefore our speculation regarding night one will be the strongest. Unless you think the mafia targetted me (which means you're scum) or targeted a claimed cop with a claimed doc in play (which would be stupid), you have to accept that it is most probable that scum targeted Oman. Kiwi had announced that if Oman looked scummy, he'd target Muerrto. Kiwi's kill did not happen. Therefore, he could have targeted me (which means you're scum), WK (which would have outed and killed him if it worked, and made him suspicious if it hadn't), Oman (which he had announced he did not intend to do) or he could have been RB'd (which means you're scum). Therefore, barring terrible play, you're scum.
When you try to discount someone's speculation through the proposal of an alternate scenario, you should make sure that your scenario is as logically valid as theirs If someone else were RB'd, then why did Kiwi not get a kill? Your answer must be that he killed Oman, but why would Kiwi do that? He was already under significant suspicion, and killing Oman when he'd promised not to would very likely have causd his lynch.
charter wrote:I'm talking about the RB sending in the kill and RB so that if there is a tracker, it halves the risk of scum getting caught.
That still doesn't make sense. I'm saying that it is possible that Darla could kill, and that if she could it would make more sense for scum to split up their abilities. How am I "playing both sides of the argument?" If I were the scum, I would know that there was a protown RB in the setup, and it would make more sense to split up the night actions.
