| Linkzmax said:
1) Anyway the summary of it was I always had Wildvine as one of my main focuses, but never voted him because I counted 5 people that said they'd give him another day/wasn't a lynch prospect/etc. and so I had to look elsewhere for someone to lynch instead of myself. GOW barely pushed the issue until the end, and when he did it was usually just a small mention within large posts that named several people as suspicious. I'm not calling GOW scum, but he asked for the modkill after NotStan already did and the looming time limit made it apparent either zarx or nobody would be lynched. If I were scum I would totally ask for the modkill of an absent mate to make myself look good, especially if balance would likely be kept in terms of townies dying. 2) Again, the opportunity never arose. You only had the vote on him for a very short time. What "i'm innocent" defense are you talking about? I never unvoted Wildvine, so I fail to see how I could have "untrained" with a nonexistent unvote. 3) I was asking who you were asking me to "read them anyhow." Vette isn't one of my two targets, as I've said it's between GOW and FF all day pretty much. You're clearly misreading, misremembering, or deliberately twisting things. Stefl is fairly cleared and I explained why I trust Heph and Vette. ST hasn't been impressive day two, but I am not going to go after someone that would mean my own death as well without great reason to believe he's scum. I haven't outruled you, but I'm not going to try to lynch you just to confirm or most likely infirm the existence of an RB. I could say the same to you though, you think GOW is obvtown and you've said I'm pretty much cleared due to Wildvine's permavote. If we were the remaining scum, "then you'd be looking to lynch innocent players simply because you're willing to lynch them." You say you want to narrow the pool, but then you tell me to keep it filled. |
1 Look, Linkz, I undertand your point. I'm just saying that there is a difference. I don't know why you feel the need to defend yourself. I don't believe I am aggressively targeting you, so I don't see why you're putting so much effort into this argument. I think GoW is not mafia with wildvine. That's as far as I can clear him. He could be a second team, or a third party killer, I honestly don't know. But I truly believe that he wouldn't put so much effort into lynching a mate when he could have easily and inconspicuously pushed to end the day to wait for a return. If there are only three mafia, it's too big of a loss. If there are 4 mafia, well that may be different, and he could have reason to sac wildvine, but as I see the game now, I don't believe he could've been on the same team. That's all I'm saying. As for mentioning or commenting on you, I'm simply responding to Heph's inaccurate assessment that I'm contrasting two similar things and being contradictory. You COULD have tried to sac wildvine. As scum, I would make the same kind of effort that you did against wildvine. I wouldn't have made the kind of effort GoW did. I'm not saying you did. Nor am I saying that it is evidence. What I'm saying is that yours isn't concrete enough, and GoW's actions ARE. IMO, anyway.
2 The "I'm innocent" defense is just like a weak explanation for something. It's like if I were to find a motive for some action, and then the response being "it's not that at all". I more honestly prefer "I can see how it looks like that, but it's not", or "I wanted to lynch the person, but I didn't vote because I was fine with lynching the player who was already more likely to get voted"....etc etc. Using an excuse that wasn't even mentioned at the time of the non-vote-confirmation (basically when someone should acknowledge why they are not voting for a particular person) always comes off to me as an escape. That may not be the case in your opinion, but it looks like it. But again, this is a tell, not evidence. I think that maybe you'd be upset by me mentioning it at all or offering conjecture based on something that you think is impossible (given your objection to my "possible cop" assertion), but I think it's important to mention the possibilities so that they may be sorted through efficiently. Also, I apologize if I said that you voted, I simply meant that you could have. Your point that it was too small of a time period is evidence that is important to note, just as it is important to note that you COULD HAVE done it.
3 I said, "I don't think you should focus on them simply because they are on your "not to lynch" list, but you should read them anyway". It was in a response to a post that you said you were going to vote for one of the two people, and would read them later. Sorry if that was confusing for you. I may have misremembered the two people that you referred to in your previous post, but by any means, you should have not "misunderstood" the reply in the first place. "Don't try to lynch people simply because you don't want to lynch OTHER people, but please read them anyhow" in response to "I'm willing to lynch X and Y, I will have to re-read them and make a decision" (or something like that).
I don't think you've actually explained why you trust Heph. You've even made it a point to say that he should be lynched at some point. The only reason I'm not willing to lynch him today is simply because he BETTER HAVE some good information tomorrow. If he pulls any of this crap again, like getting vague information, etc, it's perma-vote time.
"but I'm not going to try to lynch you just to confirm or most likely infirm the existence of an RB." Ok, I'll take your previous point that I COULD be lynched to gain information as simply mentioning the obvious and NOT testing the lynch water.
Again, Linkz, I just don't understand what's going on with you and Heph this game. It's like you've both clearly forgotten what subtle differences are. Like, earlier when I mentioned that the last person to do this (not explicitly stated, but 'not read their pm and claim it in the thread') was mafia, and then you said it was yourself last game, to which I had to point out the difference. You had never claimed it day 1 last game.
IN this recent case, you are comparing my own pool narrowing to yours. I'M not lynching people because I think they're town. You said you weren't lynching some people because you wanted to give them time. I see a difference in motivation there. Of course, I now think that it is more relevant to lynch FF in place of Heph because Heph could be what he says he is and I should give him at least a day to prove himself, but I'm not trying to lynch someone because there is nobody else I want to lynch at the moment, but because I've already suspected FF for a while now. It's not the other way around (decide who not to lynch, THEN suspect; it was Suspect, then decide who to lynch). Again, I think that's a significant difference.
