This is obscenely pessimistic of you. No-one here is clueless enough to make that sort of move when it's been EXPLICITLY said not to do it.
No one? Really? I could easily see a less experience player doing it when faced with a compelling roleclaim or something.
Define sincerity.
I think you think you're making a good case. Somehow.
Which makes you okay with seeing me lynched? That I'm relatively townie excusing some tunneling?
If there are no better leads, yes. When there are no good leads, it's still in the best interest of the town to lynch. When there are fewer good leads than there are convenient lynch opportunities, it's in the best interest of the town to lynch the good leads as well as some not-so-good ones. Do you disagree with this?
Compare this to:You've jumped again, from 'I don't see any reason not to lynch him' to 'I only want to lynch him if we have no other options'. Huh?
Well, isn't that implicit? If there's no reason not to lynch someone, then you lynch him if there are no better options. See my point just above.
You're missing the problem. I never at any point said that he had to break up the argument - what the problem was is that he had no opinion on either side of the debate whatsoever. That isn't constructive townie play, and his ever-changing opinions on PvR aren't helping him.
Alright, I'm getting a little sick of having my neutrality towards Pesco being misconstrued as a lack of opinion. Your case is that Pesco is scummy. My
response is that your case is not compelling, and Pesco doesn't look scummy. You claim that if I hold this view, I
must necessarily break up your argument,
here. I
held that it was early in the day, so I didn't mind if you pressed each other and looked for scumtells. You seemed to have a problem comprehending this point, 'cause I've been reiterating it for the last few pages and haven't made any progress on you.
Now, I'd like you to stop here for a moment and consider how many other people apparently found your case on Pesco unconvincing. You asked for people to give their opinions, and I was one of the few that spoke up and explicitly said so. Meanwhile, I was pressing my own cases, though that got derailed pretty quickly by the thread becoming your personal venue for tunneling on me.
So then, you claimed that there was a contradiction in me not finding Pesco scummy, and not minding if he got lynched. See the point above where I state the obvious, that when you've got more potential lynches than targets, it's better to use your extra lynches than to waste them. I've still not seen you argue against this point.
Now, you seem to be saying that I'm constantly contradicting myself, using as evidence... posts that don't contradict each other at all. Here, this has been my stance consistently through the day:
Pesco isn't any more or less scummy than the average player. We have a multi-lynch option, and only 2 especially scummy players, so any third lynch is better than none, including Pesco. Before you claim that I'm changing my stance, or contradicting myself, or whatever, can you
please actually look for a line that contradicts this point of view?
Moving on!
So making a bad case in order to provide reactions is apparently okay?
In the first hours of the first day, yes! Absolutely! There are no good cases to be had from the start, so you make bad ones, and see whether your target panics or screws up or says something interesting. You then take that stuff and use it to make a good case. Isn't this basic early game strategy? Isn't this exactly what happens in every game?
Why do you instantly assume that your three lynches are the ones everyone agrees on? Alert has a history of struggling to find time for the game, so I'm willing to give him until Day 2 to pick up.
That's great, but Nietz wasn't. 48 hours of inactivity means a modkill or a replacement. If things had continued as they were, Mr Alert would've been replaced or modkilled 5 hours before the deadline. Even now, if he stays in the game and disappears later, he's a liability. The modkill of UK last game may well have cost the innocents the win, and donut dropping out earlier contributed to the Zaknut mislynch. I'm waiting on him to convince us that he's not going to be a burden.
And I'm not assuming that everyone agrees with me - I'm definitively making a statement about who I find suspicious. You know, the thing you've been claiming I have trouble doing this whole game? This is what really bothers me - all day, you've criticized me for being wishy washy, despite the fact that I've just been scumhunting different targets than you. Now, I lay down a solid list of who I want to lynch, and you
criticize me for it? You're the one that needs to answer for some contradictions, here.
I will say this one last time, just because it's been argued to death already: I don't care if it isn't why you voted him or why you maintained your vote, making a poor point isn't good in any case.
See my point above about all early cases. Also, considering that you've completely dropped the Pesco angle that got us here in the first place, are you conceding that your point against him was poor as well? 'Cause that's what I've held from the beginning, you know.
This has to be some sort of emotional fallacy right here.
Uh, what? Are you referring to the italicized part specifically, where I point out that Zakeri ought to know about such an obvious scumtell? Which he then agreed with?
Still, at the moment Serpentarius's inability to have an opinion on a case, and then coming up with about five different views when pressed is particularly annoying.
Please, show me where I've contradicted the underlined statement up above if you're going to continue holding this point. Your criteria for "different view" appears to be limited to "different word choice."
he's tunneling pretty badly on KY - here he basically says 'KY is finally making sense but I'm voting him anyway'. Huh?
Does one comprehensible post excuse the crap he was spewing earlier? His defense of his earlier actions boils down to nothing more than "Yeah, that was pretty bad, huh?" That's not a defense. It's a plea to be lynched.
