Run down of events... I am going to try to keep commentary out of it, but that might be hard, so people can look at it and see what they think....
I
vote for robz saying "I know Robz is somewhat VLA, but he still gets my vote. If he were in my shoes I think he would agree as he is totally for LALL..." and "Robz 1. is in that group of players 2. Lurking, which I think day1 is more scummy than townie, even with his VLA 3. had the most votes on him (or now has the most votes on him), and at this stage we need to get some wagons going so we can get that precious information you are so interested in to analyze later."
I then shortly
leave the Robz wagon for eevee because at that time I was more interested in the eevee wagon than the robz (they were both LALL in my book)
Eventually we get a point where Robz says he
has intent to hammer Ahoppy when Ahoppy is at L-1. Voltaire points out a
discrepancy between robz's actions and rob's words. Robz responds by saying:
And Eevee is the other wagon (and there's not enough traction for Teproc or chairs). So don't know why the surprise.
I mean it's like him or no one at this point.
To which
I vote him... I explain that vote
here, saying that it was "more visceral and less logical" and that since it was based off a
contradiction it wasn't all that scummy once I thought about it. Anyways... Robz racks up about 4 votes and I
unvote and move to teproc.
As part of that process I still say that I have a
suspicion of Robz but that I preferred
Ahoppy, Eevee or Teproc over him.
Now we are getting into the meat of it:
Robz says this:
Okay yuma, here's how I read your actions.
-- You profess to find me kind of scummy for meta reasons.
-- You vote for me after I do something that you later admit is perfectly sensible.
-- A wagon builds on me, you get off, proclaiming the case is bad.
-- You reiterate suspicion for me based on earlier reasons but want someone else lynched but are keeping your eye on me.
Surely you have to admit, the most plausible reason for those actions is that you are scum. You wanted to have a sucmread on someone not getting lynched, you wanted to be casting a vote for that person, you didn't want to be on that mislynch wagon that would be terrible for your credibility, but then you wanted to make note of our continued suspicion. Despite not wanting that lynch.
Could this be a townie narrative? Yes, but really you must admit it looks bad, you know?
He lists the things I did and then says the most plausible reason is that I am scum and creates a long rambling "narrative" for why it is scummy in a way that ultimately ends up at the conclusion of "it looks bad, you know?" He admits it could be a town narrative--but doesn't actually look to see if it could be... you know... someone who is trying to figure out if he is town? Maybe? Nah... Why even consider that? How did you know you weren't getting lynched? How did I know that? You still had about 4 votes on you and could have easily been lynched. Do I want to be voting for you or not? Do I want you lynched or not? Is it bad to have suspicion of someone but realize that they might not be the best lynch for that particular day?
Anyways... to all of this I say:
Then vote for me...
I won't admit that it looks bad (that is your opinion) I am doing what I am doing at any given time what I think is best to find scum. I am not interested in looking townie to you and I really don't see anything wrong with what I did above... Nor should I given my alignment because even if there is any validity to your logic (which there might be, but I am not too interested in that) the logic arrives at a faulty conclusion so therefore it must be wrong.
Because I am not interested in having an argument where he has already established that I am scum. He didn't even consider... or showed no effort aside from saying "Could this be a town narrative"... of looking at it from a townie narrative. So why should I respond to something if he provides nothing to respond to. I know it isn't a scummy narrative because I know I am not scum. If you want to argue about whether a particular point is scummy, ok, and I feel like I do just that and say "I am doing what I am doing at any given time what I think is best to find scum" and was very clear and focused on my points when I voted and unvoted earlier about my train of thought.
I also said:
Surely you have to admit, the most plausible reason for those actions is that you are scum.
One part of your logic I will comment on is that it lacks a step of showing what I did and why "scummy" is the most plausible explanation... there isn't any step there. You jump from listing statements to making a conclusion without explaining how you got to that point.
To which Robz never responds. This is what he says about the subject through day1...
Yuma, I was disappointed not to even get an acknowledgement that the scum!narrative for your actions was stronger than the town!narrative.
Wow...
I then come into day2 saying:
And I should say that Robz's attempts to discredit me for various yesterday is where I stand with him are exactly how I expect scum robz to attempt to deal with someone who is threatening him as scum.
which is true. It is what Robz as scum does. He picks a fight and tries to get into an argument with that person with the ultimate goal of getting them lynched down the road (kinda what he is accusing me of doing to him here) because note that until just now Robz never voted for me for the above... he just accused me and discredited me to hopefully make people trust my voice less. It is exactly what he did with voltaire when voltaire was onto him and his scummates.
He responds to this saying the following:
And I should say that Robz's attempts to discredit me for various yesterday is where I stand with him are exactly how I expect scum robz to attempt to deal with someone who is threatening him as scum.
Oh, how dare you. I did NO such thing. What you did yesterday was remarkably scummy, right or wrong. And you didn't take one iota of heat for it.
if it was so scummy how come you weren't able to actually show that it was and how come no one else, which includes about 7 townies out there, haven't agreed with you?
and then says
"Yuma thinks he doesn't have to be held accountable for scummy things he does--and that it's discrediting him if you try." which as I already said is something that I never said nor meant to imply. I am just saying that until something is shown to actually be scummy--and I don't think it was and neither did anyone else apparently because they didn't jump on it like they wanted you to--I don't see any reason to say something is scummy just because you say it is. You have to show why it is scummy... and yeah... even then I am probably not going to think it is scummy.
Author
Topic: MXXXVII - Diffusion of Power (Mafia win flawlessly) (Read 143565 times)