Re: #1590 --
Munch's post was absolutely defending Grujah.
Having looked through I have 2 things to say about Grujah. First, he doesn't really come off to me as scummy in the way hes been talking. That being said, there hasn't been much information about grujah from earlier, aka, this is exactly what ehalc feared when we were discussing lynching for information; everyone is jumping on grujah to get a lynch but there will be nothing gained from it, as some seem to have little reason (see: he is the scummiest of the people that have the most votes that I'd be willing to get on). My vote will stay where it is.
The defense is:
1. doesn't come off as scummy
2. lynch gives no info
And in the process of giving that defense, Munch misrepresents my positions. Not to mention:
PS I find it interesting that ehalc mentioned that if people just vote for someone to get them to die, we gain no information because everyone has an excuse. Yet ehalc is voting for grujah. I know he voiced different reasons for doing so but I just find it interesting.
Here, Munch seems to talk about me with a lot of suspicion, but his reasons are non-reasons. He even admits it -- "I know he voiced different reasons".
But back to the top part, Munch definitely gives a defense. It is not a super strong defense, sure. But that just makes it seem scummier -- it's hedgy like "I need a way out if he is killed and flips scum".
Munch is right that in #1458, Munch voices lack of read on Grujah rather than town read. But that's not my argument here. Munch does indeed defend Grujah (in a distanced, noncommittal way), and #1458 is just more "this wagon is too fast, maybe we should slow down".
Munch's last paragraph in #1590 also looks bad to me. He brings up yuma's vote again (that he voted to wagon) even though yuma addressed that point the first time it was brought up. It feels like Munch is trying to misrepresent yuma, and I feel that this is a pattern with him as he has done the same with me repeatedly.
Re: #1596 --
ehunt's vote is somewhat explained in #1246 (I see that ehunt has already posted this). I believe the "wars" he refers to were in choosing a lurker to lynch. ehunt has explained why he sympathized with Glooble.
yuma's reason for voting is misrepresented -- he clarified afterwards that he did indeed find Grujah scummy.
Galzria's initial reason in #1386 is eclipsed by the much better case he pulled together later on.
My case was not just beating on him for lurkiness -- it was the starting point for the major lynch case, the base for Galz's expansion.
And re: #1599, Cuzz quoted my own reasons for voting Grujah, thus implicitly agreeing with them.
Munch is looking entirely the wrong way. His reaction so far on this day reads to me as: "people on the wagon didn't have amazingly convincing reasons for voting Grujah, therefore we should not regard it as useful info at all."
The thing is, there are almost never amazingly convincing reasons. The reasons each person gave are the reasons we typically get from any lynch. The reasons are certainly far more telling than "this lynch will be informative", as advocated by Munch earlier. I feel my argument was good, and when Galzria pointed out that he had lurked-and-returned more than once, I thought it cemented the case.
Given that Grujah did in fact flip scum, off-wagon is the place to look next (and in case I need to spell it out -- no, I don't think the wagon is automatically cleared, but they certainly have more town cred than those opposing).
The question du jour is: who was not in favour of the Grujah lynch and why? That's what I looked into in #1585. Why doesn't Munch want to do the same? In #1590 Munch offers a weak (IMO) defense of himself in response to my case. Why not comment on the numerous others I pointed the finger at? Why is he so intent on focusing attention on the
successful wagon?