I think your case was manipulative in the sense that you used false or very weak points to inflate it. I pointed them out immediately, and also FOSed everyone who bought the case I found it so weak.
I didn't find those points weak, and really didn't intend to inflate a case with them. They were parts of the case. There were minor things, but my scumhunting techniques relies on adding together many small parts. The more small scummy parts in place, the more I can see that player being scum.
A fair portion rests in you pushing for Cuzz' lynch while voting for Jimmmmm. Your two-pronged assault, both with weak reasoning, is such a scummy thing to me. It reads to me so much like someone who is being proactively defensive. Set town up with a couple targets hammer-em all day long with suspicion and surely my team will get off scott-free. This is the manipulation, which I see in your play. This is why you look so much like scum to me.
This is a fair point; I have often looked at people arguing two cases at once and said that they were scummy. The problem for me during day1 was that I kept looking at Cuzz, and then at Jimmmm, and they were really sitting at virtually the same mental scumscore. You often write things in terms of some sort of scumscore; I mean, what do you do when two people are up at 45 and nobody's talking about anything that feels substantial (at the point I started those cases, i think the deal with Eevee was the biggest thing).
It was definitely possible that one or both of those cases is wrong, so I wrote both cases and voted for Jimmm as I felt like he was at a 45.2 compared to Cuzz's 45. Then plenty of people disagreed with the Jimmm case, so I kept looking at it and was asking myself "hmmm, is this maybe not as strong as I thought it was? How is it me and other people are getting very different opinions of Jimmm?" I've said before that I'm a decisive scumhunter, and that is definitely true. But I also reevaluate my reads quite often. (Jimmmm is sitting between slighttown and neutral right now).
But the case on Cuzz really took off in some people's eyes (still not in others, but I don't remember a case that hasn't had any detractors. There always be detractors.) and they really seemed to be agreeing with the points I had laid out. That case felt like it was definitely on scum, and I gained much misplaced confidence.
Also, I really hate arguments of the sort "if we didn't do it there would never be a lynch". These are bad arguments full of fallacy. In this particular case the fallacy is clearly in the "manipulative = convincing" which is not true.
This was the fallacy I thought I was exposing. But it seems you mean manipulative in a different way and you explained that well. When I heard that my case was manipulative, it just sounded like people were upset that they were "convinced" by a case that ended up being on town, so they were blaming me for being "manipulative."
It might be true that you weren't trying to be manipulative. But it is my opinion, based on the information I have (i.e. your actual arguments and the way you approached them) that you were trying to manipulate town in a certain direction (presumably away from yourself and any team-mates).
In one sense, you're completely right. I WAS trying to cause town to move in a certain direction...in that I thought Cuzz was a great lynch and wanted to make that happen. This is where I come across the deal with manipulation =/= convincing; I was definitely working to *convince* town to move in a certain direction. Absolutely. But that direction isn't away from me or my hypothetical teammates, it was towards a lynch that I felt very sure would be successful. And in this regard every scumhunter is trying to convince people of their reads.