Teproc you are missing my points. yuma asked for evidence of his being aggressive when suspected. That's why I provided it. I don't think it makes him scummy, and I said so. I think he uses that to keep from being accused and I am pointing it out to town b/c if he is scum that is a powerful defense if not recognized. I voted for yuma, but most of those posts were my defense against his attack, not my case against him.
Ok.
My vote on Eevee is not OMGUS. Day 1 he hadn't suspected me at all. And his post feeling staged was what I was trying to show. Also, I felt he misrepresented me and I said so.
How did he misrepresent you ? By saying you haven't done anything towny ? That's not what I'd call misrepresenting. It might not be true (it depends on how you judge your day 1 suspicions), but it's not misrepresenting (which is way scummier to me).
So you thought his post felt staged. Ok, but why try to buff up your case artificially by making several points out of it ? Either it's a good enough reason to vote, or it's not. I don't think it is, which brings me to think you have another reason. This could be trying to get a wagon going on Eevee because he's an easy target, for example.
Basically, this is the second time this game you've voted for Eevee for very weak reasons. I can accept that day 1, not so much day 2.
The post where I backed up yuma's decision to mention the similarity with Theorel comes later (see below). And show me what else besides that he includes in his "case"? Later he brings up my vote on Eevee, but that's not in the post he where he votes me. I've bolded the actions on my part that he says led him to make this post: I had a middling read on Robz, wondered about the wagon, and suspected Eevee who had defended Robz. That's it.
First of all, I think your defense against that case was very problematic. Reducing it to "I did this and this and that, things that happen every game" is not an adequate response. An adequate response is to justify your actions, not to say that they don't matter.
But most importantly, yuma has definitely added things to his day 1 case, you even adressed them. Saying yuma is still relying on his day 1 case when he clearly has other stuff to say (regardless of their value), isn't THAT misrepresenting ?
There's also something else I find problematic in your defense. In this game, you've said that it would be risky for scum to have townreads. Here's the quote :
But I am also noticing his having strong town reads, which in a small game would be risky for scum. They want any mislynch they can get, and having strong town reads burns bridges.
Now yuma uses this against you, and here's your response :
Regarding the scumminess of having many suspicions and not stating any townreads, you are deciding to see that as scummy by imagining a scenario in which it could be.
It seems to me that this scenario he's imagining is one you've adhered to yourself.
Again, yuma's case is not that convincing to me, but your defense is making it seem a lot better.