Okay
Delta, let's stand back and get a better view at what's gone on. (for reference, if people haven't noticed it yet, if I bold something that isn't a name then chances are it's to emphasise a hyperlink)
On the very first day of play, you jump on a joke vote in a 'lightning strikes twice' bid. Now, you've always got to find some path from joke phase to serious phase, but you think
schnwtfhisname is "probably scummy" based on that? That's awfully certain of you. Not content with that, you try to muddy the water some more by tagging
Andrew with suspicion on
completely false charges, seemingly based on the shallow end of the joke phase at that. Wait, what.
Cid then
points out both of these issues within a matter of a few posts, and
expands on the inquiry and votes for you before the [real-life] day is out. As of
Andrew then
defending himself, questioning and voting for you, it seems like time to put up or shut up, right?
Wrong. Your
next post tries to retroactively justify it on the grounds of personal attacks. In fact it reads 'you've told me to vote for people I don't like, so this time I've voted for you, and now you've personally attacked me because of it so I like you even less and so my vote stays where it is'. So here we see you claiming that you've voted for
Andrew because you don't like him. Okay. So the first reasons were groundless excuses then, right? Well, what's more interesting is that
Andrew never attacked you personally in any way. His post was entirely defensive other than asking you to justify yourself. So at this point you've gained further resolution against
Andrew, a third groundless reason for it, and you've neatly started to set yourself up as the 'hapless victim'. And just for flourish, you twist the knife further into
schnwtfhisname ("Seiriously, you cant expect me to beleive that you are currently town.") whilst calling serious lynch trains a bad thing [at that point], and call for more attention to be paid to lurkers and for the active people to stop attacking each other so much, before immediately reaffirming your vote for
schnwtfhisname.
Cid calls you out on your latest fake reason for being suspicious of
Andrew,
closely followed by the man himself. A bit later I finally start to calm down and
point out half of the flourish (scroll to the last quote in the post), even though
Silver has compelled my attention at the time, but I'm not adding any pressure, having preceded that by saying that things only felt 'slightly off'. Surely it's time to set the record straight and make amends.
Oh, but that would be far too easy. Your
next post totally disregards any outstanding queries on your head. The case building on
schnwtfhisname has collapsed (
Silver taking the flak for that - bonus!), and it's looking incredibly unlikely that anyone's getting lynched before the modkills. I'm not going to claim it's outright scummy, but I'm not going to let you claim that showing up and voting for a random lurker who's never going to get lynched is a town sign.
Andrew makes a
third attempt to get you to talk. This is now a good two and a half days after your initial comments.
You're quick to talk, that's for sure.
Within quarter of an hour of [game] day two starting you've raced out of the gates and immediately on to pinning the conversation on to
Silver. The night phase lasted 17 1/2 hours, so you're not going to convince me that you just didn't see
Andrew's previous comment on top of somehow missing all of the others.
Oh, but you've lost it by this point. Not
one, not
two, but the next
three posts all call you on this, and the language is strong at this point ("extremely scummy" and "no excuses" to pick a few). Worse than that, other people are starting to turn your way, in the form of
Schnwtfhisname (
here) and
Remo (
here). It must be time to talk now, surely?
Yes! You finally
come back (off topic for a second, but it's post 33333) with a, uhhh... startlingly bad argument. 'I have absolutely no material to base my suspicion on, but I've got a feeling, so I'll use that to make stuff up, and use whatever I can along the way to justify it further' (you never placed a vote, so you can claim whenever you like as the point when you stopped being particularly suspicious of
Andrew (this is part of why it's scummy), but it goes at least as far as the point where you backed up your suspicion with the 'personal attack') and 'I evaded it for the good of the town' is a mix of just brushing it off and being outright wrong. What's that, two lines and you have cold feet? Well then, I guess it's best that you immediately deflect as much attention from this lack of an answer with more finger-pointing at other people.
First I, and
soon after Andrew, express our dissatisfaction with this. By this point my patience for 'maybe it's just a stupid but honest mistake' has run thin, and I follow that up
announcing that you're my top suspect among other lynch candidates. I keep my rationale short as not to horribly bias a post that was supposed to be relatively balanced, but still gets through a good few reasons.
Andrew's gone MIA at this point (I am surprised that he hasn't wanted in on any of this in the last few days), but
Cid still
doesn't buy it, even if
zooyork is drawing more attention. It takes
another push from me before you talk again, which I will give you the benefit of the doubt on with regards to the gap in the posts there.
And now into recent times:
Xanth, I do believe that I DID reply to Andrew as you misinformed people on page 4...
You did indeed
reply. That's a good old piece of misleading truth for you there. What you didn't do was in any way justify your actions before or after. You damn well know why three of us have been pointing at you for the best part of the game so far, so don't be cute and tell us that we've already found what we're looking for.
Considering roleclaiming, probably only way to get xanth off my back because his current arguement against me is just... ewww...
I don't like this gambit. I don't like this gambit at all.
zooyork is in so much more trouble than you are at this point, so you must know that someone is going to call you out of it. It seems so simply geared to threatening and implying that you have a safe role without having to strain yourself in actually making one (with the option of going through with it if needed). At best this is honest and your goal would be damaging for absolutely no reason at all, and at worst it is actively dodgy. What, are you trying to confuse me between wanting to lynch you for being scummy and wanting to lynch you for being a bad town player? Because that's the one act of sabotage you might actually succeed in.
I havent defended myself? That arguement smacks ever so slightly of 'hurr durr, hes the easiest lynch' no offense intended.
Really amping up the 'hapless victim' at this point. I don't take kindly to the implications here, but thorough research and this post is what you get for baiting me like this. If you're going to call my argument petty, then you'd better be sure that it is. And, as I mentioned at the time, like hell are you the easiest lynch in that pile.
At that very point I could have hammered
zooyork, not looked ridiculously bad for it (had I not made the note at -3 to hammer, which I wouldn't have done if that had been my point), and started day 3 by pointing the blame at you or
Disland then.
And in your latest post we have another
Delta special 'hit and run' evasions:
The reason i put my vote off of disland is because i would rather lynch a person who is scum than a person that isnt contributing. He may be a scummy lurker but to be honest... with no nightkills and only a few lynches heading into day three, we really do have nothing to go on at the moment.
Again, only bothering to issue one aspect of the inquiries on you, and again, with a really bad reasoning behind it. 'I'd rather lynch scum than a lurker, but we don't have anyone scummy to vote for,' once again cunningly retroactively justified by a new
Silver train to follow.
Disland deserved a vote or two to pressure some talking out of him, but days later and nothing you decide that it's better to vote for no one when there's no one sufficiently scummy around. Not the suspicious lurkers, not some other train of suspicion, but no one. How does this make any sense in any way? Let's also sit here and throw your line "we really do have nothing to go on at the moment" back at how you initially came so strongly on to
schnwtfhisname and
Andrew for considerably worse reasoning, and have spent the rest of this post in blatant 'me too-ism' in attacking
Silver. Again, you've spent a very small time alluding to defending a small portion of the inquiries on your head before spending the rest of the post diverting attention elsewhere.
So let's see (aka tl;dr):
-came on strongly to a joke vote for [unsurprisingly] poor reasoning.
-threw out strong suspicion on
Andrew for
false charges based primarily on a joke post.
-repeatedly ignored calls for justification, even with votes cast on you.
-repeatedly, and sometimes went out of your way to, threw the suspicion/discussion away from you.
-first reply to the charges took the defensive 'I'm being picked on here' and picked up a
further false charge against
Andrew to justify the suspicion, whilst dropping just short of
admitting that your first claims were disingenuous.
-second reply was little better than 'everything I've done is bad for town'.
-further replies offer no more than that you've already covered everything, when you've covered nothing.
-threatened to roleclaim in a hideously stupid position for it.
-belittled the arguments against you without actually addressing them.
-displayed blatant 'me too-ism' on top of slightly subtler offerings earlier.
Condensed even further, this becomes:
-you've lied
-you've evaded
-you've displayed other mafia traits
-you've admitted to the above
Now tell me, just why shouldn't we be forcing your back to the wall and lynching you right now?
