That's a lot of pretty unnecessary vitriol. Is that a Chainsaw Defense I hear revving up?
Only about me and Smithers, which simultaneously says that I defended myself adequately and implicitly condemns me.
I only said you defended yourself adequately later, and I've already explained the confusion of "Tony defended himself but is still suspect" in Post 155.
Your so-called 'case' against Oddjob is "Yeah, but ehhhhhh" and ends with you bashing Smithers.
My case against Oddjob was "Yeah but ehhhhh" because, while they did similar things (switching off someone that hadn't defended themselves to a flipped townie), Oddjob's was done under greater time pressure. There was a larger chance of you returning before the deadline when Smithers switched than the Weasels returning before the deadline when Oddjob switched. This makes Oddjob's switch, while still suspect, less suspect than Smithers'.
Defense of Whim is the second half the post, not bothering to post it because I don't want to clutter the topic anymore than necessary. Other than that, an admission that there is a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes a vote switching followed by a saying that because the Prinnies are innocent that Smithers changing a vote to them makes him scummy.
I've already gone over this in Post 172. Since you missed it completely (or conveniently left it out I honestly don't know), I'll go into further detail, including explaining core game mechanics that
should be self-evident but apparently are not or some reason (or maybe they are and are just being intentionally ignored).
You are scummy for changing your vote from someone despite them not giving you reason to onto a townie. The only times changing a vote like that is remotely excusable are early Day 1, and the end of the day when time is very short, or in the face of an outside cop claim or other bizarre role circumstances. If we gave everyone a free pass to change their mind willy-nilly scum would be impossible to find.
Why is this vote-move scummy? Because, without your input on why you shouldn't be voted for, there is absolutely nothing to suggest Smithers ever seriously held the opinion that you were scummy at all. There is nothing to suggest that he didn't just throw a vote down on you for the sake of looking like he was participating. Contributing but not really and active lurking is certainly scummy, you agree yes? This is why such an action cannot be given a pass - if we did then no one would be accountable for their early day opinions and scum could throw out whatever garbage they wanted just to look helpful.
More defense of Whim, absolutely weak arguments for Weasels/Gilgamesh that barely even register as arguments, um, wow.
Thank you for explaining why they are bad! It gives me something to respond to.
I can see why one might think the Gilgamesh argument is weak. In retrospect, it would have been better phrased as "active lurking". I don't know what is wrong with the Weasel one, though. If you want to know why they've moved up my list, well, they haven't posted since.
Actually if the ENTIRE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST A PERSON is a sprawling conspiracy theory that involves taking your vote off someone you never wanted to lynch because the two are actually in cahoots, I would think that that second person should be pretty high on your radar. Because there is nothing that makes Axem's vote make any sense at all without the context of evil intent.
The basis of my argument is Smithers' actions, not yours. It is still possible you're town and he did it just to tie himself to you should he ever get voted off. This possibility is why you are so low on my list. It is also quite possible, however, that he was faking a spat with a buddy earlier in the day before moving away, which is why you are on the list at all.
The last bit of non-Smithers commentary on others that exists.
Nothing to really say here aside from finding this statement amusing in conjunction with my being chastised earlier for not pushing for Smithers enough.
If you didn't say anything positive about a single player then well it would be both stupid and scummy. My problem is that "I forgot this player is in the game" and "Yeah, but ehh, this person is less bad than SMITHERS!" are really
really
really weak arguments. If you suspect that many people, then you should bloody well justify it.
Weasels: Grand total of one Day 2 post (and a bad one at that), next-to-no contribution Day 1.
Gilgamesh: Active lurking.
Oddjob: Doing the vote switch dance Smithers did.
Aside from the second Weasel bit, I'm pretty sure I mentioned all of these at one point or another.
And no, your justification for voting for me being SMITHERS' BFF is not a good enough argument for a fucking conspiracy theory. "No, I don't suspect you for anything you did, I just think you're scum anyway because Smithers changed his vote away from you."
Hopefully this has been explained better in this post, but Jesus you sure are riled up considering you were actually in the lower half of my game-wide suspicion list.
In other words you are fixated on Smithers based on a disagreement on what constitutes a vote change. Your main arguments on what's going on outside of Smithers consist of condemning people who vote for Whim by arguing 'scummy intent' lurks behind arguing against her and that you don't understand why anyone would bash someone who has not done a single thing wrong (such as never be around and make weak, cursory arguments and drive a train on A TOWNIE!!!!!!! and voting for Weasel based off uhhh saving himself!). You argue that your reason for distrusting Gilgamesh is lack of content (or as you put it "player-I-forgot-was-in-the-game") in the game when the person you so vehemently defend has one post the entire day that is based on voting a player off Day 1 silliness + voting to save himself.
The first part of this is hilariously wrong, but that's been explained already. The Whim thing...people kept going "Whim isn't contributing" in regards to her Day 1 posts when uh in fact she actually was! And oh hey I go over that in Posts 132 and 136 and no one bothered showing me why I was wrong! The best effort was yours and you made zero effort to address my statement that her Day 1 contributions were fine. Gilgamesh had a notably smaller quality-to-quantity ratio and thus was deserving of whatever lurker calls he got.
---
There are only about 35 minute before deadline, however, and it doesn't seem the Smithers case will take.
##Unvote: Smithers
##Vote: Weasel SquadFor previously stated reasons, which can be found in this post, Post 146 and, to a lesser extent, Post 159.
