My goodness you're frustrating.
1. The question is obvious (that being, "why did you want to lynch Albert?"), and not to mention the first time I asked this question I specifically said "Why did you want to lynch Albert?" Stop pretending simple reading comprehension is a mysterious concept and actually answer the question:
why did you want to lynch Albert Day One
?
2. So your reason to switch from someone who you thought was scummy (Albert) - though the reasons behind that suspicion remain unknown - to another player (wasser) was simply because you thought you might as well as go ahead and bandwagon him to a lynch? Even though you had been professing a lack of confidence in a wasser vote earlier in the game (
195 and
205)? I was asking because it seemed like such a strong break from your previous announcements that didn't think wasser looked scummy and a wasser-lynch looked like a scum excuse to lynch a townie.
Care to explain the sudden turn around, or do you just enjoy lynching townies because it's "inevitable?
"
Xtox wrote:Nice misrep. I never called my, Zwet, or Albert, or anyones play style scummy.
You're right. You
specifically
never said "so-and-so's play is scummy." I never meant to suggest that you made such a bold claim. What I was suggesting is that you were defending someone's play which was perceived to be scummy (
199). You also didn't "like the manner in which [wasser was] being attacked," and he was being attacked because his play style was perceived as scummy. (
205). In fact, you made this explicit defense - that a player's consistently scummy play style is no reason for a lynch because it leads to mislynches - to Gorrad (
247). So, no sir. You're doing the misrepresentation, here. You were talking about play style, and how the "scumminess" of that play style should/shouldn't factor into a vote.
Xtox wrote:Nice misrep. Had nothing to do with playstyle.
This is total crap. See above for how you were clearly discussing play style. And my question originally directed towards you was how you perceived Albert's play style. Which you directly shunned as "pointless" (
334).
So, my question still stands: Why were you happy to discuss wasser's play style, your play style, but not Albert's when I asked? (Hint: This has everything to do with play style.)
Since you answered the original question in your response, I really don't give a crap what reason to this question you would tell me. It's obviously because you have some sort of weird belligerent mentality with a sense of some chip on your shoulder.
Xtox wrote:Nonsensical question. Also invloves a misrep.
Hardly. You didn't give any reasons why you wanted Albert lynched D1. You still haven't. The biggest criticism I saw of him was his play style. Since you wanted Albert killed D1, I assumed you agreed with this criticism. If you did, it would have gone against your adament wasser-lynch because of scummy play hate. But since you helped narrow down your Albert hate (it wasn't because of his play style!), I see that this contradiction does not exist. Therefore, you're less likely to be scummy. A m a z i n g, but true!
Xtox wrote:I don't think your questions were even aimed at me, I think they were an attempt to put me in a bad light.
Apart from the fact that this doesn't make sense, any notion that they put you in "a bad light," in the sense that my questions seemed to start from the position of you being suspicious simply stemmed from the way your actions looked suspicious and so I was questioning the suspiciousness of those suspicious actions.
Suspicious!
tl;dr
, for Xtox specifically: just read the underlined parts. They are my questions that you have chosen to continually refuse to answer.
Would like to see Seraphim expound on his role description a bit more. Still more than comfortable with my vote on him at the moment.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
