↑ Tammy wrote:I don't think that Shadoweh is really all that easy to read early game, and if she's scum it should start becoming evident in a couple days. But, my first thought is Post 328 followed up by Post 329 comes from town. Her arguments against CTD look natural enough; I don't have any particular thoughts on CTD though, so I'll look back at that later.
Do you consider distortion of facts natural? Several things she's accusing me off are straight up BS: I am neither the player with the lowest amount of posting, nor am I lurking, and to say that I "haven't changed my reads for the entirety of D1" is not only hyperbolic, as the entirety of D1 hasn't even happened yet, but also not accurate.
Shadoweh wrote:If it helps you did the same thing he's accusing you of in #189, start off by re-itterating you still have scumreads on the same two people, end by reminding people you still totally suspect the guy your vote is on, and frankly all three of your suspicions reasons look skin-deep.
My suspicions were plenty good enough for page 13 of a large game. You can also explain why you have a problem with voicing suspicions of other players while expressing dissatisfaction with the defense of the person you're voting for.
Shadoweh wrote:Empire's post was self-reflective because he was answering the question I asked him about himself.
You are now defending the person who was at the time your one and only suspect. The post in question did not give you any pause in your attack against him, so it stands to reason that at the
Shadoweh wrote:Summing up my reasoning for attacking Empire as BoP is simplistic and in my opinion wrong.
I will give you this. Your attack against Empire was not
Shadoweh wrote:I don't have any proof to directly counteract the wagon, therefore I have been attempting to pursue the lead elsewhere that I saw to try and drive up a different wagon. You'll have to explain to me what else exactly I should have been doing to counteract a wagon I was never on. That comment above is perfectly consistent with what I said earlier, null, uninterested, not worth looking at, but no concrete reason to trust.
Ways to counteract a wagon:
1. Disagree with the wagon
2. Mount a counterwagon
You did not disagree with the wagon. What you said instead in post 258 boils down to "I don't have a read on Llamarble, but if he flips town I totally called it", which is playing it safe on top of being wishy-washy.
Shadoweh wrote:I think the weirdest thing about your post though, is that after those three statements, you end up changing votes to N, the person that frankly you had the least and weakest things to say about.
I initially had a vote on you and pre-edited it to N when I saw Vi had voted him, putting him ahead. I am perfectly willing to compromise on a weaker suspicion if it increases the chance of a wagon actually taking place.
-------------
Your case against me is terrible and your quality of scumhunting/post count ratio is abysmal. Please let me know if you're planning on continuing to tunnel me so I can ignore you for the time being. Kthxbai.