I believe you. I apologize. I'm just frustrated at that lynch. That was a disgustingly bad lynch.sns 682 wrote:I shouldve unvoted saki. My bad. I believed her claim but was out of town.
No, I counted correctly. However, what Saki was saying didn't make any sense to me. I tried questioning her a couple of times, but she would never respond to me.In post 680, RedCoyote wrote:Ruff, you need to seriously answer for yourself and if you say you didn't count then I think I'll just vote you on general principle.
Wrong.In post 683, RedCoyote wrote:I don't think he would've hid behind Pasch due to 670. I was under the impression that Snarky was trying to hide behind scum. It's most likely he hid behind Aegor as Aegor and Saki were his biggest scumreads per 652. Pasch and Rufflig both dropped as scumreads for him. He explained why for Pasch, but not for Rufflig.
He had to hide behind someone next to his node - he was subject to the 1 node distance limitation. Neither Aegor nor myself could have been his target. It's either SC or Pasch. I'm going to have to reread both of them.In post 569, Snarky wrote:I can hide behind either StrangerCoug and Paschendale (RC and sns are conftown). If I die, one of them is scum, if I survive, I claim who that person was and that person is conftown.
Abbreviate my name correctly, please.In post 693, Aegor wrote:SG led the wagon on cx, which would be bussing hardcore.
Well then I guess you're scum. We'll get to you after Rufflig.In post 686, StrangerCoug wrote:He and I are the only options today. The other people next to Snarky are confirmed.
I re-evaluated my positions based on new information and claims. Why exactly should I not have done this?In post 693, Aegor wrote:Pasch is pretty obviously scum. SG led the wagon on cx, which would be bussing hardcore. Pasch's trajectory on CX is awful. He goes from null-town to scum with no explanation, but holds off (admittedly!!!!) on voting him until it is clear that the lynch is inevitable, q.v. his posts leading up to 517
Your question presupposes the accuracy of the preceding sentence. Re-evaluation is always good. I simply find it more likely, given the lack of trajectory and the lack of explanation for scumreading cxinlee, that you are his buddy, indicating suspicion but holding off the wagon until the lynch was certainly going through. Do not act like my interpretation is baseless; we both know it is not.In post 695, Paschendale wrote:I re-evaluated my positions based on new information and claims. Why exactly should I not have done this?
