w h a tI said I would hammer if we got the votes for you - which we didn't so why vote for somebody who I thought was town?
we had the votes for me at the end
w h a tI said I would hammer if we got the votes for you - which we didn't so why vote for somebody who I thought was town?
where?so what fights have i avoided getting into? if you think i'm selectively picking fights then surely that means you've seen potential fights that i ignored and only went with ones you think i'd think would be easy to win?
i answered this one
he might have reason to be suspected yeah but not reason to believe he was so likely to be lynched today that he should lock his death in for tomorrow. at the time he claimed noone said they'd want to lynch him other than you. i said id be most likely voting you and noone else said anything i dont thinkfog claiming is irrelevant, he had failed to be hammered when he promised to so he already had a reason to be suspected
i dont remember but i basically said it felt like you were avoiding me at first and aqua and hkwhere?
oh, i quoted my response to that as another thing you didnt respond toi dont remember but i basically said it felt like you were avoiding me at first and aqua and hk
wait i didnt say hk but now i think its hk too!
it feels like a symptom of a patternoh, i quoted my response to that as another thing you didnt respond to
where i say that you already said it made sense for me to back down on you, so why do you now disagree? why do you think as town i would continue to tunnel you even though my one point against you was refuted?
i thought it was lynch in one so now my point there whatever it was just evaporatedhe might have reason to be suspected yeah but not reason to believe he was so likely to be lynched today that he should lock his death in for tomorrow. at the time he claimed noone said they'd want to lynch him other than you. i said id be most likely voting you and noone else said anything i dont think
but it doesnt make senseit feels like a symptom of a pattern
i felt like even though aqua had a neutral read you were avoiding calling him out for his wanting to lynch sinners despite the theory at the time being the devil wanted sinners deadand why do you think i was ignoring aqua
i gave a neutral read on him but for you to think thats coming from a scum me rather than a town me, you must think my neutral read was ignoring stuff and it was unreasonable? so why is that?
thats a misrepresentation of what i meantbut it doesnt make sense
if you include symptoms that arent valid when looking at a pattern then your pattern is going to be flawed
the pattern is that i ignored you, aqua and hk
so basically you're saying 'you didnt try to lynch us three, so youre scum!', ignoring whether i maybe just genuinely didnt want to lynch any of you because you were all not my scumreads
if you are somehow town then you have major confirmation bias on me
i told him i didnt agree several timesi felt like even though aqua had a neutral read you were avoiding calling him out for his wanting to lynch sinners despite the theory at the time being the devil wanted sinners dead
i supposei told him i didnt agree several times
unless by 'calling him out' you mean scumreading him for it
in which case, i just didnt scumread him for it, his theory wasnt that the devil wanted sinners dead it was that the devil needed sinners alive, and i was saying that was a bad assumption to make, but we argued over assumptions last game and he was town so it didnt mean much to me
yeah so what youre saying is, i chose not to build cases on people i felt i couldnt get - you, aqua and hkthats a misrepresentation of what i meant
i meant that you only built cases against people you felt could reasonably get
iyeah so what youre saying is, i chose not to build cases on people i felt i couldnt get - you, aqua and hk
which is you saying 'you didnt build cases on us three, and i think thats scummy because i think it was because you felt you couldnt get those cases going'
the second part of that where you say 'i think it was because of this scummy reason' is the part where youre biased, because it could just as easily be 'i think its because you didnt scumread us', yet youre ignoring that possibility and going with the other, and you havent given me a reason for why that
your observation: inf didnt build cases on me, hk or aquai
what
interpretation youre ignoring*the conclusion youre ignoring (and the one im saying it is):
whatyour observation: inf didnt build cases on me, hk or aqua
your interpretation of the observation: thats because he didnt think could get the lynch going
the conclusion youre ignoring (and the one im saying it is): thats because inf didnt find us scummy
it only makes sense to dismiss that second conclusion if you have a reason to believe thats not the case, but you havent given me a reason for that, you just keep repeating your interpretation (other than the time when you said i backed down on you too quick, but then you agreed with me that actually it was reasonable to do that)
when you said i didnt call out aqua, did you mean i didnt call out his idea for being bad, or that i didnt scumread him for itwhat