Wait, so you thought I was lying, yet you believed I'm innocent? Why would you vote SFG over me if you believed I was lying?
I'd say you thought you could persuade town to take out SFG, then get rid of me at night, probably because you figured SFG would be an easier target to get lynched. However, after I came out with the fact that only you or adam could be mafia, since SFG and 0_o couldn't have posted what they did without *knowing* they were cop (ie. SFG and 0_o were pretty much conclusively proven innocent), you had to change tack and go with adam.
This also explains the night kill: if you'd taken me out, then SFG and 0_o would insta-vote you since they know each other are innocent. So you *had* to take out one of the two. You probably thought SFG was a more dangerous opponent than 0_o, and hence killed her. overall scummy behaviour: GUILTY
Like I said, I don't play by logic. Heck, I don't even QUESTION 0_o no matter what he did. But let's just say you were the one to point an accusatory finger at me and INSIST I am the scum, while I was on the back foot and shooting back when you accused. Faced with your so-called facts and the dangers involved in getting everyone HOOKED onto what YOU argued about, YOU insisted that I must be mafia (if adam wasn't) whilst all these while I never actually go insist that you MUST be the mafia - because I got TRICKED by you. As my scan on you was an Innocent while mine against SFG was guilty, had she survived I would have believed you are the innocent and she the scum if 0_o was the one killed. Why would I actually say "SFG is guilty" when she is the one getting killed? Why did I not go out and say "hey I scanned 0_o and got a guilty let's vote him"? Insofar as this situation is, YOU have been the one ACCUSING others but YOURSELF.
Therefore, as I see it, you are scumpainting someone. Overall, that is also scummy behaviour, and you are ALSO as guilty as I am. Remember, you voted for me all the time, even though it was very clear to the rest (I believe that included the two deceased) that I was nowhere near scum-looking at all. I reiterate - it was only a matter of convenience that they were out of the way, so you could pick on my playstyle and exploit it(which I talked to you in depth about).
You already knew I was civilian (the scum knows who he is, and you know who you are - scum) so I must be the weaker of the players, so if you're scum and I'm the civvy you're in a far more advantageous position to manipulate the facts around, ALL OF WHICH WERE FALSE. You're building lies upon lies, and not
I remembered, you said that the "sanity of the players are not revealed", and that "there could be two rights and two wrongs". You also insist that 0_o stand on your side to vote against me, as a follow up. You have been the one orchestrating the whole scumpainting, while I was only defending my stand without doubting you (notice, that my posts on Day 1 acted on the assumption that the sanity is explicitly stated in everyone's roles. You claim miller, then change your mind when you realised that almost everyone but the scum bore the cop role (which must have scared the fuck shit out of you) and then excused yourself, saying you're acting on assumption, and changed directions on your arguments on two occasions for Day 1 alone (miller - tricked miller - 'someone else like Pas and adam must be scum')
Those posts I made risked WIFOM, and of course you took the chance to attack me based on that. Now let me ask you,
why are you arguing so strongly on my WIFOM?That's because, risking yet another WIFOM, only scum would actually bite on a contentious point and NOT let go like you are doing to me now. You already said this thread is full of craplogic yourself, so why are you arguing against those craplogic if you KNEW they were not worth your time?
Simply put, that's because YOU are the scum who wants to scumpaint someone else into being guilty, pointing an accusatory finger at the players you think you can manipulate. And you think you've won the battle already.
Were you afraid of accidentally hammering, and thus thinking that that would cast suspicion on you? unnecessary caution: GUILTY
Even though this was posted after my long post, this is undeniably referring to something that happened earlier... or does it? It doesn't matter: I've said nothing of that sort in this whole game. misrepresenting other players: GUILTY
Even though 0_o was pretty much conclusively proven innocent on day 1. You only admit so but only after prompting from 0_o, and only then do you place the vote on me. again, unnecessary caution: GUILTY
Vote count request, since when has this become scummy? Don't fuck around, erring on the side of caution never equated scummy (again, you're scumpainting me)
As for misrepresentation, I point you to numerous IRC incidents as well as WW3-R as the basis of my tendency for such errors. However, I refer to this:
SFG: one thing ive noticed is that the mafia like to make reasonable arguments and blithely lead the group away from them. the best way to ensure that this does NOT happen is to simply not listen to anyone who comes up guilty, and ESPECIALLY not those who come up guilty to more than one cop. since we have no way of telling if these people are scumhunting or scumdiverting i think its best if we ignore their arguments entirely
Also:
Still - either Pasonia or adam is mafia. Since we have two lynches total in this game, we've basically won. Any objections to just lynching them one after the other?
By declaring that "we've basically won" while the ball is still in anyone's court, and by saying repeatedly that 0_o is conclusively proven innocent, you bring to mind one point. Why do you declare a win so early, also why do you insist that 0_o MUST be innocent? Certainly, that is because if he IS civvy (as a scum, you'll know who are the civilians in this game since you're the only one guilty) you want him on your side, and to estrage me from him and to make him think that I am scum. That said, he has been very quiet on our debate and has not come to a conclusion yet. Only time will tell if you would suddenly switch your attack against 0_o.
Sounds like an appeal to emotion, rather than logic to me. using logical fallacies to try to win arguments: GUILTY
Why would I appeal to
anyone's emotions if all I said were just for myself to fret over (whatever's in M4 is more appealing to emotion than anything else)? 0_o didn't need to read much into that, as those were just me saying stuff to myself.
I know you are. Had enough? Suicide is always an option. Die scum die >:D
You're just as guilty of appealing to emotion, RIGHT AFTER accusing me of appealing to emotion. Irony much?
