Okay with your little "qualms" you have, all of them are reaches to say the least. With your first point you try and use the fact that I am more interested in song claims as a point for me being scummy? That doesn't make sense, because I have been asking for song-claims/role claims from my scum-reads. You keep trying to spread FUD around me w.r.t. this paranoid role you have tried pegging me with that I don't have.
Second, Soup's claim Under the Sea made sense because Sebastian watches Ariel in the entire movie and follows her to follow King Trident's orders. I was skeptical because Under the Sea + Part of That World didn't seem plausible in my eyes.
I already explained why I'm more afraid of tracker/watcher because those are the roles that have caught me in the past as scum, not cop. I mention it because it was brought up in the conversation. I didn't just "Oh just so you guys know, Tracker/Watcher make me quake in my skinny jeans."
Point out how my one post was "overly-defensive".
I dropped the Swords suspicion "too easily" after Rake's Indy flip? What are you getting at here? Yes, my suspicions of Swords were alleviated when he actually began to play the game from the time I posted that .gif because he actually stopped being cautious and finally took a turn at showing us his thoughts in more detail with a bit of brashness.
Last point is a technicality, my reads on both of your slots have been crystal clear so it should be known that I dislike both of you for different reasons. Your case on John is reaching/opportunistic and Inferno is a sheep for his own skin.
Next.
You dropped the indy suspicion of Sword before Rake's flip. I just didn't see much of a shift in Sword's play at all that would trigger someone who had been disliking him to suddenly like him.
Anyways, I'd like to focus on the meat here:
Threatening to hammer? Give me a quote of me saying I will hammer John? If you are talking about that post of me "Contemplating" you are seriously twisting my actions T-Block. I never "threatened" John and actually have been defending his butt all game so don't give me this "J has been contradictory" BS without actually having the proof to back up this claim.
Your little quip at the end is terrible too "Doesn't matter both or scum, just cause."
I never said I was going to hammer John. Let me make this clear TB because you seem to be hard of reading since this is your biggest point and it's based on your mis-construment of my actions. You make assumptions saying "Implying scummy" which wasn't what I was getting at at all. I have just said his play toDay in the earlier phase was worse than the other days.
Do not try and paint me as giving John a pass purely based on VT. Also don't say that I completely gave John a pass because of his attitude. I have been saying John is more anti-town>scummy this entire game. However, when people like Macman/Swords come up and say "John's defeatist attitude rings damn towny" you do not get on their butts, why? I can answer this clearly. You are reaching for reasons to make your case on me seem like it has more weight and not talking about what other players did as well. So let me ask you, this action from me is scummy as you stated. That must mean Macman/Swords are scummier in your eyes because they feel the same way as me correct?
You continue to repeat the same statment that I was threatening to hammer which wasn't true at all, TB.
Wow who the hell cares whether we say "threatening" or "contemplating"? You were
considering ending the Day with his lynch. Replace all instances of "threatening" with "contemplating" in my original case and all of the arguments still hold just the same. Let me bring up this post again, J:
post 1182, where you explicitly state that you were contemplating a hammer on a player you thought was anti-town rather than scummy. You explicitly state that you NEVER FLIPPED YOUR READ ON HIM.
So, you still have not addressed why, when you have been supposedly thought "John is more anti-town>scummy" the whole game and have had a gut town read on John, you would EVEN CONTEMPLATE hammering him when you had AN ACTUAL SCUMREAD on my slot, with Macman and Gheb likely to support you on pushing me at the time.
I'm putting it in green so that you understand that my focus is not so much on how you went back to refusing to vote John (although I don't like that either). My focus is on the contemplating hammering. But on that note, Macman never said anything about a defeatist attitude - he also never expressed consideration of a hammer. Sword did say his tone rang genuine, but he never completely hopped off of John (
post 1243). So yes, they also extracted similar conclusions from John's tone, but I have a MUCH easier time reconciling with their thought processes than I do with yours, because you jumped to a straight-up refusal to even vote John.
An insincere fashion? How do you plan on backing this up with evidence? The thing I was doing was pressuring your slot based on the actions you had done. The battle between you and Gheb was just starting and I disliked both sides of the argument at the time because Gheb was attacking with weak reasoning and your reasoning for having Inferno as town was terrible considering what was going on. It looked more like scummy trying to get extra brownie points on a townie flip if it happened. However, I have no clue which of you two result in scum but I don't feel both of you are scum therefore, I was good with just giving you pressure while maintaining to dislike Inferno.
Conveniently placed on D2? I had been saying that since D1 so don't act like it just came out of the blue, TB. And hello, I'm the one who switched the popular train of thought on Gheb D1 and moved it onto you. I was the popular choice maker at the time so your point is out the window.
Ye know, the "back this up" defence is nice, but it doesn't really work when you're quoting the evidence in the very same post. Here you go:
"
J has been pushing my slot in an insincere fashion all game, and the push does not come out of town motivation. Look at post 334, where he says that even though he dislikes Gheb, he likes the fact that he is voting me. This implies that J himself dislikes my slot, but the ONLY reason he has given for disliking me at this point is in post 288 for having Inferno as town. He does not elaborate any further on why he dislikes me. He does not address where I justified my town read on Inferno. He does not dig any further into my slot, but is instead content to voice shallow discontent and simply state that he is willing to lynch me. This is not townJ’s mentality.
Then at the beginning of D2, he has another convenient TvS on the T-block vs. Gheb interaction, with a scumread on the abductee, and a townread on the slot whom people were beginning to label as town towards the end of D1. This trend had been going on since early D1 - finding Gheb more suspicious when he was the more popular choice, and finding me more suspicious when I was the more popular choice. He finally gives more reason to have me as scum in post 1232 and it’s bull****. He reiterates his TvS read (and even says my lynch would turn Gheb into a scumpick if I flip town - setting up that mislynch if Gheb is town). He calls my hop onto John opportunistic, even though I was the first one to provide the Soup-bus angle, which is reasoning more solid than anything that had been presented so far. His post 1166 is grimy in asking me to quote John suspicion from earlier - because I wasn’t around to even have the opportunity to give it."
Also, my reasoning for having Inferno as town is definitely no worse than your reasoning for having John as town. =P Plus, mine was based on early D1 whereas you have maintained that terrible read through the entire game.
You aren't even commenting on anything recent and dwelling on the past. T-Block, have you even been reading my posts toDay/yesterDay about Gheb-Yourself? We've already dealt with the Shakespeare bit because it's "lol, seriously?" And then you are just saying "Why didn't he do this the first time?" well TB, based on my posts, I was busy focusing on other things at the time and not really understanding before I decided to try and understand him more clearly. I've always had trouble with Gheb's poetry.
If you didn't feel like digging into Gheb's poetry at first, fine. I still dislike that you were willing to cast suspicion on him without even understanding what he was saying. Seems highly irresponsible for a town member.
Conclusion: Your entire premise of "not being of the town perspective" is a load of bull to be blunt. You have warped yourself into this mind-set and have refused to try and see another way to look at it and try to use every point you can gather as a reason for me being scum (a.k.a. scum-goggles). So show me the town perspective in that.
As I said, I enjoy being thorough. I'm willing to drop the things that aren't as important though, or that I only mentioned as off-hand suspicions.
Soup was my strongest town-read D1. In fact, he was everyone's strongest town-read D1. The only one who started "light pressure on Soup" is you and you were the only one to knock his town-cred which leads me more to believe you are connected to Soup because of the way you tried to be an outlier in the dilemma with Soup and your suspicion of him was bogus at the time. Our interactions look scripted? You do realize that's the same thing you are trying to not say by us "agreeing with each other". You keep saying scripted and as an actor, you have got to be kidding me. I don't look scripted when I'm putting on a show, especially a scum-one. To find my scum-buddies, you usually have to dig hard to find them based on their interactions with me instead of my interactions with them. That's my opinion on that matter.
And again, you just repeat yourself to make it seem like you have a stronger point here, when you don't really have anything substantial to hold weight to your point.
Okay, you're bashing the Soup-John connection, and then you pull THIS out of your ***? My suspicion of Soup stemmed from the fact that I thought he was fabricating a Gheb town read (and guess what - he was), which is certainly not bogus.
