A lot of things are bothering me about Kantrip's "case" against circus. (note, I'm not taking on every point; just the few that bother me.)
This is blatantly wrong. Xastrn said he thought Werekill was scum but wanted to vote RR MORE because he thought RR was MORE scum. Circus is misconstruing this and trying to paint a fake picture. Also assuming X has no reasoning for his reads when, good reasoning or not, they were real reasons.
There is no way that it is blatantly wrong. Xastrn said, and I quote:
If i was a vig, I'd just vig you and lynch werekill instead. Werekill is a better day 1 lynch target because of the connections he's established. But you're just scummy through and through.
Xasty flat out says here that I'm a better lynch target, but for some reason, he still thinks that RR is scummy through and through, so instead of switching vote to (in his opinion) the best lynch for town, he keeps it on a person who he just considers scummy. However, you either misinterpreted Circus or this post or you're just manipulating words.
Also, I noticed something big that is making me
Vote: Xastrn, but I'll save that for next post.
I wouldn't say eight is incredibly small, seeing as Xastrn did quote all eight of them. I don't know how posting a post in which there is no content and saying "this has no content" is a stretch.
There was a bit of content in about half of those gif's, so Circus's point is valid. 4 is pitifully small as evidence against someone.
I believe this is called a chainsaw defense? Circus is attacking Xastrn's case on Solid without giving any reasons why the case was bad. Chainsaw defenses are scummy. Circus says Solid hasn't been fence-sitty, but from what I have observed, solid has been quite fence-sitty indeed. If this is bussing, it's a bit blatant there Circus.
Wait, wait wait. I'm trying to understand this. You think that this is a "chainsaw defense" because Cicus is not not giving any reasons as to why Xastrn's case is bad? He gives a couple fairly good ones in the same paragraph, as a matter of fact, and only one of them is that "he isn't fence sitting":
Much like in his case on Ryu, in which he stretches his point about Ryu's gif posting and overexerts the scumminess of the action, he does likewise with Solid. Overselling the importance of how often Solid uses qualifiers, one-liners and his overall post count in the thread. He also states that Solid has been fence-sitty, which I haven't felt at all. He's been less black and white with his opinions, but he's kept up with discussion plenty, I feel. It looks like a legitimate playstyle difference to me, not a guise.
I don't see how you can look at this and say that there aren't any reasons, and I like you less for it. This is just pure not reading, and I'm not sure if you willingly ignored the whole of the paragraph or not.
Similarly, Circus, you could be viewed as scum who doesn't know how to frame/bus people in a convincing way. You're just jumping on the player who's already under scrutiny and tunneling them.
Oh hai, I'm trying to make Circus look bad while using crappy reasons since Circus has been under suspicion for several parts of the Day.
This is a threat at Frio that he will be a policy lynch if he doesn't post. ScumCircus capitalizing on inactives so that he can set up a series of mis-lynches?
Ok ok, what? OS can do the same thing with his "backup lynch" (essentially) and get off partially scotfree, but Circus can't do the same thing? Hell, even I constantly say that lynching inactives is ok D1 (see: Newbie 13 or Ragnarok). I haven't done it in this game because there are actually legit lynches up for grabs.
I don't like you, Kantrip.
Yeah, he's tunneling on the newbies real hard. Has he given his own stance or read on someone who wasn't already under scrutiny/an inactive?
Wait wait wait wait wait wait waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiit. There is no way in bloody hell that he has been tunneling. He has been strongly against John, who, by the way, HAS been acting scummy, but he has also been against several other people, like Xastrn, and has given decent reads on several people
How the heck can you miss the fact that he went against other people when you quoted him yourself in your little mega post? This is going beyond an "oops, I missed that LOL" and is getting into fishy territory.
Now for my anti-Xastrn post, which is coming up next. However, I find the Circus case to be severely lacking, and I have no reason to vote for Circus. He's still a solid null, though, not town, in my eyes.
