Again, this isn't exactly what happened, and all of your notes in this post actually prove it. I was sharing thoughts on all players while keeping up pressure on bb to get him to crack.
No, that's exactly what happened. You were definitely not sharing thoughts on all players, though you did "share thoughts on" most (note, most) of the players under pressure. And those thoughts were for the most part that you didn't think the case on that person was good enough to follow.
A couple of points here. First of all, I've already explained that I was attacking TGK's case and not "buddying" Robin like you claim. Protecting Robin is somewhat of a by-product I guess. I don't know why you say I forgot about pressuring bb as I've never dumbtelled about that -- a quote'd be nice. Also, there's even less focus on bb at this stage in the day than earlier on, so I'm not sure what you're trying to meanby the latter part of that last sentence.
I said that it seemed like you were forgetting about it, not that you said something that could be classified as dumbtelling. With this, I guess I meant how you ignored him when you mentioned who else to lynch if not TGK.
This isn't noteworthy. You continuing to bring it up is losing your case credibility (so I guess to that degree, bring it up all you want!
)
Worth pointing out, this was the first and only time I've mentioned it.
Provide some examples please. The only one I really saw was when I said I was getting weird vibes from Robin and then proceded to attack TGK's case on him, which isn't really a contradiction.
For example, you mentioning that a player shouldn't have to answer a possible role fish, when as had already been pointed out, could be the reason bb wouldn't answer you (Yes, it's possible that someone would want to keep track on something because of a certain element of his role).
Once again, examples would be appreciated.
That you of course meant that TGK should've kept unmentioned parts of his role when claiming.
What, when I wanted to see Carson's wording? As we soon found out, this was extremely pro-town, as TGK managed to misunderstand every part of his role! He had nothing to hide because he'd already claimed so no, not role fishing.
The fact that something turned out to be good doesn't automatically mean that the intention was good. This feels like an attempt at getting townie-points.
...isn't a scumtell. It's an extremely useful tactic when someone flips so that we can see who they trusted, but everyone buddies. I've been trying to remain reasonably affiliation neutral thus far anyway because I usually get called out for buddying players. Sure, I'm giving new players some leg room. I always do this.
I suppose you're right on this, but when you flip scum, we'll have a lot of stuff to go from.
How much do you think the good is proportionate to the bad?
Well, I don't expect you to play 100% scummy as scum.
Surely it would have been more lucrative to not post at all -- assuming you're town? I mean, when I'm town, I don't throw my weight behind a case I've only skimmed because if when I read into it later it turns out the case is terrible, I've got a backpedal on my hands. Why were you so eager to give me the vote?
A townie shouldn't be afraid of the potential pressure from backpedaling, as you have nothing to hide. Why are you?
Please refer to: "An experienced player can make anything a scumtell." Seriously, it applies here big time.
No really, he's right.
