Sooo on huh what. I'm not sure I like the way he jumps on Hero. Reasons do not feel entirely strong - for one, the accusation of "buddying" seems to be a stretch, since I don't see how Scum!Hero would benefit by "buddying" without pursuing the same target. Having similar-looking reasons doesn't necessarily imply buddying, as people do tend to think there are major differences between X and Y, even when X and Y are almost the same.
I don't like how after his voteswap he adds a proviso to justify jumping back on to me, which seems like a pointless exercise if I do not, in fact, post. The accusation that my words are reasonable on the surface but follow a scummy agenda is one I echo in response to his suggestion of Town Extra Lynches, so I'm not sure what to think of that.
On Shadoweh, my opinion doesn't change overmuch. I do wish she'd do more to assuage suspicions of scumminess rather than just going "He's town trust me I'm an expert", but one day I will roll dayvig and justice will be, as they say, sweet. I admit to amusement huh what keeps copying that line of mine. (omg buddying) As ever, Shadoweh tries to be dominant in conversation, but I'm never sure if this is scummy of her or not: mind, Shadoweh plays Pro-Town even as Scum.
BT is right about your stances, your attacks on me are a faulty PoV argument and that Shadoweh vote is a prod which becomes worthless if she does explain her vote. None of your attacks have any real lasting power, it's all just pressure on people for playing in a manner that can be construed as "weird". It gives me the impression that you're looking for bad town play to pick at instead of hunting scum, and that's a scum approach to D1.
Similarly I dislike this argument. The assertion that my attack (singular) on him is borne solely of a difference in point of view, where as above my problem was that the presentation of the idea presents an agenda more beneficial to scum which I suspected he was following by suggesting the idea. It was either naive Town or sneaky Scum, and in any case I do not automatically default to naive Town with players of Huh What's calibre. That he seriously raises the point that my very first post does not in fact contain a strong condemnation of scum that cannot be refuted by argument strikes me as weird furthermore, as nearly all accusations against scumminess can be refuted in some way or the other until you do, in fact, catch scum in the act.
And, to add further fuel to the problem, I accused Shadoweh similarly of a words to content ratio that was bad. To generalise my problem with her to "omg prod for her vote" is bad in my eyes, as I voted her at the time for placing what she declared a "jokevote" in spite of serious discussion, and made claims without backing up said claims. In the
first line here, he actually mirrors my sentiment, so I'm further confused by his vote.
Bard: I don't recall promoting refusing to suicide as scummy, or even saying "all good townies would suicide under pressure", so while I have a better understanding of your objections to what I proposed now, it seems like you're putting words into my mouth.
Fair point, but my problem with you wasn't "point of view", it was promoting an idea that is more beneficial to scum than to Town, since to any leek the accusation that "a real Townie wouldn't obstruct Town" would sound real and fantastic. I evaluated what possible results your suggestion could have and decided it benefited scum more than town.
tl;dr Huh What is scummy to me for pressing a weak argument in response to someone suspecting him, which reeks more of OMGUS than anything, and for asserting a pro-scum plan.
On Hero I can be brief.
What the actual active lurking fuck. Would be willing to lynch.
