Reasons you should be lynching Edible (Now with 75% less
temporary insanity!)
1. For someone who likes to accuse people of "Gotcha Games", he sure likes to attack scum slips a LOT.
For example, see
this vote on ActionDan. Edible likes to avoid doing any REAL scumhunting, by attacking people's rhetoric and calling it scummy. He then proceeds to follow it up with stating that he finds them to be in "scum intent", but never actually shows any of his intent reads.
This post outlining his "case" on me is quite telling of his intentions. He talks only about these traps I laid, and says they have "scum intent". Yet again, he does not EXPLAIN the scum intent in any meaningful way.
The best part is when in his next post, he says that what I was doing was contended among players enough to be a null read. He basically admits to seeing town players do it as often as scum.
2. Edibleh has a very nice connection to Schezo!scum
Seen in
this post, Edible gives some credence to a Schezo case, but also tries to downplay it by insisting that being "derpscum is Schezo's Meta". Meta arguments like these are PERFECT for scum, because:
1) They are believed, and thus very effective
2) Most people won't challenge them
So it's a very subtle way for one scum to try and derail the other's wagon. It didn't work in the end, but this is something to note.
Edible's interactions with Schezo that day do not lend to him being town.
Moar Evidence:
Here can be found the post where Edible distances himself from a hopeless cause in the Schezo wagon. He tried to appear slightly town by questioning some of the people who hopped on the wagon, but for the most part he concedes it as a lost cause.
The most telling thing in this post is how Edible says he would "like to see Schezo lynched", but never actually votes him. At this point he is still holding out some glimmer of hope that Schezo might pull a miracle. When nothing comes, Edible promises his hammer later on, but I go insane and freeze time...
Moar of Edible trying to save Schezo by pushing me, but notice how he keeps distancing himself with that little "or Schezo first" comment. It's very subtle, but it does give the impression that Edible wants Schezo lynched, without him ever having to come out and push the wagon. He's hoping it will stall.
3. YOU'RE SCUM! WHY? BECAUSE I SAID SO~
Edible's first real post after Schezo's lynch is here, and in it you will notice that he claims to have had a "BIG LONG WINDED POST OF EPIC WRITTEN." and it is "TOO GOOD/RAGE FOR YOUR SOFT EYES".
In reality, this is an excuse by Edible to help push his lynch, without the hassle of writing the damn case. He can't give legit points that will stick, so he falls back on ol' reliable.
Mystery Scum Intent X.
You may be asking what this is, and I'll explain. It's when you say something is scummy, and your justification is "it has scum intent".
Well, ok. But what IS the intent? If you can so clearly see what the intent behind a post is, why aren't you sharing? Is it because you could potentially get refuted, or worse suspected for misrepresentation?
Edible was asked on MULTIPLE occasions to EXPLAIN the intent he was seeing. Not once has he done so.
4. MOAR RHETORIC ATTACKS
UnoDosTres Nothing in these posts ever explains why he sees me as scum. It only attacks me for the following:
A scum slip
"Flailing"
A quote from the mod, implying I was "trying to mislead town" because I was mistaken about a RULE.
ad-hom OMGUS (first off, both of these are null tells. Secondly, they are buzz words designed to garner a reaction and get people motivated to lynch someone)
"twisting his words" (In reality, it is he who twists mine in that post, as I pointed out after words. He misrepresents me by saying I never explained why scum would attack miller... when I did.)
AND THE COUP D'GRACE: He attacks me BECAUSE I WROTE DOWN THE WRONG NAME WHEN I WAS ACCUSING SOMEONE OF SOMETHING.
According to Edible, because I mistook Schezo for Serp... I was super busing Schezo with this misrepresentation.
Isn't he great folks? His whole case, and not a single "intent" read in the lot. For someone who claims to base their reads on intent, he doesn't seem to base his cases on them?
I think that's all for now. I thought I had a 5th point, but it now slips my mind. I'll make sure to get around to saying it if it comes back to me.
