LoRab wrote:
The idea that you were lying was kind of implied throughout. I don't think your rebuttals were honest. When I said you were intentionally misleading, that is a synonym of lying.
Where have I said that I was intentionally misleading?! How many more times do you have to put words in my mouth until I'll finally draw the red card?
Explain how part of my rebuttals where I point out to the
facts can be dishonest. Explain how the facts are inaccurate, if you think my rebuttal to them are dishonest. I get the count mistake part is subjective and you are free to treat it as dishonest all you want. But explain the part about the facts being dishonest or prove how they're inaccurate [see further ahead in this post, for clarity's sake].
LoRab wrote:Not sure how that is a new aspect of my suspicion at all. I'll attempt to be clear--you posted mistaken/misleading information. I think you did it intentionally. You said you did not, and that it was just a mistake.
If that's related to the miscount, then fine, weave it as a suspicion all you want. I also pointed out I posted pure stats, not information. I get it doesn't mean anything for you, but that's what it is.
I also pointed out (humorously, at first, but I think I'll put it seriously up here, after so many times of saying it) I theoretically pointed misleading "information" about the civ team count as well. Does that mean anything to you, since you're so keen to interpret my miscount for the bad team count as more than it is? Interpret that as well and tell me how I'm bad.
LoRab wrote:And that I was implying information that you didn't say--my whole point is that I think you posted in a way that was purposefully misleading.
How can I be suspicious for something I didn't say? What is it that you think I didn't say? I'm only compelled to ask you to clarify this one more time, as specific as possible.
LoRab wrote:
will it make you feel better if I take each of your posts in the exchange and do a point by point response to them? I can do that tonight, if it will help. But it won't say anything that I haven't already said.
You can focus or start on this, if you want, since it's what you didn't answer me twice, until a third time you just threw at me that it doesn't explain anything and that I'm a liar. How does it not explain anything? How am I lying for pointing at facts?
LoRab wrote: Twice, you have posted non-accurate information in the thread in a way that seemed to sound like fact.
Ricochet wrote:
By "twice", I will assume it has to do with 1) the comment on how teams are currently distributed, in numbers. 2) the comment on judge locking down (...)
As for 2), I'll have to ask you to tell me where the "non-accurate information" is. And I don't mean what you find inaccurate about it, through your own interpretation, but literally what was the inaccurate information I provided.
Was it "Time is growing important"? That was accurate, we were within the window of a lockdown being effective.
Was it "we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place"? Same as above, accurate based on timing.
Was it "he's been vigilent before"? Accurate, he has been active and quick in moves all the game so far, since he ended D1 roughly with a full day left to go and he was sharp to end N3 immediately.
Was it "so far he's not quick to draw the curtains"? Accurate, we were within the lockdown ideal interval and he hadn't acted on it yet.
So where's the "non-accurate information" here?
LoRab wrote:
I would answer gut as to why I think you tried to kill me, but that wouldn't be logical. I wanted to put it out there for others to see, though--who might understand where I'm coming from in my suspicion of you. But was planning on going back through your posts to find evidence, so I will post that tonight.
Your suspicion of me being your killer is new, based on Night results, it can't "come from" your original suspicions, if that's what you mean, so you can't point to others that your original suspicions come from me trying to kill you, you can only try to shout to the world "look! Rico wanted to shut me up by killing me". Which is a legit attempt, but will come up as a wrong result. I'm not the Executioner, I didn't attempt to kill you, I'm not recruited by a bad team, so I cannot kill you, I don't have ninja kill positions in my role, so I cannot kill you, I took the debate with you head on and still am, I don't have any meta of shutting my opponents via kill when bad, I don't have any meta weaseling my way out of debates via nefarious attempts. So good luck with presenting your case, if you're going for this angle.
LoRab wrote:And not serious? I am suspicious of you and I'm voting for you. Not sure how that is convenient or frivolous?
Since D3, you took the "I'm hunting neutrals who don't seem civvie, because 6 baddies out of 3x players is just too much for good odds and I have no idea who the baddies" approach and stick to it. You hunted Golden for it. You voted TH for it.
D4 you blame JJJ for that and park your vote on TH again. You do nothing else, except for picking up my post and starting a debate with me.
D5 you keep on debating till you declare yourself satisfied, tag me as a neutral who isn't civvie and vote for me. Are you saying you'll hunt for more suspects, throughout the next 30 hours left from this Day or so? Please do, if so. I'll be watching closely.
It's convenient. You can park votes like this for the rest of the game, for all I know. It's Day 5. We have 6 baddies out there out of 29, it's not an insane pool, it's slowly arriving at what a regular-sized full game would look like. How much longer till you'll get baddie reads? How much longer is "neutral who isn't civvish" going to be your MO?
I also find it convenient because of something else you said, which sounded like you have important goals. I'll paraphrase: "Everything posted is significant evidence. I read things and hypothesize is how I theorize."
So your saying that, for toDay, your grand theory and grand evidence for baddieness is that "I cannot count" and that I want to induce spleen into the crowd with inaccurate facts (a crowd that, apart from the one person pointing I was wrong, which you picked up on, didn't react one bit to it). That's... it.
Anything else? Anybody else? Any other evidence? Any other theories?
No? Well then it sounds mighty convenient. It sounds like a parked vote. It sounds like drumming on an MO to lynch neutrals who aren't up to your standards of civvishness for days and days.