Golden wrote:a2thezebra wrote:Golden wrote:Except, apparently, sig, who is the civviest of civs? Why?
sig isn't safe from suspicion. If I suspect him I'll voice whatever suspicion I have. But the fact that I haven't been pinged by him yet combined with the fact that the opposition against him is remarkably over-the-top and overtly disingenuous (his voting record makes him bad? REALLY?) does indeed make him the civviest of civs at this time.
Oh, so we should simply expect all baddies to bus then? Voting records are irrelevant?
How is it disingenuous to see sig as demonstrating intent - in both thread and vote - to save fuzz?
If a suspicious voting record is supported by suspicious in-thread content, then no, it isn't irrelevant.
However, if the in-thread content is clearly genuine, than the voting record alone should not be held against the player as an excuse to mislynch them.
That's not the disingenuous part. sig
did intend to save Fuzz. The disingenuous part is the leap of faith that trying to save Fuzz automatically makes sig bad. You know, as does everyone else at sig's throat at the moment, that civs try to save others too, and if a civ is wrong about a player and tries to save them when they are in fact bad, the actual baddies will take advantage of this and go after the civ who was wrong. This is what is happening here. I'm not sure if you are one of those baddies taking advantage of this opportunity or if you are simply misguided, but in either case you are not leading the game in a pro-town direction by advocating a sig lynch because he was mistaken, and you are not helping my read of you go up by acting like a civilian mistake is equivalent to a baddie rescue attempt, as well as acting like your recent demeanor makes you confirmed town. If you know
me, then you know I'm not going to accept that blindly, so if you're civ then insisting that I agree with a sea of illogical declarations without backing them up is not the way to get me on your side.