Josh?
I'm sorry but if you wanna claim that I used a stance against ad hominem as a scumtell without providing any context you have another thing coming. I actually am unsure which of my points on you even was that, but you are very much presenting whatever it was in an unjust light and making it seem like I have no ground to stand on(which I don't think any of my points do, therefore my challenge). Please provide the line if you want to claim what I said there was unjustified. Also the fact you responded to that point means it is not one you have had to explain before clearly, therefore I cannot accept a blanket Ï already went over this" answer. If you have made those answers before, please pair post numbers of answers to my specific post call outs. If your answers truly exist this should be a cake walk, or you could just dodging my questions.
no i was asleep
I can't really defend myself because i dont have a copy of asek's mind so idr what his thoughts where when he was writing posts; the way i defend myself is by correcting misconceptions about what i've said and/or explaining the things ive said for the most part + pointing out faulty logic in the arguments that people have. It's harder to do that when I don't know the mindset behind the posts i'm supposed to be defending. There isn't really anything I can do about that so I didn't see the point in complaining about that.
All my points were made in real time(baring the period in which I was just writing down post numbers catching up on my phone) as I was reading through the game. The answers you gave to others doesn't matter, and you are just again deflecting trying to find answers for all my proposed problems with you because you likely realise I do have questions you probably didn't answer.
I talked about Asek already, his post quality had clear cases of ups and downs, he was the most likely person I could like the effort from, the not see anything meaningful from for 500 posts. His defining moments to me are the defense of Hitmon's I shouldn't be visible moment and the early jalmont interaction. This in my eyes cancel each other out, and this puts him squarely behind my tops suspects. To tie into at both you and Yeti are in the same spot, the people I'd start seriously considering if my top suspects turn out to have been wrong. With you I have clear playstyle clashes, some bordering too scumsided mostly your comments on your own playstyle justifying why you aren't scum or the signalling, I get it's not indicative of alignment, but it's structured directly to help you if you are scum, because they are just motions to go through. Nor do I like your idea of a town bloc. So even with a favourable jalmont engagement for you too, I can't trust you. Yeti I have a hard time grasping, I like her plays, but then things get muddied by the Josh ruse and just like with KoC I didn't like her vote stuff, though at least it included her own thoughts in the package, still just as with koc's read list I feel it lacks the important details a vote and it's timing and context actually generate, which I find more important than say the wagonomics that she used to determine a connection between blazade and hawkie, though I'm unsure if she followed up on that checking actual posts. Also I did like her go through the game and dig up old quotes, mostly because it's a smaller scale version of what I did, even if Josh complained about it.
