I originally stated it as a "hunch," as a way to sum up that I had a bad feeling about Isaac. When I was (rightly) pressed for a better argument, I answered:




More to the point, look at how Isaac has acted in the last couple of days. Reducing my entire argument to "Oh, beet wants us to lynch on a hunch" is a classic move.

Here is what happened: Isaac actually did have stuff going on in real life (he rarely lies unless he has to). This meant that he wasn't going to be taking charge on the first day, and would be willing to vote for whoever.

When the game hit a plateau, he tried to create a system that would give the scum very good plausible deniability (the whole "everyone gets 3 votes" thing).

Things progressed as normal, with no real candidate coming into focus, until I accused him. He then seized on this, whereas if he was town he'd be more likely to have the attitude of "beet is well-intentioned but misguided."

I realize the "I wouldn't do this if I was scum" argument can be suspect, but it's not in this case. Isaac uses the example of minor tactical mistakes, but this has been pretty much my entire talking point for my last dozen posts. If I was a scum, I would have backed off long ago.