I've repeatedly listed my rationale for believing FT was innocent- it basically boiled down to "Why would a DF make a complex attention-grabbing bluff when he'd be more likely to survive by keeping his head down?"







I think the problem, really, is that you have a list of "anti-town" behaviors in your head, which look fine on paper but don't always match up with reality.

Discussion does NOT equal accusation. Kronin I looked at on day one- when we had zero evidence to go on. I specifically did NOT try to build a case against him today, only mentioning him in little asides at most.

Next I looked at you. Like it or not, you're suspicious- you have a lot of influence on the game due to your numerous posts, and you were the (or "a" if you prefer) driving force behind the FT lynch. In the end, I decided you weren't suspicious enough to accuse.

Finally, ranagrande. At this point the Day had been going on for a LONG time. Fox brought up ranagrande, someone who I'd previous made a post about that said, essentially, that I had no clue what to feel about him. Fox's arguments seemed to make sense, so I got behind them, but I didn't feel near the logical certainty that I've felt with some lynches in other games, or with my defense of FT. Thus, my position of "I'll vote for him unless someone better is put forward."




My objection to my lynching is that people have been saying I've been inconsistent, have anti-town tendencies, and the like. I've been completely consistent- I like to discuss a lot of different possibilities, and then have people comment on them. I DON'T like to commit to a decision unless I'm sure of it.

Changing one's mind isn't a sign of being a DF- it's a sign that, due to new evidence, you've decided you were wrong.


The reason my situation is different from ranagrande's is because we're being accused of two different things. I'm being accused of having too many accusations, or something. That's pretty different from ranagrande's stuff.




Well, obviously. I've been saying that first sentence from the beginning. And yes, I don't want to be lynched, of course. But if you read my long post a couple days back, of the other candidates, I think he's the most likely to be a DF.




I said that though there isn't a lot of damning evidence, there's even LESS against everyone else. Including me.



Like what, exactly? There was the horrific "5.8 instead of 6.0" debacle that I know our spirits are still recovering from. Other than that, I've been completely consistent.





See my previous comment about your list of anti-town behaviors. I post a lot, and when the conversation dies down, I try to think of new things to discuss. I did that with Kronin, and I did that with my original ranagrande post. Pretty much all of your complaints can be explained from this behavior, which is how I've always been.

I understand what you're saying about lynching someone with "false positives," but I don't think it's applicable here.



Thanks- that did clear it up some.





I guess all I can say is that my actions have not been anti-town. I've encouraged discussion, and ALWAYS posted my motives and reasoning to encourage transparency.