I believe I have done everything you have asked of me, and therefore you should feel obliged to unvote.
Oh, mighty Metsfan, your will is law! I am not worthy! *bows*
Seriously, if the only issue were you trying to avoid the virus discussion, then yes I'd unvote (and frankly if you'd done it earlier, I'd certainly have been off your back by now) but as I'm about to explain, that is not all that is at issue. And I have definitely explained it before this point, but unlike you I will take the time to spell it out again.
This was the stem of this argument (in earnest, at least):
Mets wrote:There's not been a reason given to look at it. As I said -- when you've got something that's not WIFOM, I'll look at it.
PCM wrote:I fail to see how this is WIFOM. My case is that Virus was trying to out spiesr. If that's the wine in front of me, what's the wine in front of you?
Which begets this gem:
Mets wrote:It's WIFOM because an equally valid argument can be made that the post pushes virus towards town, because no mafia who is an experienced player would be so stupid as to try to out spiesr in like the first post of D1. (And then it continues, well, of course we would conclude that because virus is an experienced player, so maybe it's a trick, etc.)
1. It's not WIFOM. We've been over this at great length, of course, but to reiterate: It doesn't recurve, because your suggestion of a loop is such a stretch I don't see how anyone could reasonable come to that conclusion about virus' play, in part because:
2. It would be stupid to try and do that. We've been operating under the given that virus' play was inherently scummy. You suggest that it could have just been a bad play (and I accepted that possibility, but my position there was that it should be punished regardless. That, however, is beside the point.) but you also suggest that in the three hour timespan between confirming and the post in question, virus concocted a high-risk low-reward scheme to try and fish for a role on shaky WIFOM tactics (which, by the way, I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually try to execute anyway). That's just poor argument, and I can't consider a response to my request to define how my case was WIFOM. It just showed an alternative that I had a response to.
That's the first point:
trying to stifle an argument by invoking the holy acronym without cause.
Then there's this beaut:
Mets wrote:By the way: if your vote is on me, that means you think I'm mafia for defending virus. Which means that you also think virus is mafia. So why is your vote on me and not on virus?
1. That's a non sequitur. You're just as likely to be scum on your own merits
2. If I think you're scum, then I should vote you anyway, silly billy.
Point two:
This beaut.
Finally, there's the matter of the continued insistence that there's no need to continue the debate because you've clearly disproven the opposing position (you clearly haven't, see point 1):
Mets wrote:Hey, you know what's cool? When I provide reasons that the case is WIFOM, and then you ignore them and pretend like I didn't actually make them. I'll copy/paste it for you here since reading doesn't seem to be your strongest suit in this game (it shouldn't have been. Then I'm done with you.
And all the while you're content to sit on your hands:
Mets wrote:Sometimes a random D1 lynch is better than participating in a really bad case. This is one of those times for me.
1. That's never true. It benefits no one to just roll the dice.
2. That lazy. You'd probably still be on your ass if I hadn't kept pushing. That's probably why you think responding at all is sufficient.
That's point three:
lazy response and lazy play
There are 10 other players in this mafia game besides you and me. Apparently I am the only one being held to the standard of explicating a pages long essay including fact checking and references on who my favorite D1 target is and why, while other people are getting off easy with "vote virus." You're absurd.
They've given reasons. I at least understand their logic so I can't fault them for being reasoned. Granted I don't usually go off like this on D1, but I do do it (mostly with jak). If you're suggesting I've made no mention of them, I have, at Storr's behest, given reads on spiesr and IB.
Also last time I'm going to say this on day 1.
Mets and pcm. Neither of you are going to be lynched this day. So stop wasting your vote on each other today.
Secondly both parties being frustrated can explain each others reads being not alignment indicative.
And you were heard the first time. Judging from the previous VC (and including DJ's vote), I doubt a lynch will occur today. That said, if things change in the next few hours, I'd be willing to switch my vote to virus. I have stated previously that a virus lynch is probably more beneficial to the headache of keeping him alive, but I have an engagement this evening so if I am available I'll move my vote.