Reasons why kirsche is scum by Lynchee 1
#1:Misinterprets/blows my not counting correctly and criticizing mich for it out of proportion. I made a post just before his making fun of my math error + I didn't pursue Mich after he responded to my post. This is a reach.
#2: Simplifies my not switching to mich being I hear a lot of people read him as town and nothing else. I had other reasons, I just decided to pick that one as the primary one.
#3:Goes after SB for defending me and alleges that he faked logs or was intentionally misleading about them. He misremembered, in part because I grouped Mich with greencapps who I view as townie.  This is a Reach.
#4:How is pointing out a crappy justification bad logic? I was on the junko wagon anyways at the time, so it's not like i was defending junko that much if you call it a defense. Also null read on junko? I don't trust him implies more I don't like him than anything.
#5: Defensivity is natural when the opening point of contact is   Is 3 votes during the middle of D1 when there are no lynch targets not significant enough pressure to warrant terms like "wagons" and "massvotes" (really wagon = mass vote by definition and I would call 3 votes on someone a wagon)
[4:36 PM] Snike: hello to you too
Again, I did not realize that there were 3 votes on the wagon at the time of my post. It can be seen in-post.

#6: I spoke with about half of the game by the point I was talking about Mich. That's enough for a consensus to rely on for one particular person, especially when I don't know them. This also distracts from your not voicing an opinion on mich.

#7: Semantics like  my being defensive of Junko rather than of my own comments exist in his case.
#8: I'm voting Junko but I'm buddying up to him does not make sense, especially since i didn't change the vote at the time and I've continued to voice skepticism in thread. This is a Reach
#9:This:
 Not because he's going after me so much that whole exchange was really weird. It's aggression like he's had in the past, but I felt like no matter what I said it wasn't going to change things. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
Is saying why I'm voting for him. Not OMGUS, but because the conversation was weird, as in, it felt loaded. IE he decided the end-result and just fabricated the case to work towards that end result. Accusing me of OMGUS oversimplifies the situation
#10:SB is not a different case from mind because you're basing his guilt on my being scum.
#11: How does my calling out what I thought was 2 votes diffuse tension?
#12: I said damned if I do, damned if I don't once, and his aggression doesn't fit a seemingly minor nitpick.
#13: That :48 quote was from same conversation, so I elaborated more on it, not "changing" the reasoning like he suggests
#14: He's attacking anyone who defends me as scum, doesn't leave room for townies being wrong.
#15: Dismisses content like calling my vote reason OMGUS, and elie's counterarguments and other content "flailing"
#16:His vote was posted 10 minutes before we had our first conversation, I only discovered the vote about 6 minutes into the conversation.

Vote was at 4:26 my time

[4:36 PM] jkirsche: Is 3 votes during the middle of D1 when there are no lynch targets not significant enough pressure to warrant terms like "wagons" and "massvotes" (really wagon = mass vote by definition and I would call 3 votes on someone a wagon)
[4:36 PM] Snike: hello to you too
[4:36 PM] jkirsche: hi
[4:36 PM] Snike: there was 4
[4:36 PM] jkirsche: 4 including Mich
[4:37 PM] Snike: I think it's just calling it quick
[4:37 PM] Snike: yeah I miscounted
[4:37 PM] jkirsche: well even if it was 2
[4:37 PM] jkirsche: the whole point of the wagon
[4:38 PM] jkirsche: was to put poressure on Junko
[4:38 PM] Snike: is to get someone to react, yeah
[4:38 PM] jkirsche: so why would you try to eleviate the pressure
[4:39 PM] Snike: I was attacking what I saw as flawed logic
[4:39 PM] Snike: I don't townread junko tbh
[4:40 PM] Snike: I didn't see it as alleviating pressure
[4:41 PM] jkirsche: what else is downplaying the wagon on someone if not that
[4:41 PM] Snike: I think michel's vote was shit is what I should've said
[4:43 PM] Snike: that being said next question is probably why am I not voting mich
[4:44 PM] Snike: that's because according to next to everyone I've talked to he's obvtown or being townread

This is from our second conversation:
[8:04 PM] Snike: : [9:54 PM] jkirsche: shit like thsi
[9:54 PM] jkirsche: Snike: that being said next question is probably why am I not voting mich
[8:44 PM] Snike: that's because according to next to everyone I've talked to he's obvtown or being townread
[9:54 PM] jkirsche: is why I voted you
[8:05 PM] Snike: when he voted me over the mich thing before we even spoke


[9:54 PM] jkirsche: your post is what made me interested in you
[9:55 PM] Snike: so to be clear the first post drew interest, the log drew the vote
[9:56 PM] jkirsche: yes
[9:57 PM] jkirsche: your response only solidifies my read
[9:57 PM] Snike: the log was me preempting what I thought your next question would be with a reason for not voting,
[9:57 PM] jkirsche: I didn't like your reason for not voting

This is revisionist at best, or scumslip at worst.
#17: I'm town.