Look, this is a long post and I'm really not expecting you (Gekki) to respond to everything, if it all. I've given direct post evidence for everything here, and there's not exactly stuff you can actually defend*.
This is actually a post for everyone else, compiling all the significant scummy stuff on Gekki in one spot
.
*Then what's the point of defending, bbn? Well, defenses are for players to identify any weak points - logical inconsistencies, misinterpretations, fallacies, etc. If the point is not weak, and clear is day, then it's nearly impossible to defend against it. You should, alternatively, be giving reasons for your innocence..
RE: Your supposed "debunking"
Here's the problem: you've already tried debunking the points on you - in fact, you very actively respond to any suspicions cast on you whatsoever. Your efforts boil down to "that's weak/not scummy/crap/wrong (generally emphatic statements without any actual reasons to justify), "but stills" and "I play scummy". This
response to Lorde is a great example of this "debunking", defenses being limited to "This point is crap" and "This isn't true" (where in fact, the point were justified by Lorde). In fact, Gekki's recent responses to Lorde are increasingly consistent with this behaviour.
Gekki's
response to TE's read on him was also "his points are trash".
As I said earlier, I think this is a waste of time - a distraction and rather unnecessary, and I doubt it will actually result in anything new. Whelp, here we go anyway:
Reasons for you being scummy (but not necessarily mafia):
Inconsistencies (these are the major ones):
--
case 1: stating Discord mafia and Forum mafia are similar where, according to NP, you assert the opposite elsewhere. Never commented on this
in your response to NP.
--
case 2: You say something to the extent of "I'd like to see a case on bb", and
here say you never scumread me.
--
Mariano makes a good point about you expecting Lorde to defend and scumhunt.
Hypocritical (also the major ones):
--
case 1: it's not early Day 1 and you are still being overly offensive
--
case 2:
you bandwagoned off a weak point on TE, which is sheeping
--
case 3: As later pointed out,
your ISO points on Lorde easily apply to you. Specifically, you say that Lorde is too defensive of TE, yet you get rather defensive of NP
here. When I call you out for this, you say it's not defending - your'e just
posting your opinions.
--
case 4: You accuse Lorde of tunneling when you are doing this yourself. Your defense when Lorde points this out? "I have reasons to tunnel" (i.e. "I am exempt") and "your case on me is weak/illegitimate" (since when can you say when a case is
illegitimate?). Hypocritical tunnel-related logic is reinstated
here and
here.
Extra defensive
- when being pressured about the TE vote, as NP
pointed out here. You fail to respond to this in your next post. This is shown throughout the game by Gekki responding to nearly every post that would dare suggest him not being inno. Then gets jumpy when put into a tie with Lorde around
here (despite the day ending in some 20 or so hours still).
Overly aggressive (and OMGUS)
- on TE, on Lorde, linked to the tunneling. on Defense: you
play aggressive normally (and got lynched for it) - no indication that you're working to change that. Anyone notice the people Gekki is aggressive towards are always those who suggested he is scummy (and did so first)? Your defense to this OMGUS idea was "
no, this isn't OMGUS".
Sheeping
- Related to the above and the Tunnel Vision below, Gekki tends to focus on and vote people (i.e. TE, Lorde) only after
other people cast suspicion on them.
More here. Unlike what Gekki says; adding points on people (especially under tunnel vision) does not mean someone is not sheeping.
Gekki's defense is to say this is false; "adding points on people
does mean you're not sheeping".
Tunnel Vision
-- RE: Lorde; e.g.
when responding to Lorde's defense of the ISO. Your
response to this consisted of a few "okay, but..." (a common indication of tunneling) and a couple of "no, you are wrong, that
is scummy". Further posts show you disregarding Lorde's defenses and points as "crap", "false" and "illegitimate" without really any reason (see section Hypocritical, case 4). If I haven't convinced you yet,
Gekki initially believed my analysis of Lorde's vote reason had "massive holes" (when that was completely false), more tunneling behaviour.
He then disregards the fact that Lorde and I buddying is unrealistic because "WIFOM".
-- RE: TE; it took quite of bit of explaining/defense before Gekki actually let go of his initial vote on TE. Recently, s
eriously considering voting TE for his "weird"/not-optimal actions despite TE being new. Defense: "
this is not worth talking about" (avoiding behaviour).
