I'm hosting a game!

[seireikhaan]

Okay, this is silly.

For those who don't remember, here is the original case on GH:

*He threw a very gentle vote at Visor right at the start of D1, an obvious vote placed where it was least likely to generate suspicion.

What the heck is a "Very gentle vote"? He voted visor immediately after the reveal. Starting a possible bandwagon is neither gentle, nor a place that doesn't generate suspicion. If it didn't generate suspicion, why are you so suspicious of it?

*He then contacted Visor in private to tell him that the vote was only temporary, for which there is no townie justification yet stated.

For which you have also failed to provide a mafia justification- rather, you are simply parroting "he talked in private, that is bad". Wanting not to be lynched is an admirable quality of townies as well.

*Once other people had posted more substantive and provocative cases for lynching Visor, GH switched his vote to BSmith, who was already shaping up to be the game's #1 non-Visor lynch bait.

He was already shaping up to be the game's #1 non-visor lynch... when GH lodged the first vote of anyone to him. Right.

*He then went on to claim that his accusation of Visor was just 'fishing for responses', which is deeply unconvincing, given how hedged and unprovocative his case was.

So let me get this straight. You think GH, as a mafia, sent a PM to someone who he would know is innocent, saying he was fishing and would switch later... which is exactly what he did. What exactly does a mafioso gain from putting himself out like that on day 1? How bad at this game do you think GH is? And I think you confuse "concise" with "hedged". Hedged is what Bsmith was doing(and why he got lynched). One does not need a Pizzaguy thesis to fish.

To all that, we can now add:

*He's offered only a handwaving defence to the above, apparently hoping that the matter will just fade away.

What exactly is a defense for an argument that consists of "you did this, this is bad?" If you want a good defense, you should try a good offense.

*He skipped his vote yesterday, and choose to hop on khaan's paper thin case against me today. Where's the scumhunting?

And *my* case is paper-thin. You want scumhunting, I suggest you try it. Instead of basing your argument on "did x, x is bad because reasons", try basing it on experiences. Really, if you wanted a case against GH, the scummiest thing he's done is pointing out he wouldn't be on for a bit a few posts ago(something he did precisely the last time he was a scumbag).