Because he is the only person in the game I've played with before, after a long hiatus.
Actually, I've played with xRECKx as well, but MMM is more vote worthy, due to alliteration.
Implies "Yes, keep going for a massclaim, it will result in a) a massclaim, or b) people lynching you for starting the idea of having a massclaim,"Kerristar wrote:Is it both role and name claim or just one or the other?
Because due to the fact that he started trying to gain momentum on the proposal, he would be the focus of any resulting 'heat,' while passively agreeing, in the manner that your post read, would not. Also saying 'is it both role and name claim or just one or the other?' implies that some decision TO massclaim was made. No, not upfront, but in a backhanded manner. That is how I read it.Kerristar wrote:Kerristar wrote:Is it both role and name claim or just one or the other?I don't see how the first implies the second. Its the conditions of our support. I would argue that this is stretching to a degree. The quote simply asks if its name or role claim or both, and depending on which happens we'll give our support. I really don't see how it implies that we are trying to get people to lynch him solely, as this would be hypocritical when we clearly were preparing to support it as well.Limerickx wrote:Implies "Yes, keep going for a massclaim, it will result in a) a massclaim, or b) people lynching you for starting the idea of having a massclaim,"
while almost insinuating that a massclaim IS going to be the outcome.
You want us to lynch doombunny.....based on a gut feeling you have......that you can't explain?Parama wrote: Because I can totally explain a gut feeling in a way that everyone agrees with.
Oh wait.
I gave my reason - it was a feeling that he had something to hide. I gave the line that made me feel that way. Nobody else seems to get the same feeling, but I can't deny that I have it. So, I've explained it as best as I can. Whether you choose to agree with me or not is up to you.
Now can we please lynch Doombunny?
The important aspect is the two sentences in conjunction.The first sentence, which I read as 'yeah, sure ok, massclaiming doesn't sound bad' turned into the second sentence, which I took as 'ok, now that its decided, lets get into the details of how its going down'.MMM wrote:@ Limerickx: How should Kerristar have phrased the question about the massclaim?
Why?Kerristar wrote:We supported nameclaim in particular. Role stuffs.
This post hereVP Baltar wrote:When did reck claim that he KNEW there was only one vig?
Then you just saidxRECKONERx wrote:There are NOT two vigs in this game. I haz evidence. No claim here. #fb
Finding something 'a little odd' is not the same as when you 'haz evidence,' especially in a bastard game I would think. This is even MORE strange when you consider the fact that if your PM refered to 'a gun,' that there might be more than one available. Maybe this isn't the case, but I have no idea how you could take that to mean there definetly wasn't more than one vig. It just doesn't match your claim that you had evidence that there was NOT two vigs in the game.xRECKONERx wrote: The whole "one vig" thing was mostly because I was essentially a backup who had already picked up a gun, and I found it a little odd that there'd be more than one.