At this site of yours, they know all about such terms as "LAL" and "chainsaw defending", but they don't cover something as basic as a claim at lynch-1?
I'm ready to shift my vote back to you.
Fishy:
Fishythefish wrote:I don't like this much, particularly in the context of kuz being under attack. The first sentence is just nonsense - of course everyone should assume thepossibilityof malicious intent, but assuming malicious intent to make your case is arguing from your conclusions.
That was kuz's term, not mine. I wanted to hear kuz's explanation of what he meant in saying it rather than argue the semantics of "assume" vs "conclude".
Fishythefish wrote:For the second, I don't see where kuz has remotely used his playstyle to explain or excuse anything.
Right here:
iamausername [62] wrote:<snip>
VOTE: th3kuzinator
He seems upset that I have identified a townie so soon.
th3kuzinator [63] wrote:Why do people keep assuming I am upset? lol. Apparently any type of aggressive posting is taken as a sign of being butthurt. It's my playstyle, get over it.
ThA:
ThAdmiral wrote:Question: what does scum have to gain by claiming to have a town-read on someone? Oppose that to: what does a scum have to gain in a situation where no one has town-reads on anyone else?
That's only the question if you're asking "is iama mafia?"
Also, you should be considering the countersituation of what a protown might do. There are legitimate reasons to oppose a townread, although I don't think they apply in this instance.
MK:
Mitsuru Kirijo wrote:Moreover, nobody seems to have anything to say about Emp's opinion on the confrontation between C and Kuz being contrived, and rather than that, have said "I agree." This is immediately followed by a vote. It's echoing described within content, and I'm wary of over defensiveness being the prime reason to lynch someone. It seems much too weak of a case.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you rephrase?