Really? From what I've seen you're attacking me for being overly focused on NQT? Only that? Really?
No. See below.
4maskwolf and flabort, can you state 3 distinct reasons for voting for me other than my intense focus on NQT? Please justify your votes, sil vous plait.
Flabort, for my ease of my processing your argument, could you state your 3 main points against me in bullet point form so I can actually see what you're saying about me properly(and so I can produce a proper response)?
(( 0) The focus on NQT))
1) Threatening people to do your bidding and agree with you.
2) Instead of coming up with ideas on your own you appeal to authority.
3) Not having any suspects (once you stopped focusing on NQT), viewing everyone as town. Being wishy-washy about hunting anyone else.
flabort: No full read list yet. Even late D1, I don't have a solid set of reads together yet. Exam season (finally done!).
I'm afraid I don't understand the questions about the key step I missed. Which actions were noted?
You brought up my response to NQT's response to my claim, and called it baffling. You never connected that to scumminess. You brought up how my claim was in the style of NQT's, and declared that suspicious, but never said how.
Anyway, you claim to think that NQT should at least live to D2. Despite that belief, you take a neutral stance on what you seem to strongly believe is an NK aimed at NQT tonight. Any reason your pro-NQT-survival stance disappears so quickly? Why do you not oppose my test when you support NQT's survival past it, flabort?
Congrats on being done your exams! Hope you did well.
It's true, I never connected the baffling response to scumminess; it was just baffling, not scummy. I don't see how, after reading those claims, anyone would not come to the conclusion that it could be a kill, and I don't see how you would assume it wouldn't be the first thought someone with experience with the kill-as-investigation technique would have.
You were the second person to claim in that way, and further people claiming that way makes it less suspicious now (When I said it only you and NQT had claimed, iirc); however, while you claimed using NQT's format, you also kind of claimed more directly, which made claiming in the roundabout "is it true or isn't it" way not necessary; your WIFOM came in a different form, and asking you about it would be a form of rolefishing.
Re: My stance 'disappearing': Wut? I maintain that NQT shouldn't be lynched today; should NQT be night killed, that's too bad, but I'd
like to see him
not be NKed. Which is why I maintain a neutral stance on your investigation: What I say won't change your mind about using your possibly-a-NK, so it doesn't matter which opinion I express. I could oppose it if I knew for sure it was a NK and I believed there was a chance of changing your mind about it it, but that is not the case.
PPE:
Flabort
Firstly, while looking at the quotes I had to support my theory, I found evidence that FoU did more scum hunting than I first supposed, but I didn't find any evidence that outright disproved my theory.
Being focused on the most outlying player on D1 isn't too big of a tell (remember, this is Fallacy's second game ever). In comparison, there are players (like Tiruin, 4maskwolf) who've managed to sneak through the entire day without doing much of anything.
My theory is that Fallacy decided early in the day that he and his scum-team would be lynching NQT and can't let go of that early desicion.
That would be a bit more credible if more than two players had ever voted me.
But look, I've got the trump card here: Fallacy is the most prolific poster. This is almost never scum.
I could have sworn it was his third... but that doesn't matter, it could be his second or third game and it wouldn't make a big difference. True about players sneaking under the radar by not doing anything; TheDarkStar comes to mind. I did also list a couple other reasons, but they got buried under the proof needed to prove he was over-focused; if it weren't those reasons as well, I'd be willing to concede that point.
OK, so it doesn't seem that credible a theory now that you put it that way.
Re: Trump card: Keyword
almost. I appreciated when you used that defense to help me, though, so I guess I'll concede the point in it's entirely.
I am dropping my case against Fallacy for now.TheDarkStar Sentry mode activated. Is anyone there?