@Griffionday RE: Conversationality thing: I just meant that starting off discussion could be a mafia gambit to appear town as they would seem to be contributing to the discussion in a major way, which is a towny thing. I apologise for using the word conversationality, as it is actually a scum-tell, right? I shoulda just said active. From this we can get yet another piece of evidence for our "idiot" read on NJW.
And:
1-2: Okay, you missed my point. The only reason you would ask this question is if all those assumptions were made about the actual individual, not what they say:
U wot? All I did was frame a question in a way that assumed they were town for them to answer. If they could not answer this non-scummily in this way, then they were less likely to be town. Several people have asked questions as if the person replying would answer in a manner explaining their actions as a townie before. This was a dig: I felt that posting first with a senseless accusation
might be a scummy thing to do, and I wanted to get some evidence on Moonlit's thought processes when doing so. Does the fact that
I stated that it was odd for a townie to post first in this manner, rather than scum suggest to you that I may
not have fully believed that Moonlit was town?
Please, you've managed to get me a lynch crew based on this, the fact that I pursued someone who I thought was scum a lot, and the fact that I felt the person who voted for me in a semi-random and rather ineffective(directly) manner was behaving oddly.
Having previously been over-rigourously defended (I didn't attack them, see pages 4-onwards, I think) near the start by the person I believe to be scum.
So can you just explain precisely, in greater detail, what was so scummy about my statement. And if there are any of your questions
I haven't answered I will be happy to do so.