It's fair to say I have been the consensus lynch for the entirety of D1-2, but you don't seem to agree with the other players voting for me. You said why already, but it is intriguing nonetheless that you disagree, and decided that the best place to rest your vote for the end of the day was on a claimed benign third-party.
Because I find it oddly easier to not instinctually distrust your claim to be unlynchable, having seen you survive a lynch?
I explained that I thought my mechanical analysis makes your claim feel more townish D1-1. Using a different set of words:
The revised claim seems less beneficial to scum since they don't get a "free" look at a townsperson's powers and how to circumvent them.
Simultaneously it seems less overpowered because town doesn't get a "free" confirmation – any information they want they must pay the price.
So I chose in what time I had to provisionally accept you and not so much BHK.
When RGU analyzes it and declares the combination of (reset + no lynching you) to be unfairly overpowered, I don't automatically agree. But that doesn't mean I disavow him or FoU their votes and their pressure on you. You deserve pressure after what you did.
My behavioral analysis doesn't go as well for you. You challenged Fallacy to prove intent to deceive.
If X, then Y
Not YThe quotes I picked out are hard to reconcile without thinking that you meant to deceive when you typed at least one of them.
Yet if I hammer you then I lose the other data of the day, such as the hits on quinnr.
My morning hit was against hector13, for the purpose of gathering (minor) empirical evidence on just how far his invulnerability shield might extend.
Since he and quinnr ran side by side yesterday this is not contrary to the goal of helping quinnr.