pieguy1372 wrote:
IMO, animask posting a lot right at the start does seem suspicious, but IIRC NoHItter wasn't really calling Ekaru out on no-lynching, just "reaction fishing" which he wasn't really doing. I don't think Wojjan is mafia though.
Basically this.
I voted Ekaru based on his
"reaction fishing" not his "no lynching".
So Wojjan why did you misrep my statement to make it look like I was voting Ekaru because of his "no lynching"?
In fact, right now Ekaru admitted to lying about the "reaction fishing" which all the more makes it suspicious.
There should be no reason for town to lie unless it's some sort of gambit that could out scum or help town power roles (e.g. claiming as a PR so people will target you).
Yet Ekaru himself claims that he just said that lie for people to "shut up" about it.
Then he goes about saying that animask is suspicious for pointing out that what Ekaru said with the "reaction fishing" was suspicious.
I actually didn't think that his plan to no-lynch D1 warranted a vote. In fact it could have been a point of discussion.
But his "reaction fishing" was scummy, and admitting to lying about "reaction fishing" cements my suspicion further.
Wojjan wrote:
Totally ignores animask wall of text in favor of him, probably double teaming with a mafia to get noobtown on the noose.
So I totally ignored animask's text right? Well:
NoHItter wrote:
@animask
Adding a disclaimer like that is basically saying:
"I'm suspicious of someone because of X. If X doesn't make sense to you, then deal with it."
If you're trying to point out that I somehow "commented less" on animask's post though, then let me say that I found animask's post less suspicious than Ekaru's behavior. As you already said, animask always comes out as "wishy-washy scum on day one", so I treated it with less suspicion compared to Ekaru.
Salvage: Sure you can use it
