If this one doesn't make sense to you, I can help out on that too. Literally the next post said, and don't ask why, I am running a test to see if I can get a read on people (inferring that if I was to reveal the test it makes it irrelevant going forward).

Linkz then immediately responded with a joke post saying "Why? :P"

His post was a joke. A joke that didn't need a response.

And no chill pills are necessary, I just don't care to deal with intentional manipulation of very clear words. Quit interrogating me unecessarily and I'll quit snapping back at you.

This isn't about just your questioning. It is about your clearly not reading the thread and then quoting items, only to highlight only portions that when excluded from the entire subject sound worse, etc.

The question from Linkz is the perfect instance. There were a total of about 50 words in the 3 posts that myself and Linkz made (and I honestly think they were consecutive posts), and anybody who read the whole short interaction would know Linkz question was never intended to be answered.

I have -0- issue with you questioning people. It is a necessary part of the game. I have no time, however, for words I have stated to be completely manipulated in what must be an obvious attempt. You continue saying I had no reason for my votes, but I VERY clearly indicated what both my Spurge and Miz votes were for yesterday. You say I went against my own words when I voted for Miz, but VERY clearly stated my exact thought process and how my vote wasn't at all a direct contradiction of what I was saying. You ask why I'm not answering joke questions (that were very clearly joke questions in their context).

As I'm sure everybody is aware, I really haven't posted too terribly much this game. As such, I've tried making sure my posts are well thought out and get a point across.

Yet, you are managing to go through and intentionally (yes, at this point it absolutely must be intentional) making it sound bad. And quite frankly, for anybody who only reads your quotes and doesn't go back and actually read the whole context, it will sound hella scummy.

You've shown you are capable of including multiple quotes in your posts easily enough, so why do you continue excluding all relevant posts when you quote me? As indicated before, until you can give me a valid reason, the vote remains.

Just wanted to reference this out to you guys. I'm assuming Zero deleted the inner quote on purpose, because it very clearly shows how it isn't meant to be answered.

Yes, second behind spurge's in reasoning but still pretty weak overall. Trucks overall play yesterDay was about promoting pro-town behavior. It fits with hosting a game in which town overall played very poorly. This is just a null-tell though, similar to Stefl coming after Mr.P right away. I lean town because he has not simply given up after a little bit of pressure. He had already given up Day One in the game you copped him. Look how dejected he was. This game he's been upbeat. I'll be surprised if after all these years he's ramped it up as scum, but happy about the challenge it would mean for future games.

I'll look back into his old games, but I don't particularly remember Trucks as a very active scumhunter. Stefl, prof, Heph,(before your time maybe?) and I often led the show. They or FF could also compare his play to what they remember as well.

I wouldn't want to lynch Blade right now either, and if we did want to test out the softclaim it would be Noctis to hang instead.

Noctis is softclaiming that he always comes back as scum. Hence his claim of having a role that is a burden to the town. This makes me think he is town, but that is based on his own words, which may not be trustworthy. That is the scenario I am thinking of.

I've got xmas tomorrow so won't likely be on much (if at all). Hope everybody has a merry christmas (or happy holidays if you dont celebrate christmas).

That's what I'm reading as well. What I question is why that alone sways your opinion on Mr.P.(and others)

its a word i just assumed was an actual word, and upon googling is not (lol). I meant to say along the lines of it made me seem like I was wasting my time. I know they have no known bearing, and with the Spurge flip I realize how wrong I initially was. But I dont think my Day 1 actions were any less a waste of time than suspecting others for "playing different".

In Day 2, I feel people can act on things that are actually happening in this game, rather than prior games.

I also hate that im being suspected just because I dont play like someone who knows this game. I can't hardly defend myself, even though I clearly posted my intentions, multiple times, to multiple people yesterday about why I was so willing to lynch with the majority.

But I dont get why my 2 votes for miz is seen as such a negative? I even waited the second time to let people talk rather than just lynch him.

I feel like people havent given me a fair thought if they vote me so quickly, at least question me about what you find suspicious? Like, seriously, what do you want from me?

"instill" may not be quite the word, but yes, I don't think there is a significant chance of a mafia journalist and I wanted to get him to think real hard about what he was suggesing.  I didn't want to flat out push my own opinion on him but I guess I wanted an equivalent result