1) Where am I strawmanning?JDodge wrote: 1) Stop strawmanning me.
2) No. Give me one example where semantics has ever lead to a good lynch. Because having been here for almost 3 years and having completed over 50 games, I have never really seen a semantics argument that was correct for any reason more than random chance.
3) If you can't think of a logical reason to suspect someone and thus have to go after them on semantics, then your grounds are probably too shaky to support a case. Semantics are a nice way around this.
4) You have not given a good case on GS that I can tell.
2) Semantics leads to other things that lead to a lynch. That's the point I was trying to make.
3) If semantics are the only reason, I agree. But it's not the only reason here.
4) He hammered with not nearly enough discussion and now he's trying to say that there was enough discussion when it's clear that there wasn't. He also gave no reasoning with his hammer vote other than saying it was time to hammer.
Then there's this post:
I don't think that half the town agreed that your move was a good idea. I would probably have hammered him as well, but after more discussion and definitely after letting him claim. Just because half the town seems to think it's a good lynch doesn't mean you have to jump on without any reasoning whatsoever.Greasy Spot wrote:Sorry if you don't agree but half the town did and had already discussed alot. Plus he refused to claim.hasdgfas wrote:GS: That was stupid, stupid, stupid. 24 posts isn't enough discussion, no matter how many of them are his. That was a total scum move, because for the town, discussion=good.vote: GS