Ectomancer wrote:Straight forward for you McCavity, you were slinging mud at two players, and the one mud ball would invalidate the other
You're mischaracterizing my attacks as mudslinging. In separate instances, I had been questioning actions from both Tarballs and Rage. As of right now, I like Tarballs' answers much more than Rages'.
Ectomancer wrote:then as a player is nearing lynch, you back off and give them a clean slate so as to avoid any cupability if they turn up town.
I was expressing my displeasure with the Puta wagon. I had not been on it to that point, and wanted people to see the side that I was seeing: He made a mistake, not necessarily a scummy action in of itself, and I was worried we were going to lynch poorly because of it. Here when I say lynch poorly, I mean lynching for reasons having little to do with scumminess.
Speaking of which, I agree with chuckrock on his recent response to Puta. Puta, you don't have a PR. Be clear and complete with us or we (at least I) will regard it as scummy.
Ectomancer wrote:Your last statement goes along with this idea. "I'd much prefer to not have to go with a policy lynch. " ....but you will right?
I am generally against policy lynches. So, I guess in answer to your question, no. Give me a reason to lynch based on scumminess.
Yes, my fake claim is Innocent Aligned with the Town win condition as per the mod's first post.