In post 750, Huntress wrote:Eager's posting felt off from his very first post. Most people who want to do something other than rvs to start discussion just do it. Eager made a point of drawing the players attention to what he was doing.
I did "just do it." Not sure what you are getting at here. Trying to bring up RVS on page 30+ to build a case? I have plenty of content, and that is the best you have? You're reaching, far. Trying to make the evidence fit the
gut
bias.
In post 750, Huntress wrote:He was too quick to call Gamma town in 70, especially in view of his statement that he starts with the assumption that everyone is guilty until proved innocent.
Gamma had dropped down on my list of people I wanted to kill, thanks to his openness to discuss the suspicion I had on him without cracking or getting frustrated.
In post 750, Huntress wrote:I didn't like the second part of 80. If he thought Victor might be town with an ulterior motive then he should have waited to see what came of it rather than point it out. Either way it would have been better to wait for Victor's explanation first.
So, because I wanted to engage someone because they were active at the time? Alas, I kept that scumread a little longer as his initial reaction to my accusation did not manage to alleviate my suspicions.
In post 750, Huntress wrote:His vote on Square in 600 was for an extremely flimsy reason. It was also for something that Manuel did, not Square.
My vote on Square was not for something Manuel did. I've already explained this, and now you are repeating what CCC said, which I already explained. I was trying to find an association to Square, and found Manuel, that is why Manuel was brought up in the first place. Square was the initial scumread, hence the initial vote on Square, not Manuel.
In post 750, Huntress wrote:He's throwing the words "doubtcasting" and "WIFOM" around far too much and adding distracting stuff like 697.
Now you're leeching off Jester's argument. The words fit the actions so I used them. If you can explain how the words didn't fit, we'd like to hear that. Do you want me to explain my case in a way that will be easy to understand? Well that involves using words that are widely used in mafia, I don't feel like I over-used them, since they were all used properly.
