I'll respond to the points raised regarding myself.
tyhess wrote:
In post 1359, vollkan defends oman hammer for some reason, saying that Oman explained it when he voted, so that makes it all fine and dandy. I disagree (a lot). This was before Oman had some what explained the vote in 1360.
Oman's "preventing a self hammer" justification was an unusual one, but still "valid". As I say in 1359, that raises the obvious question of why Oman chose to support the lynch when he suspected TH. I did not say it was "fine and dandy", nor did I imply that. My thinking was that it was a sufficient explanation, in that it covered everything, but was a "bizarre reason" nonetheless. I did, however, take issue with the TH anomaly which I raised.
Oman wrote:
in 1361 Vollkan calls out oman for the same faulty reason that I saw, which was good. But he also called out oman for "thinking" vollkan and himself was town, which was stretching it in my opinion.
vollkan also "noted" oman's "soft claim" were he claimed town....
Actually, I only called him out for saying that he thought himself to be pro-town, since I would have expected a bit more certainty from him. Really, this was just me being pedantic in order to garner some reaction from him - it wasn't stretching because it wasn't really "suspicious", just something I was interested in seeing how he explained it.
tyhess wrote:
end of page 55....if it seems like most of my stuff is attacking vollkan, it's because it is. His are the only posts that look suspiscious too me as I'm going through....
Again, I ask whether the points you have raised in-thread were the only ones you had, because I can't actually see any case for me to rebut.
I mean, so far we've only had:
1) The fact I have not been NKed.
2) My partial defence of Oman. (I say "partial" because whilst I thought that his actions were bizarre, I could not see what necessarily made them scummy, other than the TH thing)
3) The "thinking" point