·
kikuchiyo's
self-superiority of her Nacho vote is distracting. Her questions were ill-suited for the thread since an already established conversational flow was progressing. Answering or not answering her questions does not somehow establish the "townness" of a player, as answering random, inconsequential questions does not denote who will and will not be "
cooperative" - you know, in the important sense: that is, in being active and catching scum as opposed to answering questions that don't actually promote constructive activity. Furthermore, there was a bevy of players (including herself) who had not answered her question, and her insistence on voting for Nacho after 5cvm professed his role information seems to tip-toe beyond a coincidental line.
·
I would actually like raider to explain his
post 78 instead of people just calling him out for a false dichotomy. Yes, it is a false dichotomy. In the meanwhile, we've seen his logic and I would like his response as to if he still thinks this logic is sound. I think the assumptions made in 78 aren't inherently scum-originated, even if I do think that they are flawed.
·
Nacho, why did you respond the way you did in
post 64? I can understand a knee-jerk sarcastic response to such an accusation, but what I don't understand is why this was the totality of your vocalized explanation as to 5cvm's claim. It's... far from helpful, to put it lightly.
·
I like Ecto's
post 104. Suave's
109 doesn't do much to impress me.
·
I like Phantom's
110. Would like to see Huck's response.
·
Would love to have 5cvm response to
105 and
110. I'm also curious as to what extensive
professed insight as to players' alignment 5cvm has apparently gleaned. Something other than names would be nice (hint: explanations!).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
