JMich: Allow me to quote my "accusing post" in full.
<snip>
This is my "serious accusation". This is the "slander" I threw during RVS. This is the post that had Vitek vote for me, and you accusing me of "distract attention from actual scum hunting"
While it may seem innocuous now, but put into the context of early day one RVS, it was very out of step with the rest of the group's mood. Joke votes were the norm, and you make a seemingly serious incident out of Robeasy's joke vote.
So yes, that really is the 'serious accusation', or at least it was at the time. Then again, perhaps this just has to do with the way that I view the 'natural' progression of day one in a mafia game. I feel that RVS would have petered out on its own, but I may have too strict ( and still somehow improperly defined) idea of what RVS is.
JMich: And thus why any serious discussion during day 1 is welcome. I have made this comment, it has lead to me accusing and being accused. Once someone of those that took part in the discussion ends up dead (and at least one of us probably will end up dead), we have a cardflip. Then we can reevaluate the statements of the dead one, and see if someone was pushing too hard for a lynch, if the dead one knew something that couldn't let out etc.
Yes, I agree. I said much the same as what I said. We have no diverging opinions on this.
JMich: Again, read
post 18. Is it really that accusing of a post? If I said "So you say you want to play XCOM:EW on PC since you see the PC as the superior platform, yet you play it on XBOX360." would that mean I'm calling the other a dirty console peasant? Or that I'm rolling my eyes on preferences and actions?
You have avoided my question by attempting to make it silly, so I shall ask it again: Did you find Robbeasy's actions that suspicious?
JMich: SPF covered that. I'm asking which part of Vitek's post you saw as a softclaim.
Even though I now think it harmless, my initial reaction was to the 'make-up' part of Vitek's post. Although Vitek used make-up, instead of make up, I never thought he was suggesting a roleblocker, but rather that he was suggesting that he could make up for the death of the doctor in the flavour.
JMich: The "One thing" part was referring to Robbeasy and flubbucket only? Robb, Flub and Vitek? All of us?
In
post 307 you seem to imply that it was meant for all of us, and if any of us thought that the "One thing" part wasn't correct, we should have told you to take a hike. Then you follow it that by answering your question (that you addressed to 2 people only), we seemed to agree with the rest of your post, since we answered your post, but didn't touch the "one thing" part.
So, I have a post with my view and a question. You answer the question and ignore my view. Does that mean you agree with my view, that you disagree with my view, or that I don't know anything about your opinion on my view? Why is it different when we ignore your view in your post?
I must say that I had almost totally forgotten that Robbeasy had asked everyone else to list their suspects, and that everyone had answered my question indirectly because of this. So yes, the initial question was posed only to flubbucket and Robbeasy.
I do, however, stand by my assertion that, by answering the question I posed, everyone showed their willingness to move past the Vitek-Robbeasy-flubbucket discussion, and on to other things( again, at least for the time being).