Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the phantom
Btw, I did consider trying to convince SPM and Mith to edit their posts and thus hand the game to me. What would you have thought had I proposed that, Mith and SPM? Would it have made me look more or less guilty?
|
Go ahead! That looks as sane as everything that might have been done in this game.
But I would stick to
Spm's and
lmp's thoughts on rational arguments. With all of them you
phantom should have been lynched and would I have been given one Day more, I would have tried my best to show your "cunning-evilness"... for no avail, as I now have learned (and which innocence I kind of trusted from the beginning, but was growing a bit wary of it all the time - I would surely had gone through every comma you made on the next Day had I been alive!).
So, as
lmp said, it's easy to find well grounded suspicions on some games and on others one is totally at lost with them. I wholly agree with this. But
Spm has a point too: you can make anyone look bad if you want to... So in the end it seems to depend on who you decide to look on - or who arises your attention? So again, loudmouths having to bear the grunt of analysing (which leads the analysed to look guilty if the analyser knows her/his job) while the quiet ones get by without notice?
Again voicing this one principle: open talking gets me wishing one to live and hiding in the shadows I only see working for the dark side...