Quote:
Originally Posted by Loslote
Could you elaborate on what you're referring to here? So far, I've felt like Rikae has been straightforward and clear, and I haven't gotten a bad vibe from her at all. Also, this:
|
#69.
Seriously? No one else except
Mac has noticed
anything wrong with that post? And
Mac only noticed it because he was the one falsely accused. Notice how
no one else picked up on the incorrect information. Don't you find it scary manipulative to have thoughts put into your head like that? Village, what is wrong with you for blindly eating up what you're fed, regardless of
Rikae's actual role or intention?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne
Maeglin is a traitor, so why would one bring him into the fray. To me that is a cobbler hint, I didn’t bring it up earlier because I wanted us to focus on the sick.
|
Because Maeglin is
Urwen's latest character obsession. She will find a way to bring him into any discussion. See like all of her posts in the last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc
Me neither - and not only because I am one of them, but considering this.
Day 1 starts. As expected of Day 1, there isn't much to talk about, people are joking about washing hands etc.
Then, among a few actual posts with content, G55 proposes (the way I see it now) an alternative to "no vote on Day 1" in the form of a "fake vote".
I understand it as a "dry run vote" and propose an elaborate scheme which makes half the people not understand what I meant.
Pitchwife questions it.
Cut to: "one of these three is a Wolf". For what? For suggesting a "bonus vote round"? For baiting me into talking about "bonus vote round" so that they could accuse me of coming up with it? Is talking about this "bonus vote round" something inherently evil, so WWs would assume that they could paint the person who talked about it as suspicious? This has nothing to do with whether the people involved may be innocent or guilty otherwise, but this debate should have zero impact on it?!?
What I mean is to ask: where is there anything "evil" in this debate in the first place? The whole idea seems horribly contrived. It is more like "look, three people started arguing here, let's pick a lynchee from among them". Only normally, when people argue, they argue about whether XY is suspicious or not, or perhaps whether we should lynch nobody on Day 1. Now in those debates, you could at least argue that one side is arguing for something with a malicious intent. But we argued (or anyway, "argued", on top of everything) about something that, I think, is "outside morality and ethics".
I ask everyone who suspects anyone on the grounds of this to reexamine (and ideally, explain) their reasoning.
|
That is actually very reasonable and unpanicked defense. However, it misses the main point of all the accusations, which are not about the
content of the Votes Debate but the manner in which players have interacted in it. Still, points to
Legate for level-headedness regardless of his role.
Edit: xed since my last