In post 150, gigabyteTroubadour wrote:To get to the point, why was the reasoning for your vote, "Intentionally not answering the RQS," and not "I agree with her, that joke seemed forced," or something to that effect? By giving a different reason to vote, it seems as though you have something else to bring to the Karnos wagon that pertains to his RQS answers.
I did not do what you think I did - my "intentionally not answering RQS" comment was self-referential.
I was saying that I wasn't answering the RQS - I said this so that you would know I wasn't doing so on purpose, so you wouldn't need to waste time asking me if I missed the questions or something.
In post 150, gigabyteTroubadour wrote:For everyone, this is more of a theory question about semi-nightless in general: Since there are more mislynches available to us than normal (we get 4 before LYLO rather than 3), does this give townies more, less, or the same amount of an incentive to be defensive in your opinion?
The same.
Town shouldn't try to get lynched, and town shouldn't go softly into that good night unless town is playing badly.
In post 155, Io wrote: In post 130, Thor665 wrote:Karnos does look a little flaily to me, but he does appear to have a valid point that you're stretching in your value calls on his stated beliefs.
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
Mostly because I don't know what a value call is or can really find it on google.
Value call is offering your thoughts on the worth of a given item/thought/occurrence.
Replace it with 'opinion' and the meaning remains the same.
In post 155, Io wrote:But I don't really see how his point is valid
Allow me to sum it up in your words;
In post 155, Io wrote:which wouldn't even be a lie as it's just interpretation
So, basically, he *didn't* say something.
You then said he *did* say something.
He calls it a lie.
You call it an "interpretation".
Okay, so if he didn't say it - it's valid of him to take a stance against you - because you're apparently making up stuff about his beliefs.
Why is this confusing or surprising to you?
In post 155, Io wrote:A defense from him wouldn't have even been that hard to make as all he would have needed to do was to explain how I was interrupting his intentions wrong.
Didn't he do that by saying that he *never said at all* what you were "interpreting" him as saying - which means you know he didn't say it, but kind of think he...implied it or something?