In post 319, TemporalLich wrote:
In post 393, TemporalLich wrote:
In post 458, TemporalLich wrote:
Raya and or Raya plus Sam quickhammered every day minus day 1 where Inori beat me to it.
In post 319, TemporalLich wrote:
In post 393, TemporalLich wrote:
In post 458, TemporalLich wrote:
Flea and I are not considered correct yeets lol. but whatever.
Did you kill me Raya?In post 0, TemporalLich wrote:Raya36, Mafia Monk, survives and wins
I mean... technically not meIn post 507, VFP wrote:Did you kill me Raya?In post 0, TemporalLich wrote:Raya36, Mafia Monk, survives and wins
I trusted you
In post 504, Flea The Magician wrote:I was happy to townside, honestly.
Nora not responding to Ice Cream kinda told me that she wasn't town though but ya know I needed to stump *someone* first....
oh while i'm here.
I AM FREAKING INSULTED YA'LL THINK MY 3P PLAY IS SO BAD AS TO BE ABLE TO READ MY TARGET FROM D1. I know better and know to slow play that if anything
Side note why'd you think cakey was my RVS lol
TLich asked me about that. If there is a specific reason it's not game throwing it's not a bannable offense afaik, it's just that 90% of the time outing your team is gamethrowing. In this particular circumstance I can almost guarantee you wouldn't be banned as it was actually mechanically optimal in the absence of a vig. OTOH, your play was playing around a vig or some other shenanigans with is arguably a better idea.In post 514, Titus wrote:I actually was not allowed to claim scum and my partner is X because that's a bannable offense or I may have.
mith wrote:
Clearly you would have been playing to win, so there wouldn't be a breakage of the rule in the first place. I may have been a little unclear in my response to TLich, though, so if he said otherwise that's on me for being obtuse.In post 1, TemporalLich wrote:-Pretending to break the rules will be treated similarly as actually breaking the rules.