Can I just say, I really, really hate the text editor for this place. I feel like I had more quotes here, but they're all jumbled up. Is there no way to open a new tab with just the text editor, or does it always have to be on the bottom of the page?
Oh, come on. A cult led by a Penguin? That sounds like so much fun.
Why is that, exactly?
I had a reason for including this, but I've forgotten. In any case, is there any poster with a reputation for being hostile to anyone who responds to them?
Just life or death? Weak.
I mean, given he was scum last game, Bee would have motivation to subtly change how he plays regardless of what he rolled, no?
Can I just say, I dislike the angle you made here. Not town/scum thing, I genuinely dislike it. There is nothing to be gained from questioning whether or not Bee was actually sick, and it actually calls his integrity into question.
Are we lynching you, then?
Going on last game, I would assume that isn't Luk?
In other words - you're going to pretend to scum hunt, and if you see an opening for the Poison lynch, then you'll come up with something. Am I correct, or am I correct?
This is, by my count, Emilia's third game of Mafia. Not really much of a playstyle developed yet. I will say I find Emilia to be a fairly easy read, but without any actual scum game to compare to, who really knows?
This is the second instance of lazy, passive play being supported by you.
Of course it isn't true. Why do you even feel the need to ask this question?
I can think of a number of words to describe what it is Ansasuken is currently doing, "thinking" would not be one of them.
Well, less so now that you've pointed it out.
Are you being purposefully obtuse here?
What does this matter? Do you think X is likely to play like you would, as scum?
Clearly not.
As above, you are using your own scum tells to justify reads on players, who do not play (or at least, X doesn't) even remotely like you do.
A whole lot of nothing.
Anything to contribute today, Aether?
An informal fallacy where one attacks the person and their credibility, rather than the argument. Generally used to discredit the person making the argument, giving the impression that it is addressing the argument by doing so, without ever really doing so. Often misused, and conflated with out and out insults. Anything else you'd like to know?