In post 1610, Thor665 wrote:I'm having some internet adventures at my airBnB, so this may be succinct and take me a bit to catch up fully.
I would like to say, the flipped Watcher vote parked Gamma.
Just, y'know, pointing that out for everyone.
Nah, I know you don't got a guilty on me, but this claim is a guilty on you because I targeted you last night.
VOTE: Wisdom
Gamma should go next.
Or either way, I'm fine with that.
In post 1618, Thor665 wrote:He had zero motion.
So he fakeclaimed a guilty to try to force a claim.
I'll await you explaining how that was town of him with the same baited breath I got his tale of why you were town.
In post 1635, Thor665 wrote:That's a lot of spaz considering you could have checked my activity and seen I wasn't on site.In post 1620, Celestial Coordinates wrote:are you claiming a no motion result on us
IU'm actually kind of sad that apparently my crumb is so hard to grok, I thought it was a little too obvious which is why I sort of figured Wisdom took the play at me.
SinceI said you left me e.MOTIONLESSprobably I claimed I saw activity on you, yeah?
In post 1643, Thor665 wrote:@Mod - what result would a theoretical roleblocker get if there target performed no action?
What result would a theoretical roleblocker get if they were theoretically blocked?
No Wisdom it’s pretty damn clearIn post 1645, Thor665 wrote:I'll also confirm now the language from both night's actions was identical - andI don't think I would have got blocked twice in a row.
He specifically claimed “no motion”.