In post 577, Ranger wrote: In post 572, Titus wrote:I think it's pretty clear I'm claiming mason. To argue I am not is asinine and desperate.
That answers half; you are claiming mason explicitly.
I don't believe you're really a mason.
I believe you have a role tied to imaginality, and that role is a role that you feel is at least akin to a mason.
But I don't believe you're a
mason
mason. I don't believe your actual
role
is mason. I don't believe imaginality is confirmed town to you, and vice-versa.
If you say that's unreasonable, my counterargument is explicitly my familiarity with you, Titus. I know how you think and how you treat roles that aren't masons, as if they were masons. I believe you have a role like that. There are dozens of roles which could fit, which in your mind you would call masons, in spite of them not actually being masons. (For instance, a somewhat common example is a two-person role, with two players required for the power role.)
Any role which you have that would have you call imaginality a mason while he is not
literally
confirmed town to you, is a role I would believe you would have. You claiming mason while holding a role like that wouldn't be a fakeclaim in your eyes, and you'd have no fear of locking it in because it's not a lie.
You're certainly no mason though. And don't pretend you are; don't pretend I'm wrong. I'm right, you
know
I'm right, and I'm not letting you protect a scum player off of a role you earnestly believe makes them town which doesn't
actually
make them town.