I have a town read from Limerick at this point, hes active, scumhunting, thats why he is misguided, its town on town. Regarding the inactivity, thats why Limerick is the only one with a point against us. A few of the votes on the bandwagon were simply for inactivity (reck and bv if I'm correct), which was baseless. Limerick is misguided because of the way he interpreted the post.MMM wrote:Also, why is Limerickx's case misguided? And do you really think he is scum? The term 'misguided' implies he is town hunting town. As for a policy lynch, he stated earlier that he was generally against policy lynching, and for inactivity? You stated you would be V/LA, or at least one head, so any inactivity can be excused. I don't see anything in Limerickx's case about inactivity
Kerristar wrote:Is it both role and name claim or just one or the other?
I don't see how the first implies the second. Its the conditions of our support. I would argue that this is stretching to a degree. The quote simply asks if its name or role claim or both, and depending on which happens we'll give our support. I really don't see how it implies that we are trying to get people to lynch him solely, as this would be hypocritical when we clearly were preparing to support it as well.Limerickx wrote:Implies "Yes, keep going for a massclaim, it will result in a) a massclaim, or b) people lynching you for starting the idea of having a massclaim,"
while almost insinuating that a massclaim IS going to be the outcome.
Ani's in this game??