I've got to scram for a meeting fairly soon anyway, but your logic is not making sense to me. Not saying it doens't make sense, but maybe someone else can see it and rephrase it so I get it.





But you already admitted to following the game, you said you were looking in at the vote results etc. Personally, I'd be really surprised if really all you did was that and missed 'miller', I'd sort of expect you to at least grow curious and flick open those messages, that's why I thought it important to check if there were any. Seriously, it is hard for me to believe you never opened up the thread and then bypassed titles with 'My RC' and such in the title. If it's true, it's surprising to me, genuinely. Maybe you should ask some of the others, I suspect they'd be surprised too. The game is moderatly addictive, I haven't spent much time dead but when I have been I still flipped through most of the replies, can't say I gave them anything approaching my normal level of scrutiny but I think I read most or all of them, I have always assumed most of us did that. If you're saying you don't, fine, but I think that's more likely to be the exception than the rule. Such being the case, why is it weird for me to have suggested any of these things? If I'm the odd man out and your behavior is the norm, why did others posts agreeing it was outside the norm? You are basically saying my theory is crazy because I assumed most players tend to keep tabs on the game after they die. We can poll the others real quick and find out, 'do you tend to keep up on the game after you are killed?'



I don't need to give any reasons - I still did incidentally. I consider, and have always considered, and have always been upfront in saying so, that any reasonably proveable falsehood is grounds to push for a lynch. I was under the impression you agreed with this, certainly you've never stopped me from using it before. I'm not really interested in why on day 2 someone says they are vanilla and on day 3 says they are a cop, I assume if there is a valid reason they will present it, I've never felt obliged to say 'well, he probably faked claimed vanilla to protect his cop role' because it's their job to explain why and mine to prod for flaws in the argument. If I was 'overeager' to see you gone, I'd have voted for you by now, I certainly have never hesitated to vote for people whether I was a DF or not. You seem to be using both aspects of your interpretation of my behavior to indicate guilt. "Isaac is being overly aggressive and suspicious, which is suspicious" and simultaneously "Isaac's hedging, that's suspicious" which one is it?