Fair enough I guess. But I'd remind you of what Twilight pointed out a while ago, that in game 10 they almost lynched a mafia D1 but let him off because he was new...
1. Consistently "weird" behaviour. First pointed out by Vitek way, way back in #150
, and it still remains in full force. She's aggressive in a way that feels distinctly unFrenchielike to me.
2. The clash with stoic -- the more I read it, the more I tend to back stoic's side. It really reads as if she's setting him up with her questions, picking the right ones to prepare for an attack in the next post. Again, the level of aggression is very odd.
3. The issue discussed in this post
, the explanation of which I'm not satisfied with at all. And the explanation I would be satisfied with came much later than I'd expect if the excuse was genuine.
Some points in my defence:
1. You're measuring my behaviour against a sample of two (well, 1.75) games,which are the only 1.75 games I've ever played...! Admittedly they were long games, but still. Additionally I'm puzzled as to why active agressiveness means I must be scum. You really think if I was first-time mafia I'd be drawing attention to myself and going all out like this?
2. I admit the Damuna thing reads like I was setting him up. I apologise for that. (I genuinely wasn't trying to (standard NFY-logic is insane)). I included this in the summary for clarity's sake, but it shouldn't be considered part of my current arguments.
Was there anything else that reads like I was setting him up that I can address?
3. At the time I stated I was making an assumption for the sake of having something
to work with rather than all the possibilities floating around. I took time responding right away because I wanted to double check my own logic (see 2...)