Game for Kings [Game Over]
- Thread starter Geoff
- Start date
- Status
[MENTION=165]pimpd2331[/MENTION] - You do realize right now your vote condemns Crestham to death via the lynch, right? Its not a certain percent, its the plain majority.
I also want to make sure you understand that we do not have a requirement to vote, to avoid being inactive killed, ever.
I want to make sure you understand what your vote means right now, before I say another word on the subject.
I also want to make sure you understand that we do not have a requirement to vote, to avoid being inactive killed, ever.
I want to make sure you understand what your vote means right now, before I say another word on the subject.
I am against a day 1 lynch unless there is actual proof to it, which is mainly why I have a problem with your vote.
But I wanted to make sure you didn't think there was a requirement to vote or that there was a general percent needed before it became a lynch, so I didn't waste my time. Anyway:
What part about Crestham's post was vague? Really, which part was? Not one piece of:
is vague at all. Its one of the more specific posts of the day.
Your vote is based off nothing, at all. I'm not saying Crestham is innocent, but I'm saying you have no actual proof that he is guilty and guess what, if he dies tomorrow by the lynch and comes up innocent - I'll be putting my vote on you first for a pointless lynch off no proof - because that is a danger to everyone.
But I wanted to make sure you didn't think there was a requirement to vote or that there was a general percent needed before it became a lynch, so I didn't waste my time. Anyway:
What part about Crestham's post was vague? Really, which part was? Not one piece of:
is vague at all. Its one of the more specific posts of the day.
Your vote is based off nothing, at all. I'm not saying Crestham is innocent, but I'm saying you have no actual proof that he is guilty and guess what, if he dies tomorrow by the lynch and comes up innocent - I'll be putting my vote on you first for a pointless lynch off no proof - because that is a danger to everyone.
@noex1337 check: do you like Chicken with your Waffles
[MENTION=165]pimpd2331[/MENTION] - You can lie in check. Which is what Crestham said he did, claiming he set up his check so that it was a lie either way (Obviously, I do not know if this is true). Then he claimed to answer the next question truthfully.
Which is why his reply makes sense if you assume he told us the truth. However, the possibility of Crestham lying is just as likely as any of you right now, none of us can trust each other so quickly on day 1.
Which is why I find it odd you single out Crestham, since he is about as truthworthy as anyone else right now. That was my point.
Also, I disagree and would say thats not the proper usage of vague, since his statement was not confusing at all. We just don't know if he was telling the truth or not, but that doesn't automatically make his statement vague. Either way, this part of the discussion is unimportant.
@Hor person, thanks for cooperating~
Which is why his reply makes sense if you assume he told us the truth. However, the possibility of Crestham lying is just as likely as any of you right now, none of us can trust each other so quickly on day 1.
Which is why I find it odd you single out Crestham, since he is about as truthworthy as anyone else right now. That was my point.
Also, I disagree and would say thats not the proper usage of vague, since his statement was not confusing at all. We just don't know if he was telling the truth or not, but that doesn't automatically make his statement vague. Either way, this part of the discussion is unimportant.
@Hor person, thanks for cooperating~
- Status