I don't think it was the tone, but rather the content. As others have said, the accusation you're making in 201 is pretty weak. After screwing up once, it's not at all suspicious that Haly would get it right the second time.
At least one of us doesn't understand what a policy lynch is, and it's entirely possible it's me, so I'll elaborate on what I mean.
Seath's playstyle is anti-town. If he consistently executes it in every game he plays, yeah he'll only be scum some of the time, but when he is scum he'll be a damn good one because nobody can read him. Meanwhile when he's town, his playstyle will be at best neutral for town, if not detrimental to it by muddying the waters. When people completely rule out voting for Seath because he's unreadable, that's a problem.
So the idea behind a policy lynch (from my understanding) is that you take a stand and say "X behavior is anti-town enough that should it occur, we'll lynch that person." Not because X behavior is indicative of scum in that particular game, but because it hurts town in the long run.
I'm confused about two things. First of all, is anyone seriously pushing to lynch a new person today? 'Cause I've looked and don't see anyone saying that.
Second, why would scum or neutrals push for it? Town newbies are great for scum: they make mistakes. Or at least they generally don't play as well as the veterans. Plus I haven't seen anyone willing to even consider it, so it's not like they're an easy target.
Am I missing something?
Y'know Freakinchair (btw, I always read this name
in Mitch Hedberg's voice), you make a compelling point. When the heat is on, and there's only (lol) thirteen hours left in the day, sometimes you've gotta look out for yourself.
Vote: Freakinchair
