Firstly let me go over your page 4 post on what I mean. That should probably point you towards my general problem.
As for the definition of a leader in NOC, it's p much spot on, but both I in my first big post and rssp1 after you questioned the NOC leader thing initially have provided nearly identical definitions of said stuff. As for why it's bad is for me that it feels too early, too restrictive and you have been doing it with the mentioned above posts I have I problem with. Also say forcing sunny to speak is pointless, he made it clear what his stance on this game is and at that point any argument with him is a time waster and another case of no lynch discussion. We either lynch sunny or he decides to show his way of playing because as it stands he is a detriment to the village by not allowing us to get an actual read on him, or we leave it to the host to get mad at him and force subbing him out for refusing to play NOC.
As for your "read" on me, I made it pretty clear, and had people comment on me saying it out loud, I put my vote on you so you may act in a defensive role for once, which you kinda have been brushing aside to get me to go in more detail about my problems, which really can be taken in both ways so you wouldn't accidentally explain yourself for something I didn't actual mean or you actually don't think any of my concerns are legit, so that one is fine for now, and I hope I'm precise enough for your taste now. So yes my vote doesn't have much evidence behind it, no vote does, even the HD vote is a good vote thanks to the pretty nice web HD is caught in with his relation to Fate or say my previous point on the fueling of the jalmont discussion, which combined with others I'm likely not even aware of,should make HD a good lynch regardless of the result. Actual evidence of HD being bad is kinda lacking though(Even the fate buddying is not exactly correct even though HD literally quoted Fate's reaction to jalmont's ruse as his own their reactions to his explanation were polar opposites).
As for back to the Celever point of you flipflopping, that really still stands and you really just made excuses, you made a statement that HD's contributions satisfy you at the time, which honestly implies and you kinda admit it, you didn't put much work into and just said it like whatever. Which is essentially admitting you said it just to say something. So WHY did you make a comment on what you thought about HD at the time anyways? What reason could you have to just make a comment that pretty much implies that you think HD is acting townish by your standards in the sense of contributing to the discussion when you didn't actually look into it, like nearly at all.
Again I shall keep my vote on you for the time being, and likely will wait for a reply on your next reply till after I update curvy bust cream and hopefully I will also do list of reactions that kept the jalmont ruse discussion going.
You just point out the obvious here, not even making a case on him, what this behavior indicates(I'd say self confidence as in he actually thinks he was wronged). Basically you tie nothing to this and are just pointing at moi and stating what he is doing. Not much different from when Cancerous did a summary.
Then you spend time discussing why no lynch is bad, which doesn't say much because even if moi didn't believe in it at the time, it's still not technically content when you convince a player about the universal truth of having to go into a day with the opinion of trying to get someone lynched.
And finally tons of calling out people who are under performing(on merely page 4) and one instance of lynch jalmont because of no lynch suggestion. All in all I merely feel this big post barely said anything and only really stated your opinion about no lynch, and I merely feel most of your posts, expect at the time the one with the Cancerous lynch that I missread and the big analysis on everyone and then the HD attacks which I can get behind. Regardless before page 8 it felt like you were just trying to establish yourself as a town without saying much and trying to control where the discussion goes, sometimes with questions people can't actually answer.
As for the definition of a leader in NOC, it's p much spot on, but both I in my first big post and rssp1 after you questioned the NOC leader thing initially have provided nearly identical definitions of said stuff. As for why it's bad is for me that it feels too early, too restrictive and you have been doing it with the mentioned above posts I have I problem with. Also say forcing sunny to speak is pointless, he made it clear what his stance on this game is and at that point any argument with him is a time waster and another case of no lynch discussion. We either lynch sunny or he decides to show his way of playing because as it stands he is a detriment to the village by not allowing us to get an actual read on him, or we leave it to the host to get mad at him and force subbing him out for refusing to play NOC.
As for your "read" on me, I made it pretty clear, and had people comment on me saying it out loud, I put my vote on you so you may act in a defensive role for once, which you kinda have been brushing aside to get me to go in more detail about my problems, which really can be taken in both ways so you wouldn't accidentally explain yourself for something I didn't actual mean or you actually don't think any of my concerns are legit, so that one is fine for now, and I hope I'm precise enough for your taste now. So yes my vote doesn't have much evidence behind it, no vote does, even the HD vote is a good vote thanks to the pretty nice web HD is caught in with his relation to Fate or say my previous point on the fueling of the jalmont discussion, which combined with others I'm likely not even aware of,should make HD a good lynch regardless of the result. Actual evidence of HD being bad is kinda lacking though(Even the fate buddying is not exactly correct even though HD literally quoted Fate's reaction to jalmont's ruse as his own their reactions to his explanation were polar opposites).
As for back to the Celever point of you flipflopping, that really still stands and you really just made excuses, you made a statement that HD's contributions satisfy you at the time, which honestly implies and you kinda admit it, you didn't put much work into and just said it like whatever. Which is essentially admitting you said it just to say something. So WHY did you make a comment on what you thought about HD at the time anyways? What reason could you have to just make a comment that pretty much implies that you think HD is acting townish by your standards in the sense of contributing to the discussion when you didn't actually look into it, like nearly at all.
Again I shall keep my vote on you for the time being, and likely will wait for a reply on your next reply till after I update curvy bust cream and hopefully I will also do list of reactions that kept the jalmont ruse discussion going.
