What do you think of Oak? Seems like an okay fellow.
Is he suspicious? KindaWell I don't find him that suspicious, besides maybe the way he responded to accusations from paige yesterday (but then again if he is really a vanilla townie and people are making stuff up I'd understand it). What I found suspcious is his pick Ajit Pai, in my eyes it just does not really fit in with the other politicians.
Why? Well I don't find him that suspicious, besides maybe the way he responded to accusations from paige yesterday (but then again if he is really a vanilla townie and people are making stuff up I'd understand it). What I found suspcious is his pick Ajit Pai, in my eyes it just does not really fit in with the other politicians.
Would you be willing to lynch him?
While I'm not sure if he is scum or not, since my suspicions mostly comes from me finding Ajit Pai a weird claim, out of the ones left I would be okay with voting him. Mainly because of the people left I either dont really have much of a read (Erik, Moog, TWG), or I trust them more than Oak (Paige, Notty, Vatu). That leaves inffy (and Ender), who I still find to play a little bit unusual this game, but Paige seems to trust him, so i'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
I also wanted to respond to what else Inffy said in his latets posts (no seperate posts this time deal with al at once.
Reasons I think HK is autocrat:
He seems to be playing more carefully this game
He seemed to get really triggered when I put suspicion on him, more so than I would expect if he was town
Similair to Notty you also deem me likely to be autocrat. You thinking it is fine by me, seeing how this does not really bring me at a disadvantage. Why? If you decide to lynch me later on, and town ends up winning, as long as the actual autocrat dies along the way (perhaps killed by mafia or sk), i'd still win. I decided to still adress it since i want to mostly comment on that second argument.
I can't deny I have been playing a bit more careful this game (iggy mentioned it and now you, and I agree). However I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Last few games I died early on, mosly because I went into discussion with little restraints. Hence i wanted to try a more laidback approach this game, but not an inactive one. I'd argue i've still contributed to convos quite a bit (more than some who are still alive). I guess it's up to you how you interpret that.
Well then the second argument. You say i seemed really triggered in my convo with you some time ago. Well maybe it seemed that way because i was triggered. I'd like to explain why. There have been three convos this game that 'triggered' me you could say (yours being the third). First Aqua called me out after I made that post pointing out some suspicious things he said in your discussion with him. I found that a bit extreme, while i did make some mistakes in the post, the general point was accurate, and I corrected most mistakes after they got pointed out. Then a day later Iggish unjustly calls me out, which drags on for a bit till the point i got quite triggered, till he makes a post acknowleding he made a mistake. THAN LAST you start that thing with me, where you questioned why i took so long to reply about your Rune question (which btw if you remember you posted while i was in the middle of my final iggish post), and continue to call me out for LYING about things i was doing in real life. I'd say i had plenty of reason to be triggered at that point. I guess this also adds a bit to my more careful playstyle since after those 3 convos i kinda had enough of discussion in mafia for the remainder of that day.
I hope that clears things up a bit. as always feel free to reply/disagree (just dont trigger me again inffy, pls)