i only saw that after i looked at the claims list yeah. conversins as well - not just kills. the line of logic is faulty
its not a good llook since ocrams razor the most likely action is a protect when flower got a bit of fos d2
- It's that time of the year again! Just kidding, we were late.
Click here to see the awards and nominate people for the rest of the categories.
- We're looking for artists. Direct message Dr. Watson for more info!
its not a good llook since ocrams razor the most likely action is a protect when flower got a bit of fos d2
Dr_Professor83
Greatest Loser
The protect would have meant no one would be seen visiting Flower anyway though bc the action would fail
Dr_Professor83
Greatest Loser
I assume you didn’t read that flip either
Dr_Professor83
Greatest Loser
You keep pushing stuff out thats half read and half thought out lol
wat
Archimonde
[Passive: Eredar Lord] Redacted
[Active - Fell Shroud] Protect a player from all actions for a night. Cannot Target yourself. And cannot target the same target in succession.
"protect a player from all actions" i assume is talking about uh, protecting them. if it was all actions against them would fail i assume it would use different diction? lmfao
i. really dont though
you pointed two example of a similar thing - one of which was me mis-remembering a claim (which imho is valid, given the post i was replying to doesnt mention that. i understood it later) the other point was me skimming over a back half of a sentence lmfao
Dr_Professor83
Greatest Loser
It’s basically a commute but without the blocking part. Guillo had similar but specifically excludes investigations
mmm ic
I don't really think this is particularly my fault for misunderstanding in my defense here. "Protect a player from all actions" insinuates "protection", e.g. from kills - "prevent all actions from working against a player" is the normal phrasing in this scenario.
Meaning the above point still stands :v.
Dr_Professor83
Greatest Loser
You also missed Ichigo’s claim with the kill exclusion lol.
"misremembering a claim"
Dr_Professor83
Greatest Loser
The claim is on the last page lol
Dr_Professor83
Greatest Loser
I’m accusing you of being sloppy, which is your defense for it
As town I expect you to not just power skim and then confidently spew forth words off of half reading if you’re really trying hard to solve this game lol
As town I expect you to not just power skim and then confidently spew forth words off of half reading if you’re really trying hard to solve this game lol
I really hate to say it but so what
Dr_Professor83
Greatest Loser
So you’re not putting much thought into things. How come?
I am being "sloopy" for two claims in a dozen. That aside - I have skimmed one role. a singular one, and came up with a false answer. I admitted to this, it isn't that big of a deal, or nearly as big of a deal as youre making it out to be
Uh. Not true
1) you can misremember something you read recently
2) skimming the day chat is like, so what lmfao
Like, this response is a loaded statement. It assumes me misremembering a claim is going to not be this - despite me having only talken abou this as "misremembering a claim" in recent pages. Can I accuse you of "sloppy solving" due to this? Obviously not. That's the same way I picture your accusation - sure, you may have a point that the way Im solving or going about it is suboptimal. but that isn't a suffiecnet scum case
tbf if you think im cl just vote me instead of playing coy. youre weirdly passive
Dr_Professor83
Greatest Loser
The problem with it is to shows you’re less worried about what you’re reading and digesting it and just making posts on things haphazardly
no it doesnt lol its skimming over one post youre acting like its a big deal when its not
me not having a perfect memory and skimming over a post is not wolf indiactive. stop trying to frame it as that