]I mean, if you were confident that WW was town, why didn't you defend him more?
I wasn't confident that he was town. How did you get this idea? I said he should have defended
himself more, that is completely independent from my reads on him. I thought he was pretty scummy (which I have said before).
]And by that I mean "quotes without giving the hyperlink."
This is a very unlclean way of arguing that I'm surprised to see from you. There are arguments to be made for why I should include the hyperlink, and it's okay that you would ask me to do that. But pretending like that's the same thing as falsifying the meaning of a message by pulling it out of context is pretty... uh... stupid? I mean, it's not even related. Including the hyperlink and altering the intention behind a quote are two different things. Unrelated. You can pull something completely out of context and provide the hyperlink, and you can take a line that works perfectly on its own and don't change the intended message in any way and don't provide the hyperlink. Again, unrelated things. One is about formal convenience, and the other one about content. Unrelated. I hope I said it enough times now, as people tend to ignore points which I don't empathize enough. So, please don't pretend like one is the other.
As for this specific case, I think it's very clear that he was altering my intention with the quotes, and I wasn't, so I have no idea why you would call this statement ridiculous. Let's take a closer look at the things he quoted.
"WW may be scum, but if not it's okay because he would be the Notebearer. I mean that point is kind of overstated, but I'm going to state it again here for..... uh, reasons."
"Oh well, WW was town. That's not terrible. But you should have defended yourself"
"ADK is dead. That's bad. You should have defended yourself"
It is easily apparent that removing the context here gives a false impression of what the quotes really mean. The last quote is presented as if it contradicts with the second one. But it doesn't, because the second one was directed to the current game situation, and the last one was in comparison to the situation that we'd have now hadn't ADK shot WW. So, these were pulled out of context, and they changed their apparent meaning by being pulled out of context. Which is what I was saying. So, what I was saying was clearly justified.
Now let's look at my post. I was just requoting the exact 3 messages you see above, and explained for every one of them why they did in fact make sense in the situation where they happened. I basically provided the context he left out for each one of them.
Long story short: he was pulling stuff out of context, I wasn't. Which is what I said.
Of course, you could make an argument that I did pull stuff out of context
before (i.e. earlier in this game or another), and that
this is the reason why I am not allowed to criticize WW if he does the same thing. But, if that's what you wanted to say, then provide some examples. You can't just say: "don't criticize WW for that, you're worse," without giving any sort of explanation for
why I am worse. The hyperlink thing, as I hope I made clear by now, is
not an example, because it is unrelated.
I'm really surprised that anyone is taking WW's side here, because he is clearly in the wrong. The only reason I even answered to a case like that is because he is an IC. If anyone else had made the same case, I'd have ignored it entirely.