there is nothing wrong with my reactions. you are pulling three things out of context, even though each one of them was perfectly okay in its context. but you're the IC, so that's okay, you can do whatever you want. I'll explain why the posts were nothing weird.
"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."
when evaluating a situation, it is wise to consider all facts that influence the situation, so that's what I did. I said, "I think you could be scum, and you would be a good notebearer, and because of that I think you are a good target to shoot." These were the relevant facts for ADK's answer, so I listed them.
"Oh well, WW was town. That's not terrible. But you should have defended yourself"
This was a 2parter. the first part was an evaluation of our current situation in the game. was that necessary? no. did it hurt? no. do people do it a lot? yes. is it a big deal? no. the second part was criticizing your play, which I don't think was very good. was that necessary? no. do I regret it? No, I should be allowed to criticize your play if I want to, even if you're the IC. the way you play is relevant for the game.
"ADK is dead. That's bad. You should have defended yourself"
and this one was not an evaluation of the game as a whole, the "bad" was just relative to the outcome that might have happened if you had defended yourself better, which would be, he is alive. Him being dead is bad compared to him being alive, because, he is town, and dead towns is not good. The reason I said this was because you were treating it as though nothing bad happened, since you're still alive. Here:
Scum needs to defend themselves; town doesn't.
of course town needs to defend himself, and my line above made perfect sense in response to this statement.