Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
Fair point. It's the manner of saying it that may lean towards toxicity imo though, not really the content. Or maybe I'm just twisting the content to make it what I wish it would be.

I already said it was rude, so I'm not sure what you're on about. I'm talking about the "constructive introspection" part, as Voss put it, which was going down the drain along with the "everyone is shit". Again, don't confuse civility and facts. I don't approve of calling everyone shit, but I also don't approve of saying "noone made any mistakes", and I approve even less of those who say nobody should say otherwise, even in a civil manner.


Forcing the sub-out in a situation where the slot was heavily affected by weird claims would have been very damaging and would have opened the door to angleshooting way too hard. Imagine you're town seeing ZZ force-replaced and then his replacement says "forget everything my predecessor has said, I'm just VT lol". Even if you want to avoid reading into the replacement, it will be impossible not to think that the replacement was due to trolling.

As for warning vs modkilling, I agree that in hindsight it would have been better to warn before and modkill after if it didn't stop. That being said, I definetly wouldn't say the modkill was abusive given the circumstances, just not optimal (and probably very unpleasing for the modkilled player). And note that in some regards, the modkill better preserved game integrity than waiting longer would have, considering town would have been completely misled for a really long and significant time if the modkill hadn't happened quickly enough. So I'd just say it's a lesson for the future.
I expect every goofy ass gambit from here on out to be modkilled then. To prevent town from being misled.

Wtf?