Anyone can say that Dan is suspicious for setup speculating, that rawr is suspicious for being brash at LLD's brash attack, that Serela's waffling is scummy-looking; it is the choice between viable targets and the reasoning behind it which counts, and Omba has none of that. I would think my line of questioning is valid in that sense.
Shit case. According to this, I'm scum because I did not explain why X is more scummy than Y. Apart from the fact that it's plain unnecessary because Bard can think that far himself, it's pretty obvious how "made some weird speculation leading to a pretty unjustified result" is less scummy than "pushed something that borders on then scummy, then reacted in a way that reads scummy" is less scummy than ":giant lurk: followed by downright horrible reaction". Nevermind that if lack of reasoning given is his way of choosing who should be shot here, he should be advocating a Taokaka shot because she's been even more concise (and gave zero reasoning for suspecting Affinity; if he's able to read the reasoning without her giving it, he should similarly be able to do the same in my case).
In short: Pushes a bullshit case, proceeds to name as other viable shots... well, the same sort of generally viable shots he accused me of advocating.
Result: Needs a bullet.
No name continues climbing up the list by pointing out, but completely holding off on giving a read to accompany what he pointed out. Apart from the whole "where's the problem in only giving reads on specific players" thing.
