> This ship identified this statement as an agreement: Conq adequately clarified that: Scum is generally red, Town is green, ITP can be anything. Thinking you're Scum based on an Orange role PM is more suspicious than thinking you're ITP because of the same.
Then you misrepped Bard, I am quite certain that statement is evidence that Bard provided to proof the ridiculousness of Conq's vote, you know, in order to vote against him.
This ship was also not accusing captain Bardiche of any wrongdoing.
But you are throwing a rhetoric at Bard, and implicating him for a glaring intent contradiction behind his vote, before he even responded! Perhaps you should actually explain better?
Also, please, formatting;
Four things happened:
> captain Bardiche agreed about captain SB being suspicious, or at least was thinking along the same lines.
> captain Bardiche stated that it was time to get serious.
> captain Conqueror's targeting of captain SB was a questionable move, considering that it appeared to be serious.
> captain SB's statement was stupid coming from the Federation.
First one didn't happen. Bardiche was citing Conq's words, and attacking Conq with them. Your inferring that wrongly, hence, strawman.
The logic link behind the second and third one are too just plain weird. Conq voted SB
before Bard's statement, so if anything, Bard is the one concluding Conq's SB vote is trying to get us out of RVS, so the cause and effect here clearly don't add up.
SB is stupid, okay, whatever, sure, SB is stupid in your opinion. But that's, like,
your own opinion, which wasn't even supposed to be a 'thing' that happened. So you are still wrong for treating it as an objective truth.
Okay, so at least now I know your view is completely messed up because you got your events totally scrambled. Next;
Connecting the dots, this ship concluded that;
> captain Bardiche was at worst indifferent to both the fact
1. the captain SB said something suspicious
2. captain Conqueror made a serious move
> and captain Bardiche's only objection was over the fact what captain SB said would be stupid if it was coming from the Federation.
This ship's intention was only for captain Bardiche to explain why said statement was stupid for Federation despite the fact it was suspicious.
This ship was not accusing captain Bardiche of not being serious or any other wrongdoings.
So by 'stupid for Federation', I suppose you mean scummy. Okay, so you want Bard to explain why his vote was scummy even if it was suspicious....whaaat? So you want him to prove himself guilty? There's probably something I am missing here, but far as how your wording is literally concerned, that seems to be a pretty loaded question imo from the get-go, hence my questioning.
> This ship notes with annoyance that such a minor query shouldn't have necessitated such high expectations and such a detailed explanation.
I expected coherence, which frankly shouldn't be that high of an expectation, even for RVS. For those who aren't using a jumble of codewords to express a simple idea.