[Mr.Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

The Night 0 insinuation (or at least the notion that a 'Night 0' could exist or whatever) was actually kind of sort of...out of place.
And, Nik definitely was not acting like his usual self. I mean, I sort of was serious about that part of the argument.

Nik actually alleviated my concerns on that front by not changing his habits thereafter and responding with the same degree of jest (if only because Scum would've felt pressured at that moment and possibly felt the need to proffer a serious defense and/or revert back to his more 'typical' or 'expected' brand of arrogant self-aggrandizing behavior.)

But you see, the entirety of my argument wasn't based on the Night 0 thing, which you can sort of make some sort of claim regarding, I suppose (though I still think it's entirely likely Nik is shooting the breeze for grins and giggles.) It was based on the notion that Nik was setting me up for a fall based on predicting I'd die N1.

And if you look at the logic, it's kind of flawed. Not only was Nik not ultimately the only person who predicted I'd die N1 (and two scummates wouldn't out themselves by making the same prediction), far more importantly, my argument against Nik included leaps of logic.

Mind you, I wouldn't have shouted "TRAPPED!" if IHMN and Sifright, say, voted for Nik, but then actually justified their votes for Nik, and maybe threw in something self-aware like "Snake's case against Nik isn't totally convincing as I think he's over-analyzing things, but Nik also did X and Y and Z and that smells scummy."

Unfortunately, that's not what happened. Instead, they both bandwagoned Nik will providing no evidence aside from reposting my own arguments. That is a scum strategy. Doesn't mean both IHMN and Sifright are scum, probably means at least one is scum, definitely is a better hunch than anything else I have to go off D1.