At any rate, it's 4:30 am right now, so I've little to say other than to randomly
because hello there.
In post 70, KX wrote:What I am likely to do is not scum slip, but instead change opinions and/or make mistakes. These do not make one scum; They make one human.
In post 65, Docteur Gudsight wrote:goodmorning out of the now 12 who have posted who's actually scummy?
~M
In post 212, KX wrote:Also, to add on, how is putting effort in a town thing? As far as I know, all commitment and putting time into a game means it that you want to win.
In post 294, ArcAngel9 wrote:Another person i am concerned about is Good Morning, He agrees with everyone about Josh being scum but actually didn't vote him, and his reads on others didn't sit well as posted.
In post 278, serrapaladin wrote:goodmorning, what did you mean by AA9 asserting some really random stuff? It's definitely not a language thing.
In post 327, serrapaladin wrote:Except the assertion up there came after my question. I see where you're coming from with your criticism of 294, but I was wondering what you based your earlier read on.
In post 107, ArcAngel9 wrote:Wait, so you’re saying that you Trust HD and you don’t him too. And If I understood you correctly… your play style is mainly trusting him and playing for him too is your play style. That’s awfully confusing!!! Look,I am happy that you found someone to put your faith blindly and believe them as townie and trust them and not trust them at the same time but this is not helping anyone.
In post 167, ArcAngel9 wrote:Josh is a person i am bit concerned about, He randomly votes me first and after 3 pages laters he made another posting saying that "every body is arguing over nothing" and later he gives bit lecture to KX , and right after he votex KX. Over all 7 pages he has been nothing but "Null"
I don't know Josh before neither i have ever played with himI am wondering if this is how he play or he is scum and trying to avoid facing the game?
Unvote
VOTE: Josh
In post 355, Jennifer wrote:In post 354, goodmorning wrote:2. I said I liked one of his posts. ONE. The rest of them I don't find Townish. Please stop misrepresenting me.
How can I misrepresent what you never said? Your only comment on his substantive posting (which, yes, was Post 201) was that you liked it.
You never said that you don't find the rest of his posts townish.
In post 271, goodmorning wrote:Nic - Has posted very little, and most of that is sheeping. 201, though, I really like, so he's definitely one I'm going to be watching for further developments.
Do you think sheeping can never be town?
In post 358, PJ. wrote:goodmorning reaffirming my heavy scum read on her with the whole unvoting the replacement thing and then voting another lurker.
Goodmorning for starting a stream of anti-town posts.
In post 359, goodmorning wrote:
Panzer wrote:Goodmorning for starting a stream of anti-town posts.
Pics or it didn't happenOK, where? You're making a pretty brazen assertion here sans evidence.
In post 371, Jennifer wrote:
Okay, since you are insisting that your list of reads were in hard rank order, and Nic was indeed your third scummiest read..
...why are you now voting your fourth scummiest read instead of your third scummiest? Or second? (Josh/I was your scummiest read)
Also, please show me the exact posts that were made that led to you deciding to vote AA9 over your scummier reads Nik and Ven.
And another also, what do you think about the fact that two of your scum reads (Nic and Ven) were on the same wagon you were on until just recently?
In post 381, ArcAngel9 wrote:GM... initially seems nice and all with KX and agreed with everyone that Josh is being odd and stuff, but actually didn't vote him. when I asked him reason for not voting Josh, His response doesn't seem genuine, His responded saying that he want to give benefit of doubt and rather want the day extended, if you feel someone scum it shouldn't basically stop you voting but that is not something that worried me about him right now, what worries me that, He voted Josh after everyone started his odd behavior of not voting Josh, that's a scary attitude.
In post 402, NicCage wrote:
Why would you put an inactive player back up to L-1? You didn't want to lynch him before, and you can't add pressure to a nobody.
In post 406, ArcAngel9 wrote:and what is surprising me is that how you don't see GM scummy, He has was doing nothing than just twisting the game.
In post 434, Human Destroyer wrote:Even skimming, goodmorning is mentioned in like every post
It's physically impossible to forget she's in the game if you've read it
In post 460, ArcAngel9 wrote:
Here is what I saw in GoodMorning posts. Firstly,She had no opinion on Josh, she just agreed with everyone.I might have buy her reason for not voting if she actually have had any reasons except that she pick an easy way to show everyone that she is side with everyone on suspecting Josh , that was more like she was keeping her options to jump in Josh’s wagon, I am also one of them who highly suspects Josh and I still do but Good Morning’s accusation doesn’t seem genuine and more over when I pointed them,she started calling me scum instead of defending herself, that was the counter attack.
Now,She is calling bigger scum than Josh because I am being more vocal now.It is okay to me that if others don’t see the GM’s scummy behaviour but this is extremely odd.I know what is my role and her behaviour and response is not something that I can expect from a townie person.
In post 489, Jennifer wrote:@GM
* Were there any posts by Josh after #175 (his last was #213) that contributed to your scum read on him?
* If you take both Josh & my posts together, where would you place my slot now?
* Is it correct to state that your view is that AA9's actions made her become scummier in your eyes, and that's why she moved down the list, rather than you viewing Nic and Ven doing townier things and thus moving up your list?
In post 504, Jennifer wrote:
- Goodmorning quotes the part of AA9's post calling Goodmorning out for not voting her scum read and votes Josh. Goodmorning does not quote or address the other part of AA9's same, short post which discussed why AA9 was unvoting Josh.
So in essence, Goodmorning's vote on Josh looks defensive, like she was trying to avoid looking scummy like AA9 suspected.
After Goodmorning unovted Josh, she voted for AA9 in post 351.
- Goodmorning said her reason for voting AA9 instead of Venrob or Nic was because AA9's scumminess moved her down GM's list of scum reads (rather than Nic & Ven doing towny things to move up her list)
- But an ISO of AA9 and GM doesn't show much from AA9 between the time GM posted her list of reads and GM voted AA9, and in fact GM mentions in her vote for AA9 that there was no new information to evaluate AA9 on, yet later says it was AA9's actions that brought her down the list.
Goodmorning does mention in her post where she votes for Josh that AA9 "keeps ignoring facts and making up facts to suit herself, like she's not really reading the game and has already decided who is what role," but she hasn't called out Hydra lately who has done the same thing.
In post 599, KX wrote:I feel as though very little has been gained since they were subbed in other then some repetitive (and meaningless) arguments.