In post 162, Sotty7 wrote:In post 158, splitfarvle wrote:In post 140, hoopsmcgee wrote:@Splitfarvle, with not much to go on, my vote was more to get a reaction that to lynch scum. As our votes are our main tool in the game as town, I feel we should use them to put weight to what we say. In early game, it's not so much for scum-lynching, but more for the game to progress (beyond RVS).
This seems reasonable, but I'm not sure I buy it because you never followed up on it until you were pressed to explain yourself. I also find your case on Elmo hyprocritical because you've admitted that you yourself haven't been into the game and providing content. Besides your case on Elmo, you've just been posting excuses and defending yourself.
I think you're scum.
This seems reasonable BUT here's a list of reasons why you'rescummy anyway.Come on man, really?
Defending yourself isn't scummy, please elaborate why you think it is in this situation. You said he had a case, isn't that more than others have been doing? Why so fixated on hoops for being "guilty" of this?
Vote: split
The "I think your scum" part pushed me over the edge. Just ugh... So fake.
Not much in the first 6ish pages, pushes against my slot, boring arguments with Amrun. The above is the first real interesting bit and I definitely agree with Sotty that it looks forced and fake
In post 167, Chrimi wrote:Too many Caps and "!?!?!?" and randomness for me.
And I simply meant I wouldn't be surprised if there was a scum on his wagon, maybe even two (since one scum sometimes follows the other's vote) but you guys got all angry. I wasn't even paying attention to the people on his wagon at that time, I was just saying he was way too "newb town" to have a legit, nonscummy wagon.
Pet peeve of mine and complete fluff. The whole "I BET THERES SCUM ON THAT WAGON" is probably true for 96% of wagons just by simply probability. It's a useless empty comment that scum can use to then justify a later vote/lynch.
In post 183, Amrun wrote:Wow, that's actually a great point on accident. I forgot Elmo previously suspected hero when he made that PL comment.
You can't really "policy lynch" a suspect, and that wording makes it feel like a really disingenuous attempt at simply killing hero in any way possible.
VOTE: Elmo
This is also a good point.
The whole weirdness between Amrun and hero_bash is odd.
In post 215, hero_bash wrote:Yes I did mixed it up. No reason to be suspicious, I was mindlessly typing it away.
Also thanks drshotgun for answer my technical questions
The no need to be suspicious comment is definitely concerning.
In post 331, hero_bash wrote:I'm jumping mainly because I don't have much right now and also to not be prodded.
VOTE: hoops
Yeah this is good....
In post 338, Chrimi wrote:Agreed with Amrun as well.
drmyshotgun, I'm not thirsty for blood, it just seems like there was a reason he wasn't lynched yesterday and that's because he's scum and his scumbuddy wouldn't vote him. Or something of the sort, I'm not sure.
I'm pretty sure that it makes him scum though.
But this cannot be true of Elmo who was also not lynched yesterday after being close at deadline?
In post 353, Amrun wrote:Also, subtly pushing hoops as scum while arguing that I'm pushing him as a mislynch is fencesitting in the biggest manner.
And saying I'm scum eager for a mislynch and THEN saying I'm scummy for not hammering yesterday is the biggest cognitive disconnect ever.
Add splitfarvle to the suspicions list, but below elmo and hoops.
This is very much true, and the scummiest thing to date in thread