In post 316, thezmon221 wrote: In post 301, ArcAngel9 wrote:Great, this list is just great. so whoever votes you next will come under your scum list?
Hello, that's not how mafia works. everyone who votes you doesn't mean they're scum.
so why do you think i am in your scum list. Care to explain?
So obviously you didn't read it in context. B&B asked me who on my WAGON is scummy. And besides, I've already said a couple of those reads are null anyway, but null leaning scum which is why I mentioned them. You happen to be one of those null-scum reads. But if you want a list of reasons, here's those reasons.
-Newfound skimming (which I know isn't really a scum tell, but I've found scum are the more often skimmers.)
-I noticed that you have scumhunted, so that would be town points for you
-You drawing out the Day Vig conversation into what appears to me as a fish more than anything, or even pressuring the DV to kill someone D1. Sure, it's not a
terrible
(not terrible scummy, but terrible bad) option, but it would be far better to wait IME for D2.
You reacted pretty harshly to the wagon reads post, which vaulted you up my list.
StrangerCoug wrote:
ArcAngel9 (2): Aj The Epic, KillerApple
Baby Spice (1): theomoaner
BirdAndBeast (1): thezmon221
KillerApple (1): nhammen
Roger Thornhill (1): Archetype
SoraAdvent (1): Bumi
The Mini-Librarian (1): Robert2424
thezmon221 (9): The Mini-Librarian, BirdAndBeast, njoseph, Parama, ArcAngel9, SoraAdvent, Baby Spice, unseencamo, JohnnyFarrar
unseencamo (1): HeatherA
No Lynch (1): Roger Thornhill
Not voting (6): Albus Dumbledore, DayVigilante, ewo2, PMysterious, Sixx, JacobSavage
With
25
alive, it takes
13
players to lynch.
theomoaner is prodded.
Realistically, if you look at my top reads, you're the only I have a chance at lynching currently, so consider this an attempt at a counter wagon.
JacobSavage wrote:My possible nhammen / thez comes from 1. thez ignoring nhammen and 2. nhammen trying to build a new case as soon as it got near his lynch. Yes it's very weak but I'm just noting it down for later.
I didn't ignore him? I told you I didn't bother with his read on me. The reason why, as I believe I did neglect to mention, is twofold:
1. I was dealing with B&B and wanted to focus my attention at the debate with him.
2. I later decided that in retrospect, I made a terrible vote so I agree that that is definitely something that I could see as scummy against me. It was more me being pissed off than anything, though.
Albus Dumbledore wrote:Uh, no. The red and blue go
together
. It's pretty easy to discredit cases against you when you tear the sentences in half and respond to the halves in isolation, but that isn't going to fly. Nice try though.
Can we lynch him now?
Let me try that again then...
Albus Dumbledore wrote:Sixx, you want me to elaborate beyond the incredibly obvious scumminess, you mean?
Like how he clearly didn't read the thread and simply stuck his vote on the only wagon with no justification(bonus points if you noticed he made up a super bullshit reason afterwards) and then got scared when called out on it, revealing his scum mindset for all to see? And that terrible vote on Roger just to top it off?
You're right, I've got nothing.
So skimming over RVS and voting on someone I first thought had joined the game and wanted to get a read on is scummy, but, however, I got angry at B&B and did change my vote then. I'd hardly call myself scared.
There, is that better?