In post 185, Docteur Gudsight wrote:My other half has more of a josh scum read that he can explain later for this vote:
VOTE: Josh. Mine is I agree with els and serra while scummy seems less viable right now.
Let's list Jacob posts:
#6: Random Vote
#69: Filler post "nothing to say, let's not discuss anything"
#118: Requests for KX to contribute, and stop discussing about himself. Claims KX behaviour is scummy.
#120: "Oops i forgot to vote"
#122: "Cherry Dog disagree about my scumread on KX, and is very wrong"
#159: Requests for KX to contribute, and stop discussing about himself. Claims KX behaviour is scummy. Says he isn't avoiding what's happening in the thread
#161: Says KX speaking about himself is not contributing.
There's a few things I find very wrong about this:
1) He is accusing KX of not contributing, despite having himself not contributed anything.
2) I'm disliking his way of asking KX to scumhunt, but calling him scum. If he was thinking that KX was scum, what's the point of writing in all caps, multiple times, "STOP BEING SCUM AND BE A GOOD TOWNIE THAT CONTRIBUTES".
In post 191, Venrob wrote:Quite early for L-1, but... He is giving me no read so
VOTE: Josh. Can I not be lynched for this?
What the fuck is that? A L-1 vote on a null read?
Unvote.
Consider we still have a ghost vote on Josh, but I would be
extremely disappointed
if someone randomly hammers with a reason as good as Venrob's one. So, better safe than sorry.
Human Destroyer wrote:This is another scummy bandwagon vote IMO, but Josh Lyman is scummier.
Are you feeling confident about the Josh wagon building so fast, with bad/scummy reasoning?
(note: if you feel like you are asking many questions to you, let's say it's because we are quite schizophrenic about our read on you)
~ Els