In post 1016, Green Crayons wrote:In post 1014, Lone Ranger wrote:I disagree with both of you. The people who were online voted. I can't see how it is alignment indicative at all.
Except for Mala, eh?
Follow up: and Picard.
In post 1016, Green Crayons wrote:In post 1014, Lone Ranger wrote:I disagree with both of you. The people who were online voted. I can't see how it is alignment indicative at all.
Except for Mala, eh?
In post 823, Armageddon wrote:
In post 1018, Heartless wrote:D'awwww... Yeah, I was mean.
I'm sorry, Gribby. Sometimes I just kind of say things and they don't really come out right. Either that, or it's that really I'm kind of a bitch and I just don't filter myself when I should. I haven't figured it out yet. :S
In post 1035, Green Crayons wrote:Other than the conclusion.
In post 1037, Green Crayons wrote:Has Kaboose responded to TTH's case and I missed it?
In post 1026, Green Crayons wrote:^^^ Oh, and elle.
In post 823, Armageddon wrote:
- Non-NJAC voters: Riddle/Titus, Corpses/Heartless, NJAC, Picard, elle, Mala.
- Non-NJAC voters who are confirmed town: NJAC
- Non-NJAC voters who were not being replaced and therefore could have voted NJAC: Picard, elle, Mala.
Out of those three, Mala is most suspicious for the slot's hedging/fencesitting. If scum didn't want to be on a D1 town lynch, I think it would be her.
In post 1039, Green Crayons wrote:Do you mean to say
That scum would be both off and on the deadline wagon
Like I said?
In post 1040, Heartless wrote:In post 1037, Green Crayons wrote:Has Kaboose responded to TTH's case and I missed it?
lol there has to be a response before you evaluate a case?
In post 1042, Heartless wrote:In post 1039, Green Crayons wrote:Do you mean to say
That scum would be both off and on the deadline wagon
Like I said?
probably, but it's still an arbitrary way to judge as the distribution is likely random (who was on at deadline is p close to random)
i could see them all being on the wagon just as easily as all of them being off. scumhunting from a particular group because of this assertion there's X-number of them in such-and-such group is a bad approach