In post 122, choof wrote:In post 103, Flubbernugget wrote:
I just said I don't have a case for or against those being scumhunting votes.
here, let me help: the votes that were quoted were all rvs votes
having said that
I can argue though that con's was not indicitive of a desire to scumhunt.
I'm quite certain that none of the votes made on page were not "indicative of a desire to scumhunt"
Last post I'm making on the subject
and why is that?
So here we go again random votes shouldn't actually be random etc etc. Every fucking game I swear. That's why I want to drop the subject. It's semantics, theory, and nothing useful.
Look at con's iso. There's half a read in it and nothing of substance that would incite a reaction. But this is okay because I'm wrong about his vote? Like I've brought up twice in one way or another that there's more to my scumread than the vote but that doesn't seem to matter because idk