In post 599, Slandaar wrote:In post 585, FakedBlogger wrote:I've made up my mind about my willingness to see Moon get lynched today so you can tell I'm not buying what you're selling.
So, basically, you have made up your mind Blue is scum and are not willing to argue your reasoning.
I said I've made up my mind judging by the info currently on the table, not that I'm going to lynch him no matter what.
I did argue my reasoning, go back and read it, and I'm willing to argue some more. Nevertheless I find your imagination-exercise input unhelpful, and your pushing the point that bad reasoning isn't suspicious 10++ pages into the game.
In post 579, Slandaar wrote:In post 549, FakedBlogger wrote:I don't feel like I need to. There's no point in equating Moon's ability to play mafia to that of a 5-year old child, so I won't address any pseudo-arguments that stem from it.
That isn't what we were doing. We were disassociating bad and scummy because they are not the same thing (as my example proves without doubt).
In post 549, FakedBlogger wrote:
Moon has shitty cred because he's been voting my slot and nobody else for a long ass time for bad reasons. He chose to talk about general probabilities and I'm under the impression that he's not very curious judging by hi lackluster scumhunting.
OK so he is voting you for what you think are bad reasons but are they scummy reasons? is Blue's argument something scum are more likely to make than town? I doubt it very much.
I would also like to let you know that although I like Blue he is not the greatest scumhunter around. Do what you will with this information.
My question to you is who is good at scum hunting?
In post 187, Slandaar wrote:In post 69, zakk wrote:Now I get to attribute 7 more years of experience (gulp)
What are you gulping for? Worried he is an experienced scumhunter who will catch you? like that is the only thing which makes sense.
Is this your main argument for finding zakk suspicious?