It had absolutely nothing to do with me if anyone is asking.
No time to read/post for about 24hrs.
Such as what?Mufasa wrote: I want to hear more from Budja.
A little hypocritical but I am inclined to agree. Mufasa has felt very little pressure considering his complete lack of content.SocioPath wrote: Everything he has posted has been a train wreck of words, and him coasting along is unappealing.
I agree here.Porkens wrote: I mean; I'd love to still go for this, but his convoluted defense smacked of genuine confusion rather than masterful gambit.
I doubt the swap harmed this game. We didn't lose anyone pro-town.Spyrex wrote:Gut says scum, but if the goal is to win by filling a game and they're taking scum OUT of this game well gg us?
Through elimination, he is the scummiest anyway.Sociopath wrote: At this point Quag is the best bet from my perspective.
A lurker- yes, obv-scum- no.Spyrex wrote: Zaz is a.) probably scum
Yes, they can. But zazier is looking bad in the other game and is approaching a lynch. If they do lynch her and he flips scum, Quagmire is a better wagon. Right now, I don't see he is scummy beyond general elimination so I am less keen.Jammer wrote: Wagons can be a nice way to catch some scum.
Sociopath looks town, his posting is improving too and I liked his view on Mufasa.Jammer wrote: Budja, what do you think about every player in here?
I didn't say that. I would call him borderline. He's been posting little, but it isn't fluff.Porkens wrote: are you seriously saying that Quag isn't lurking?
Well, with any luck Mufasa will be lynched in Tar's game and that will help us determine this.Sajin wrote:There cannot be more than 1 or 2 scum left here.
Thats sounds good, if we can get a guilty without needing to claim, that would be the best option.Sajin wrote:I move that we hear from quag before we decide.
Why the vote on Quag?Porkens wrote:vote: Quagmire
well that settle it for me.Spyrex wrote:If Porkens is to believed, no one even attempted on Quag.