get of my lawn.In post 273, Completly Trustworthy wrote:Look,Nos, why are you doing this when one or two sentences explaining your reason for voting would suffice? I know you may not put much faith in my questioning, but it can't be that hard to give an answer.
it really do be that way sometimesIn post 272, Malakittens wrote:So you're going to be one of those players that don't give reasons for voting people?In post 270, Nosferatu wrote:it didnt and it doesntIn post 269, Malakittens wrote:It really does and dodging the question makes you look terrible.
Fucking wonderful.
idk i guess im a contrarian like thatIn post 273, Completly Trustworthy wrote:Look,Nos, why are you doing this when one or two sentences explaining your reason for voting would suffice? I know you may not put much faith in my questioning, but it can't be that hard to give an answer.
how does that make you feel?In post 273, Completly Trustworthy wrote:Look,Nos, why are you doing this when one or two sentences explaining your reason for voting would suffice? I know you may not put much faith in my questioning, but it can't be that hard to give an answer.
Because I like thought processes, but when you vote someone without a reason I can't see a thought process, I can't see what you're thinking, I can't figure out if it's scum voting someone or town voting someone. People voting without reasons are the most hardest to read imo.In post 281, Nosferatu wrote:why do you wanna know?
In post 269, Malakittens wrote:Ah okay you do explain why you voted Umlat here. I think it's bothersome that you are basically sheeping my reasons on voting for Umlat.In post 192, Gamma Emerald wrote:An explanation of why I suspect Umlaut (now Saudade):
So my first game with Umlaut I recall someone making a similar RVS vote. I don't recall the alignment of that person (my first thought is that they were probably town) but I do recall someone somewhere saying that sort of reasoning for an RVS vote is scummy.
I'm explaining this not so much to convince anyone as of yet, but more to open the discussion to where if I'm wrong, people can refute me.
In post 274, davesaz wrote:You're in favor of policy lynches, over trying to find scum? I disagree.In post 252, Saudade wrote:very good voteIn post 73, Lapsa wrote:let's just get rid of that bad apple
VOTE: Completly Trustworthy
choo choo policy lunch time!
Lapsa isn't policy.In post 287, Purrcocet wrote: you say this while you vote Lapsa. lmoa
Saudade. I don't agree with the results Saudade gets in the posts I quoted, but I think the motivation looks townish.In post 288, Completly Trustworthy wrote:Examining recent posts, I found something that caused me to become confused. Dave what or who are you getting town vibes from in 274? Are you talking about Saudade, Lapsa, or something else?
do you scumread them or something?In post 294, Malakittens wrote:Oh hell no. I’m not going to be on this wagon with both popo and lapsa. I might be okay with one, but not both.
UNVOTE: Nofs
Yeah, why policy lynch when you can policy waste your bullets.In post 296, Malakittens wrote:Maybe actually give a reason than a naked vote or give some type of reads and maybe I wouldn’t be less likely to unvote someone someone. If Both you and lapsa play this game this way the whole time I’ll ask if there’s a vig to put you both out of misery because if you are both town then you’ll be liabilities throughput the game
tell me why and i may join
