Flareonage wrote:I like to hammer. What's wrong with that?
For starters, this:
Flareonage wrote:I read through Raskol's post and he pushed for a Mr. Suave Lynch the WHOLE time. In almost every post he tried his best to convince people to vote for Mr. Suave because ?"he is lurking and that is scummy". He then provided proof based on past games. 1 was lurking as scum and 1 was lurking as town. That means Mr. Suave had no greater chance of being scum then the rest of us. That meta doesn't count since the behavior is the same. This tunneling got mr. suave lynched
and Raskol was the hammer.
Plus the fact that it's just a dumb excuse on principle. It's like saying, "I like acting scummy, don't lynch me."
llsomething wrote:@Almaster: No. You have pretty much just said "I agree with this guy" and bandwagoned or said "dienaoscum" without giving a reason. That is not content, that is you doing a bare minimum to seem active. It's not that you aren't posting walls of text, it's that you aren't posting reasons.
No, you. First, your argument is flat out wrong because I have given tons of reasons for everything in my posts. Just because I have better word economy than you doesn't mean I'm not contributing. Second, even if I were giving the minimum reasoning-wise, it doesn't matter because Flareonage is literally obvscum and if you cannot see that you are blind. What am I supposed to do, write a very detailed explanation as to why tells that can be explained in one line are scummy?
Interestingly enough, you are currently voting Flareonage. I was the first one to start the wagon - before that, you were voting somewhere else. It is pretty ironic that you are criticizing me for not contributing enough when 1) Nobody else seemed capable enough of noticing that Flareonage was obvscum except for me and 2) You are ON THE WAGON yourself.
@Peabody - it is really sketchy that you actually agreed with Flareonage's awfularg on Day 1. Care to explain that?
