I see what you did there
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Okay I'll stop spamposting now
I have him as town under the radar, and have a mental note to check on him during today, but bork is right about the twilight post being a towntell. I still want to look more into him though.In post 1143, Human Destroyer wrote:Now I feel lonely on Nic -scum
Why am I the only one who thinks Nic is scum
In post 1151, ArcAngel9 wrote:
Huh, don't make it look so bad, I am only directing people to do what they must have done already, look at the lynch wagons i have just pointed out.. there is huge huge huge difference between both of them, its becoming almost impossible to narrow down the list.
How the hell we suppose to get the scum if we don't trust/help each other...
In post 294, ArcAngel9 wrote:I have finished my catch up... I haven't changed my read on Josh, He still looks scummy to me and over the 5 page he hasn't done anything to defend himself and according to the Mod he is currently under prod. so I am not going waste my vote someone who is obviously going to be replaced. sounvote joshfor now!! If Josh is back. I ll change my vote back to him.
Another person i am concerned about is Good Morning, He agrees with everyone about Josh being scum but actually didn't vote him, and his reads on others didn't sit well as posted.
VOTE: GoodMorning
In post 1172, Jennifer wrote:Yeah.. I haven't notice anything that makes me suspect him.
I've been trying to go over the Klick posts to see if there is reason she was killed, but nothing concrete jumps out and I'm wifoming myself in circles. She has some read lists but nothing that has me see one suspect per another.
In post 1180, ArcAngel9 wrote:Can someone tell me why i am surprised with Cheery's vote. Each time i point out his name and he comes out from hidden palace....
and this time he actually searched few posts to make me look scummy.. Am not sure if he is doing to prove a point that he been active or just scummy.
In post 1181, borkjerfkin wrote:I have a huge meta townread on AA
In post 1183, ArcAngel9 wrote:yeah right.. that's so convenient, Isn't it?
In post 1184, Cheery Dog wrote:In post 1181, borkjerfkin wrote:I have a huge meta townread on AA
That doesn't mean anything towards my read, my only eperience with her was in a broken game linked earlier.
Do you know how differently she plays as scum compared to town? because I don't know either alignments meta unless some confusion from a broken game means something.
In post 1178, Cheery Dog wrote:In post 294, ArcAngel9 wrote:I have finished my catch up... I haven't changed my read on Josh, He still looks scummy to me and over the 5 page he hasn't done anything to defend himself and according to the Mod he is currently under prod. so I am not going waste my vote someone who is obviously going to be replaced. sounvote joshfor now!! If Josh is back. I ll change my vote back to him.
Another person i am concerned about is Good Morning, He agrees with everyone about Josh being scum but actually didn't vote him, and his reads on others didn't sit well as posted.
VOTE: GoodMorning
UNVOTE:
VOTE: ArcAngel9
In post 1187, Docteur Gudsight wrote:Are you voting AA9 because she joined a wagon on scum, or is there something more in the post i don't see?
In post 1190, Docteur Gudsight wrote:Starting a wagon on scum should never (or well, almost never, the exception being when it is obviously fake) give scumpoints. Using the bussing card to say that it doesn't give huge townpoints, why not. But giving scumpoints because it could be an attempt of bussing is bad. In this case, I don't see any reason (in the post quoted) to believe she was faking.
I don't see "the other scuminess she is producing".
In post 271, goodmorning wrote:I'd vote Josh, but we need more discussion time before anyone gets lynched. I'll stay on Ven for now, but I don't find him as wholly scummy as I thought I did.
In post 1189, Cheery Dog wrote:^that's why there should be no girls on the internet.
In post 1187, Docteur Gudsight wrote:Are you voting AA9 because she joined a wagon on scum, or is there something more in the post i don't see?
The way she started that wagon yes along with whatever the rubbish about my meta from micro 80 that didn't make sense yesterday and other scumminess she's producing such as the other posts (not including the one where she asked me for my reasoning for voting HD - that one is null) I quoted in that post.
In post 1191, Cheery Dog wrote:In post 1190, Docteur Gudsight wrote:Starting a wagon on scum should never (or well, almost never, the exception being when it is obviously fake) give scumpoints. Using the bussing card to say that it doesn't give huge townpoints, why not. But giving scumpoints because it could be an attempt of bussing is bad. In this case, I don't see any reason (in the post quoted) to believe she was faking.
I don't see "the other scuminess she is producing".
I believe that it was a fake reason. (blaming her partner for the Josh wagon being unable to go through since a replacement was coming in that basically removed most people's reasons for hammering))
I believe the GM post Arc was talking about was this below one, at which time Josh was on L-1, and remained on L-1 until AA9 removed her vote
In post 271, goodmorning wrote:I'd vote Josh, but we need more discussion time before anyone gets lynched. I'll stay on Ven for now, but I don't find him as wholly scummy as I thought I did.
Looking back at the questions I asked aobut the post I quoted earlier, it seems I failed to actually ask what GM's other reads that didn't sit as well as posted were, I thought I had done that, too late now?
Which means inadectuate answers to questions I never actually asked means that I have inadequate information to continue pushing this bus possibly.
I also still hate the "LYNCH THIS WOMAN NOW" crap she was saying and never explained. (though the disowning of the wagon was probably more town)
If you don't see the other scuminess then fine, I'm not forcing you to join the wagon yet.
In post 1192, Jennifer wrote:@Cheery
Hmm. It was that post of AA9 that made me think she was town (unvoting someone who was inactive, as opposed to lurking), but you're right that Josh was at L-1 until she unvoted and GM was voting Ven who GM had listed as her scummiest read.
@AA9 What made you suspicious of GM not voting for Josh when she had a vote on Ven?
In post 1194, Docteur Gudsight wrote:I checked the AA9 iso, and i'm fairly certain that all the posts she made were made in the intent of lynching goodmorning. So either the scum went for a super-bussing strat day1 (possible, but unlikely), or she is town.
I'm thinking specifically of posts like #460 and #676 (interestingly, both are replies to a GM defense by Cheery Dog)
Because of this, i'm now seeing Cheery Dog as particularly scummy. If I can't get a HD or Jacob lynch, a Dog lynch will be okay.
In post 632, Cheery Dog wrote:In post 620, PJ. wrote:I would also like to note how ridiculously fast my wagon is building, a grand indication that it is on a townie.
Goodmorning's wagon grew at the approximately the same speed, so come again with this point?
In post 1197, Cheery Dog wrote:I ignored it yesterday because I put it to starting the wagon on scum = not the next days lynch.
I also relooked at everyone during the night and your vote stood out as weird on the wagon. (i think based on wagon feels there's one scum that buses and one on a counter wagon) I also left it day 1 as it was getting nowhere. at the start of today I had jacob as a bigger scum read (and that level hasn't changed)
You were complaining about me being different and less logic here or something and is a bad meta reason when as far as I'm aware it's opposite here.
And which post was gm framing you? All I see before you had voted her was a vague scumread and meant nothing.
And I have nothing wrong with your josh vote, just the reason to then vote gm then.
I'll reply to more when I don't have other stuff deciding to interfere. I've like to know how I'm lurking though. (unless you count the amount of pages that are posted while I sleep, I can't do anything about posting during those hours)