In post 1046, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:if he flips scum, it's an excuse to push on anyone who defended him or didn't vote for him.
You sound worried. It would be a good thing if he flips scum.
In post 1046, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:if he flips scum, it's an excuse to push on anyone who defended him or didn't vote for him.
In post 1047, Prism wrote:P-edit @Eager: Not really, no. Feel free to vote implosion or nn30 if you want. It's also not a logical fallacy, you're significantly less likely to be town because of it.
In post 1046, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:In post 959, Shadow_step wrote:In post 928, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:
I think you're gambling scum who failed to plan out a distraction.
Jesus Christ, stop playing you're fucking terrible. Gambiting mafia lmao
You're the one that's terrible my friend. The only case you have on Eager is that you cannot fathom that both you and him were given the same role. You either refuse or won't take into consideration a town motive for lying. If Eager had not claimed, your read on him would be null. You have no backup plan if he flips town and if he flips scum, it's an excuse to push on anyone who defended him or didn't vote for him.
In post 1047, Prism wrote:More of nn30 not actually caring about what I'm saying and just giving a response for the sake of it.In post 1041, nn30 wrote:I have exactly 0 trust in your ability to scumread. Between 614 and 628 you imply (Penguin) or directly state (7 other names) feel scummy. That's 8/13 town members. Your list in 1013 has 3 people (myself included) who I feel are towny.
I didn't respond to your line of questioning towards me originally because without an "@nn30" somewhere in the post I'm likely to skim it and assume it was addressed to someone else.
The fact that I failed to reply to you is not enough of a reason to scum read me.
As far as my read of implosion, I still don't town read him but I found his responses to my lines of questioning satisfying (for the time being). Plus he dropped off the face of the map, nobody else seemed interested in talking about him, so I moved on.
Does anyone want to go read #797?
P-edit @Eager: Not really, no. Feel free to vote implosion or nn30 if you want. It's also not a logical fallacy, you're significantly less likely to be town because of it.
In post 1037, boring wrote:@eager - I'm not sure you understand what buddying means. Most of what you posted was criticism. Also, why do you keep repeating that I'm happy about the conflict? I've been around for very little of this little scum theater.
@town? - eager has been coasting, and the only thing in the way of my gut scumlean was the fact that he had an uncc'd claim. A cc from an obvious town player was more than enough reason to vote him. Either way, how can so many of you accept eager's piss-poor "town" performance without resistance? I mean, eager has bragged twice now about how shitty town is playing by not calling him out for his lazy vote. You're all just taking the insult with pride, it would appear. The only positive thing I can say about this development is my wagon. It decreases the likelihood that eagerSnake, MariaR and implosion are ALL scum. I'll have to try to knock at least one out of the running.
If scum want to chainsaw me up to L-1, that's fine, but don't let them hammer without warning. I'll try to be back again tomorrow to check on things.
p-edit - S_s's play and tone were very aggressive early on.
In post 1070, eagerSnake wrote:Also calling it 'scum theater' implies that there is 2 scum involved, which in this scenario would mean S_S and I are performing scum theater. Basically setting herself up to lynch him tomorrow when I flip
In post 1067, eagerSnake wrote:Dierfire, Grendel, Zoronos are the people who haven't really taken a firm stance on this