In post 358, Boonskiies wrote:Fair enough on the town read thing, which I feel is a good thing itself. Mulch and Dunker are rather good at that in my opinion, as well.In post 353, Apple Jack wrote:well yeah I would kill you also but not because of your scum hunting, because you do have a way of getting town read early for some reasonIn post 349, Boonskiies wrote:That’s why I have to play the way I do, so scum might not night kill me. I get night killed nearly every game.
Also requoting this so people see it.In post 424, Alisae wrote:Like I SR Tchill because I feel like his stances are extremely going with the flow and are straight up coming from scum. They're safe, and it really doesn't seem like he's doing anything, especially in that one post where the stance on taco's he's taking is a super easy stance to take to get some townpoints.
However I SR WhyMafia for this case on Tchill because it is SUPER unnatural. The way he's spinning those posts is just god awful like, for example
A. You don't say "this pinged me" in a case without explaining why you just don't since it doesn't actually help us understand your case.
B. Tchill's 67 could easily just be an RVS vote, but the analysis for it is unnatural because there's no way to understand that just from that one rvs vote. The vote itself has little meaning so it's hard to come out with a strong stance on it.
C. Wowie your take on 416 looks like great justification to vote him instead of actually saying why he's scum.
Derpy already called Why out for lying. He shouldn’t be asking this or there wouldn’t be any other “lie”why could have done really.In post 429, Apple Jack wrote:Why retracted his miler claim didn’t he?
In post 418, WhyMafia wrote:Note that he has barely given a stance of the game so far, clearly knows what's up, and is just floating around
In post 424, Alisae wrote:he's taking is a super easy stance to take to get some townpoints.
Would you rather me not give my opinion? I'm calling things as I see them. I'm not going to withhold things in the fear of looking scummy. The vote seems ugly because he voted Uzi for not reading his role PM. That in itself isn't scummy, but he's ignoring the flow of the game.In post 424, Alisae wrote:B. Tchill's 67 could easily just be an RVS vote, but the analysis for it is unnatural because there's no way to understand that just from that one rvs vote. The vote itself has little meaning so it's hard to come out with a strong stance on it.
Relax hombre. Just making sure I didn’t misremember.In post 432, Boonskiies wrote:Derpy already called Why out for lying. He shouldn’t be asking this or there wouldn’t be any other “lie”why could have done really.In post 429, Apple Jack wrote:Why retracted his miler claim didn’t he?
I feel all these things you are stating describes a Derpy more than Tchill.In post 435, WhyMafia wrote:Would you rather me not give my opinion? I'm calling things as I see them. I'm not going to withhold things in the fear of looking scummy. The vote seems ugly because he voted Uzi for not reading his role PM. That in itself isn't scummy, but he's ignoring the flow of the game.In post 424, Alisae wrote:B. Tchill's 67 could easily just be an RVS vote, but the analysis for it is unnatural because there's no way to understand that just from that one rvs vote. The vote itself has little meaning so it's hard to come out with a strong stance on it.
Wowie that makes me scumIn post 424, Alisae wrote:C. Wowie your take on 416 looks like great justification to vote him instead of actually saying why he's scum.
its an rvs voteIn post 435, WhyMafia wrote:Would you rather me not give my opinion? I'm calling things as I see them. I'm not going to withhold things in the fear of looking scummy. The vote seems ugly because he voted Uzi for not reading his role PM. That in itself isn't scummy, but he's ignoring the flow of the game.In post 424, Alisae wrote:B. Tchill's 67 could easily just be an RVS vote, but the analysis for it is unnatural because there's no way to understand that just from that one rvs vote. The vote itself has little meaning so it's hard to come out with a strong stance on it.
That's true, I'm just saying what I thought of that vote thoughIn post 437, Boonskiies wrote:I feel all these things you are stating describes a Derpy more than Tchill.In post 435, WhyMafia wrote:Would you rather me not give my opinion? I'm calling things as I see them. I'm not going to withhold things in the fear of looking scummy. The vote seems ugly because he voted Uzi for not reading his role PM. That in itself isn't scummy, but he's ignoring the flow of the game.In post 424, Alisae wrote:B. Tchill's 67 could easily just be an RVS vote, but the analysis for it is unnatural because there's no way to understand that just from that one rvs vote. The vote itself has little meaning so it's hard to come out with a strong stance on it.
i currently town read them bothIn post 442, UC Voyager wrote:im not sure. im thinking that Derpy or Tacos is scum, or both
Why are your responses focused more towards saying I'm wrong rather then addressing my concerns?
Let's see what your case is.In post 424, Alisae wrote:great justification to vote him instead of actually saying why he's scum.
Maybe I was getting to that? Maybe you could've been patient? Maybe I'd already begun addressing them, and saw your vote, and wanted to comment?In post 445, Alisae wrote:Why are your responses focused more towards saying I'm wrong rather then addressing my concerns?
In post 435, WhyMafia wrote:Would you rather me not give my opinion? I'm calling things as I see them. I'm not going to withhold things in the fear of looking scummy. The vote seems ugly because he voted Uzi for not reading his role PM. That in itself isn't scummy, but he's ignoring the flow of the game.In post 424, Alisae wrote:B. Tchill's 67 could easily just be an RVS vote, but the analysis for it is unnatural because there's no way to understand that just from that one rvs vote. The vote itself has little meaning so it's hard to come out with a strong stance on it.