In post 776, Iconeum wrote: In post 771, Drew-Sta wrote:
Not sure.
Also, I was on Kanna from the start. Why are you doing this now when I asked literally pages ago to consider it? This is not a consistent approach.
Because it's insistence that im scum despite lit everyone telling her they don't se thé resemblence is pinging me
Misread =/= scum. You should know that.
In post 779, Iconeum wrote: In post 771, Drew-Sta wrote:
Not sure.
Also, I was on Kanna from the start. Why are you doing this now when I asked literally pages ago to consider it? This is not a consistent approach.
Explain this
Because you re thé inconsistent one here
Huh? This makes no sense, especially when you've flipped votes more than underwear this day phase.
If we can do Kanna then why do you do this?
You're losing credibility here.
I feel like what you're doing is effectively drilling people and casting shade, which you can revisit in later phases. This isn't scum hunting, it's obfuscation.
In post 787, DoctorPepper wrote:Idk why the wagon on me just died.
But if ever I do get lynched today, I feel like we should take a look at the most opportunistic vote in the lot
VOTE: DrewSta
This is a really bad push and something to look for on Day 2.
Your post is negligent. It ignores other peoples flip floppyness but focusses on one person (tunnelling or deliberate ignorance - uncertain), ignores the fact I have sat on Kanna most of this phase, then saw your inconsistency and considered it scum based and adjusted with other players to work toward a lynch. My flip from Kanna does not mean I consider them town, but a decision to work with people towards towns best interests.
Your obvious attempt to derail focus is clear. I genuinely consider you scum.
And you're not? Hypocritical and a liar to boot. Lynch all liars.
In post 791, DoctorPepper wrote:761 is a really bad post and it doesn't bring anything new to the table. You basically just parroted the existing reads to justify jumping on the wagon
I agreed with existing reads and added my thoughts. You're misrepresenting me big time here.
In post 793, Datisi wrote:
In post 153, DoctorPepper wrote:Never said it wasn't. I'm just saying my gut tells me that Drew is being active in a way that I find productive to town, instead of people being active but not contributing anything to the discussion
In post 471, DoctorPepper wrote:My initial reads have me at
Town:
Oka
Dats
Drew
Nullish Town
Aldus
Kanna
Nullish Scum
QQ
Scum
Icon
Euph
so uhhh..... what changed from these?
And there, Dr, is the hypocrisy pointed out.
In post 817, DoctorPepper wrote: In post 815, Euphony wrote:
Why does this make Kanna town? Because she thinks you're town?
And why'd you find Drew-Sta's vote more opportunistic than Oogle's on your wagon?
£÷÷ Hectic
Kanna is intentionally taking unpopular stances
Oka's voting pattern is consistent
Intentionally taking unpopular stances =/= town.
In post 831, Iconeum wrote:QQ woke up since kanna votes
Drew pushing me to'take a look at kanna and then freaking out when i do is ehm strange?
It's not strange at all. I'm trying to understand why you would look at Kanna and adjust the train off Dr when it was moving ahead productively and we had some consensus on them being scum. You effectively derailed your own train, and it reads as suspicious. As if you bussed your partner and then needed to get them off the hook.
In post 854, Kanna wrote:I really don’t like this constant pushing to L1 then switching targets because it’s honestly just rolefishing
No, it is not. It gives insight. If someone claims, it's information we can use later on to determine if they're lying or not.
