A Gaggle of Geese wrote:Can't say, etc. You apply the tell inconsistently though, that's for sure.
From what we can interpret of this question, you want to know how often we were going to vote someone with no words to "bait" them into OMGUSing us? Is that the question?farside22 wrote:far wrote:Let me ask you GG: How many baits were you willing to put out there? How many times are you going to bait a player before they are allowed to respond to false scum hunting?
If so, then the answer is just you for the moment. #242 was incredibly scummy, and given that our vote was in #243, how hard is it to figure out why we're voting you?
And What was suspicious about #243? Please share the same thing I pointed out the OGML case here except mine second post was a reminder why OGML case isn't about tunnel vision is about misinterpreting and making false statement.
GG is saying I'm calling you scum based on your unelect comment when in fact I had a case on you and voted you way before that. His point on me about calling everyone scum that finds me suspicious I suspect is invalid.OhGodMyLife wrote:Unvote
farside, just because someone doesn't explicitly express suspicion of you doesn't mean they're not suspicious of you. Did you consider the possibility that I unelected you as I became suspicious of you?