212: as little substance as he accused Apozzle of having
214: implication that policy lynches are easy and less valid in every way
238: literally the only Town post from this guy
279: says he's not going to move the Safety wagon and moves it in the same post
327: We want a breakdown of the desperation in the points?
"- Apart from finding his #105 scummy and nonsensical his subsequent posts either haven't seemed scummy or been negligible"
Then why tunnel him for so long? (Unless you were trying for a mislynch and realised you wouldn't get one, that is.)
"- I don't want to jump the gun, but his aggressive defence has read more town than scum"
This point is stupid/fabricated, Scum tend to have to play a more defensive game because offense makes slips more likely to happen and more obvious when they do.
"- The main thing that sticks in my craw is his stubbornness towards NS given there are much more interesting target and avenues to explore Day 1"
NS would be a reasonably decent lynch; there was hella discussion about him which is always good with associative types of tells. This point is simply a way to jump back on the wagon should it re-form.
"- I really didn't like implosion zealously coming in to defend Safety in #109 when he admits that he hasn't read Safety in #119, this of course generates a lot of potential speculation over why this happened at all, but for now that has to go in the backburner. As a consequence however, it leaves some uncertainties over Safety (along with implosion)"
Hey presto, another target, another reason to jump back on the wagon at will.
"- On the whole Safety is a null tell (and thus not good voting fodder), I disagree with his major actions (votes, target choice, reasoning etc.) but find him at the very least reasonably consistent. Breaking down other elements of his gameplay at this point are too speculative and I'm not comfortable making such guesses right now. He remains on my watch list."
AND ANOTHER
Also what in the fuck is going on with this equating of agreement with Townishness? Again, really?
I can do the Apozzle points too if you really want, but I think that's enough of that post for now. Perhaps "desperate" is not quite the word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment, except "scummy as fuck".
328: misreps implosion. If you don't think this is scummy, ask: why would Town deliberately misrepresent another? Accidents happen, of course, but deliberately?
335: misrepping me.
340: this one just pisses me off, to be honest
347: deliberately, blatantly, and dickishly misrepresents implosion to the nth degree. Can any of you look at this post and the post it responds to and claim that ppp is Town? Because if you can you are completely fucking delusional and I intend to avoid games with you in in future.
356: Let me explain to you what is wrong with your argument in 347.
What you did to implosion would be like me as a police officer taking your torrid love affair (You said, in this case: "I stole her heart within a week. I went to the bank for some cash and we eloped.") and arresting you for saying this ("I went to the bank and I stole some cash.").
The first rule of quoting: DON'T BE A DICK (the second rule: try not to change the meaning or intent of the original statement) (I learnt these in fourth grade, so I'm guessing you are aware of them)
360: In what universe is this game passive?
389: Desperation dill? Sorry, did the first half of my case scare you? THEN YOU SHOULD BE FUCKING TERRIFIED RIGHT NOW
395: Despite a slight change in wording...
there's still no Townreads on the list
(This is a Scum attitude bacause it enables flexibility in voting onto any which mislynch should happen by)
SO YEAH
CASE MOTHERFUCKING CLOSED
If anyone else has anything I've failed to answer, by all means re-present your questions now.