Why I'm voting Cheery Dog, and why you should too.
In post 61, Cheery Dog wrote:Yeah I'm reading a post at a time. (as you can see with that above one)
Feel free to question whenever I post stuff
- I won't get to it until I've read everything else anyway
It does mean possible duplicate questions which may have already been answered.
Even though the mod has now confirmed the theory, the fact the setup doesn't actually contain such stuff leads me to still have my vote on dbk worth his reactions to bb's obvious (to anyone that has seen him play before) gambit.
The bolded is intended to give the "open townie" impression, but why would a bonafide townie need to make such an interjection? He wouldn't, and wouldn't necessarily think to. He'd just post his thoughts. But scum
would
have a reason to include this statement. Scum would want you to get that impression.
He called out lucky for "serious posting" and then takes this obvious joke as serious? Quite the contradiction, Cheery.
In post 429, Cheery Dog wrote:
Well there's still his reaction to bb's gambit which caused me to cast my vote, then it's been staying there with the trying to get reactions out of people possibly going to join a wagon. - if people want to vote someone a wagon shouldn't effect anything - where I believe he was possibly looking for an easy lynch of gam on the grounds he is new to the game.
Also there's the etl buddying, which with the post I'm just quoted with him congratulating you on apparently knowing what was up (aka reading him as town like he'd like), it's liking for a potential town member to protect him.
The fact that his case isn't centered on Bo's buddying or his weirdo push on gam, but that he is trying to say Bo was legitimately trying to lynch gam, is fucking weird as hell. He's trying to actually convince people this is what Bo was doing (which I don't believe he was). The buddying and the push itself would be good reasons (if it were not for Bo's other posts that make me believe he's probably town), but Cheery knows that and doesn't use those. Instead he tries to force a false conclusion out of Bo's gam push - that Bo was actually trying to get gam lynched? That's quite a stretch and pretty bad. This is what prompted me to vote.
In post 433, Cheery Dog wrote: In post 430, Does Bo Know wrote:Lol no. Lynching Gam?
There was no way in hell I would've let a Gam lynch go through. There clearly wasn't enough evidence to actually convict him, and anyone that thought otherwise was ludicrous.
Preparing his lynch for a later day then.
This is ridiculous. When his first argument is blown out of the water, he comes up with another reason why his push on Bo is valid. Classic scum, switching up arguments despite evidence to the contrary.
Art is cool.
