UNVOTE: Got what I needed from my anen vote (more activity from anen).
Shadow
: What do you mean by
↑ shaddowez wrote:
I don't want Rack at L-1 this quickly, especially if we're wrong and
have no scum targeted or on the wagon yet.
Tammy
Why do you associate refusal to provide evidence with town play?
Implosion
What do you mean by "vote labels" in 208? And why do you claim that I fos rack when I was simply adding more reasoning to an existing vote (which already had decent reasoning)? What specifically is bad about my attack on Rack?
Getting bad vibes from
Riabi
still. I find it unlikely that you have 0 strong reads this late in the day unless you're just not trying...
Getting mostly good vibes from
Anen
, but the reasoning for finding me scummy is lacking. How is the fact that you think my posting insincere possibly backed up by my use of the word? That's like saying "I think X is scummy, and look! they even called another player scummy! GG scumzorz!!!" I also wanna know what specifically is insufficient about 190.
Chaos
Really don't like the way you line up lynches in 248...why do you assume that Rack will still be the best lynch tomorrow if we don't lynch him today? Also the use of the phrase "take down" bothers me. But not sure if that's really a legit tell.
I can get behind the Flames wagon...I don't like decision to speak for Rack in 119, in a defensive sort of way, then in his very next post claim to have a complete turn around on him. Especially considering he mirrors my reasons for thinking Rack is scum...like, exactly mirrors them. In the post DIRECTLY after mine.
VOTE: Flames
That's L-2.
I play the games rul gud.