In post 2220, gigabyteTroubadour wrote: why should i be attacking players who don't post readlists again..? you telling me who i ""should"" be suspecting is very reminiscent of 646 btw
Okay, this seems to be going over your head, so let me explain it as simply as possible.
Scale of 1-10. A detailed wall of a readlist with no obvious logical errors is a 10. A plain ranger style list is a 5. My list is what, maybe a 3 or 4 in your opinion?
Now, no list at all, what is that on a scale of 1-10? Is it a 10? No. Is it a 5? No. It's a 1. No read list at all is the worst possible read list in terms of sharing reads.
So the question is, if you are attacking me for having a poor read list, maybe a 3/10, why aren't you attacking the players who had no read list at all, 1/10? Are you bias against me? Or is the readlist a red herring of some sort, and you really wanted me lynched for some other reason?