Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:25 pm
DADDY
if you need evidence contrary to this shit tier theory, literally just look at any of my past gamesIn post 499, PawnsGambit wrote:Being overly antagonistic usually leads to getting yourself eliminated rather than your scumreads.In post 489, osuka wrote:for the millionth time on this page: what the fuck?????In post 469, PawnsGambit wrote:It's not so much that Robert's reads were serious, it's how unconcerned he is with making friends.
why is being not concerned with making friends a reason to scumread someone?
Maybe you have a endearment towards others you're not aware of.In post 501, osuka wrote:if you need evidence contrary to this shit tier theory, literally just look at any of my past gamesIn post 499, PawnsGambit wrote:Being overly antagonistic usually leads to getting yourself eliminated rather than your scumreads.In post 489, osuka wrote:for the millionth time on this page: what the fuck?????In post 469, PawnsGambit wrote:It's not so much that Robert's reads were serious, it's how unconcerned he is with making friends.
why is being not concerned with making friends a reason to scumread someone?
i can assure you i do not and i am in fact deeply annoyed by posts like these, which are somehow simultaneously completely devoid of game advancing content and exceptionally stupidIn post 502, PawnsGambit wrote:Maybe you have a endearment towards others you're not aware of.In post 501, osuka wrote:if you need evidence contrary to this shit tier theory, literally just look at any of my past gamesIn post 499, PawnsGambit wrote:Being overly antagonistic usually leads to getting yourself eliminated rather than your scumreads.In post 489, osuka wrote:for the millionth time on this page: what the fuck?????In post 469, PawnsGambit wrote:It's not so much that Robert's reads were serious, it's how unconcerned he is with making friends.
why is being not concerned with making friends a reason to scumread someone?
even assuming that’s true, that’s one of how many games i’ve played?In post 503, PawnsGambit wrote:However, it does look like you got eliminated on day 2 for being "annoying" in boardgames.
????????????????????????In post 481, osuka wrote:????????????In post 448, Save The Dragons wrote:VOTE: Andresvmb
i think you should change your definition of the word defending tho
i think this hunter is town for the last paragraphIn post 459, Robert M Hunter wrote:Dear Lemons,
Regarding osuka, I certainly have no reason to think they are scum at the moment, so they are a default town read. It's as simple as that. Like any default read, it is open to be revisited if I hear them squeak. In the meantime, I am enjoying their posts.
You could be right about Pawn, and I could be wrong. You may have a point with the part about "wanting to look confident but scared to overcommit."
I actually forget why I read VFB as town, but I iso'd everyone in alphabetical order so I read all his posts and made that conclusion. I am bit sleepy right now but I'll be glad to check again tomorrow.
i hope you’re just catching up and replying as you go. if you are, don’t read the rest of this messageIn post 509, Anya wrote:????????????????????????In post 481, osuka wrote:????????????In post 448, Save The Dragons wrote:VOTE: Andresvmb
i think you should change your definition of the word defending tho
why on earth does the last paragraph make him town?In post 510, Anya wrote:i think this hunter is town for the last paragraphIn post 459, Robert M Hunter wrote:Dear Lemons,
Regarding osuka, I certainly have no reason to think they are scum at the moment, so they are a default town read. It's as simple as that. Like any default read, it is open to be revisited if I hear them squeak. In the meantime, I am enjoying their posts.
You could be right about Pawn, and I could be wrong. You may have a point with the part about "wanting to look confident but scared to overcommit."
I actually forget why I read VFB as town, but I iso'd everyone in alphabetical order so I read all his posts and made that conclusion. I am bit sleepy right now but I'll be glad to check again tomorrow.
????????????????????????????????????????????????In post 512, osuka wrote:i hope you’re just catching up and replying as you go. if you are, don’t read the rest of this messageIn post 509, Anya wrote:????????????????????????In post 481, osuka wrote:????????????In post 448, Save The Dragons wrote:VOTE: Andresvmb
i think you should change your definition of the word defending tho
if you’re not: learn to fucking read, i had a whole conversation with std about this
nope, i addressed your vote on me in 403. pawns' (continued) hostility and caginess about sharing his opinions/naming names is much more scummy to me than a possible diversion tactic early D1. would still like to know what you thought you were accomplishing, thoughIn post 507, Anya wrote:did insidious just ignore the fact he ever voted me or i voted him and go on to flay pawniard?
Then do it. Your vote for Haschel is wasted since they’re getting prodded and there’s not much momentum there.
And why am I here exactly? That whole post has no words for me, yet I’m not Null or anything but amongst the potential Scum. Not surprising I guess.In post 449, Robert M Hunter wrote:SCUMMY RODENTS
Andante
Andresvmb
Haschel Cedricson
Salsabil Faria
Green Crayons