I'll be happy to vote your scumbuddy for you though!
My archnemesis. We meet again *eyewaggle*
This time, Sammi is not around to save you, either.
Thank you, thrawn. Voting me for being incomprehensible is much more valid a point than some of the others that have been said. I mean I can understand you voting for me for that. I'll endeavor to clean up my posts a bit, I don't notice before I post, but always notice after, that my grammar and dyslexia are getting worse and worse. I should perhaps re-read more.thrawn1020 wrote: Skruffs, I can't decide whether or not I should be voting you at the moment. You have some posts that are very logical-looking, and some that...well, to put it lightly, are both hard to follow, and useless.
Thrawn mentioned that jack had as many vote as the rest of us. I thought "Hmm, I wonder if Jack is just voting whenever someone else does," so I random voted someone who had no votes on them. That person was SV, who had said something just before thrawn. I checked the previous vote count and saw that she had no votes against her, besides, she said she's not scum. She's not scum, as far as I am concerned. The vote was a random vote to see what Jack would do. It was an unfortunate coincidence about what SV said shortly before I posted.Skruffs wrote:thrawn - interesting theory.
Unvote, Vote spectrumvoid
I don't see why cubsfan is suspicious for 'fishing ' - knowing what is up with Jack can keep allow us to stop being suspicious of him, if he is town, and spend our energies on other pursuits.
Uhh... Jack isn't acting random? Because...Yamahako wrote:unvote (if I'm voting), Vote Cubsfan4everHow sure are you that Jack is acting off or Random
Ubertimmy, you said that before, have any reasoning behind it?
Jack says he is... and has been.Jack wrote:The town isn't stupid. Dropping random votes here and there isn't going to confuse them. In fact there is no evidence of them being confused, quite the opposite.
I was going to ask how it got debunked, unless you meant your own defense of it, (which hardly counts as a debunking), but then I found this post from my archnemesis Mert.Mert wrote:For a change, I agree with you SkruffsSkruffs wrote:IT's not much of a discussion starter, anymore, Jack, unless you say why with it.
Since we're under deadline, there's less time to ponder over reactions to things like Jack's voting with no reasoning. I think it was fine in the early stages of the game (itdidget a few people asking questions, after all) but I think we're a little short of concrete evidence at the moment.
Man, I hate deadlines
Cubansmoker, based on the idea that i have no knowledge of anyone's role in the game, this effectively means I can't offer theories day one, because they have "no basis". How much proof do I need to have before I sugges tsomething I've noted? On a similar note, this means that lynching one of you will give a basis as to the alignment of the other.Cuban wrote:I'm into studying who people vote for, but without knowing some constants (like dead people alignments) you have no basis to work with. It's more likely we're just two good townies who can recognize two other good townies.