VOTE: Always
Scum
Scum
Well, you aren't very fun.
Sure.In post 232, Abomination wrote:Can we lynch this guy for real though?In post 227, shos wrote:guys abom has too little votes.
Don't be a sour puss.In post 320, ActionDan wrote:I don't
That's fine, but I am here (but not caught up), so lets bounce reads. I see you voting xofelf, walk me through that.In post 657, geists wrote:I haven't called you out. You've posted enough that I have a tentative read.
In post 468, shos wrote:You will never lynch me if I claim. Lets halt at that.
I don't think anyone commented on these. We need to challenge this soft-claim.In post 478, shos wrote: I won't get lynched or killed actually. it's just useless lol. I won't even need to claim -_-; but seriously, why am I being voted.? anyone at all..?
Right. I can see where you are coming from on xofelf, but not my first choice. I have scum-readsish on Dan, AngryIece, and Shos.In post 817, geists wrote:Prohawk, I thought we were going to talk reads.
Shos, comment on this ^In post 660, ProHawk wrote:In post 468, shos wrote:You will never lynch me if I claim. Lets halt at that.I don't think anyone commented on these. We need to challenge this soft-claim.In post 478, shos wrote: I won't get lynched or killed actually. it's just useless lol. I won't even need to claim -_-; but seriously, why am I being voted.? anyone at all..?
How would one go about doing this?In post 621, Always wrote:Thus, it's best to keep the jewel shards as much as possible out of scum's hands.
I don't get it, and yes, you have AI and Always in the wrong categories.In post 845, HighShroomish wrote:but I correctly read them both the last two game days I am going to die in a pool of my own tears.
In post 478, shos wrote:I won't get lynched or killed actually. it's just useless lol. I won't even need to claim -_-; but seriously, why am I being voted.? anyone at all..?
In post 1796, Lemniscate wrote:UNVOTE:
VOTE: Young and Beautiful
After the past couple of pages, I'm okay with this direction.
In post 1940, geists wrote:If you don't like the lemniscate wagon then you don't like Nati. This interests me greatly.
In post 1946, ProHawk wrote:In post 1940, geists wrote:If you don't like the lemniscate wagon then you don't like Nati. This interests me greatly.
Or ProHawk. Other problem, weren't you an advocate of multi-ball at one point? I will evaluate the other players on this wagon as well...
In post 2044, Lemniscate wrote:Nobody has actually made any case on me, but rather my predecessors.
In post 2055, Lemniscate wrote:I was sheeping the YandB wagon because nobody was listening to any other wagon
In post 2073, HighShroomish wrote:I'm not sure if my vote did it's job or Hawkie just decided to start posting. Either way-
UNVOTE
In post 2171, Lemniscate wrote:Just interested in hearing you quickly stumble over yourself to make a case on me.
In post 1796, Lemniscate wrote:UNVOTE:
VOTE: Young and Beautiful
After the past couple of pages, I'm okay with this direction.
In post 2055, Lemniscate wrote:Okay? What about it? My vote was exactly what it appeared to be.I was sheepingthe YandB wagon becausenobody was listening to any other wagon that was trying to format that moment andI just wanted to get past Day 1.
In post 2316, Svenskt Stål wrote:Ffer,squirrel,prohawk
Lets get the gang together and abolish this foolishness.
In post 2379, AngryIcerink wrote:Don't think for a second that a scum flip from Lemon makes you probtown though
In post 2592, geists wrote:I don't think he'd indiscriminately alienate other players in the process.
In post 2638, AngryIcerink wrote:I want someone to actually bring him [ProHawk] up.
In post 2372, AngryIcerink wrote:My god, if I acknowledge your [ProHawks] case will you stop being a whiny little bitch about it?
In post 2639, notscience wrote:I don't remember such a laid back prohawk.
In post 1469, AngryIcerink wrote:Can we talk about my Mist case? I want attention, god damn it.
~Pajaro.
In post 2738, neil1113 wrote:The only reason I could think of, is if she really believes the other options are town power roles and is literally trying to sacrifice herself.
In post 2733, Svenskt Stål wrote:lol wtf prohawk, this is not how i remember you from skype mafia.
In post 2852, geists wrote:In post 2835, AngryIcerink wrote:In post 2833, notscience wrote:In FEA cephrir gave us 4 fakeclaims at the start of the game.
OK.
Has he ever done the thing where he lets scum request a fakeclaim on the fly to go with a particular ability fakeclaim?
This is one of the two possibilities listed in the 2-3 paragraphs.
- Iec
Didn't he tweak your fake claims on the fly in AMoL?
In post 2869, Le Cupcake wrote:I'll put it simply that I have reasons to believe Lem's claim is not fake.
In post 2911, neil1113 wrote:WOAH
WOAH
WOAH
WOAH
WHAT?!?!?!?
Really? We're pushing a lynch on a claim that is EASILY able to be proven, rather than pushing a lynch on somebody that someone has EVIDENCE in their own flavor that the other person is lying, and is nearly confirmed scum?
Because of deadline?
Yeah no. I'm more in favor of lynching scum, then lynching a testable claim that can be potentially dangerous to scum, all because of deadline. The fact that you're still even pushing up a wagon, knowing that someone is not able to be killed at night and would be a danger to scum, is literally doing scum's job for them. What the hell is wrong with you?
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Shos
Mist is just an inactive person that suddenly came alive near deadline. I don't like that, but with a claim like Shos, I feel like Shos would be the better lynch subject. I didn't realize Majiffy had evidence.
(Sorry Majiffy.)
P.S. Molla is basically confirmed scum. Look at that ISO, look at it... tell me I'm wrong.