Just because you didn't understand my vote (Or apparently want to understand it.) doesn't mean it wasn't justified.SaintKerrigan wrote:You mean this, Zach?
That's not called wishy-washy voting. It's called not being certain who exactly is scum, so I move my vote to who I think is suspicious. Isn't that something we're supposed to do as town? Oh wait, why am I asking you? Your vote hardly moved at all once it got stuck on Netopalis. And on top of that, you didn't really state good reasons for voting Neto until pressured into doing so.Zachrulez wrote:I think SaintKerrigan is scum.
He spent a lot of time saying that Neto's bandwagon was unjustified, and a day 1 all over the place with wishy washy voting, most of which where he couldn't decide whether he wanted to vote for me, Haylen, or Netlava.
So if Neto is not a hider then he's... (I'll let you finish that thought.)SaintKerrigan wrote:I never actually said Neto was scum. I just said I was doubting his claim. What you're stating that I was doing and what I actually did are two entirely different things. Also, I did too explore other suspects. What are you talking about?Zachrulez wrote:Day two consisted of him turning against Neto to an extent, saying that the pr flips made his claim less likely to be true, while conveniently never actually putting his vote on Netopolis and exploring other suspects. Maybe he didn't expect Netopolis to be lynched that quickly?
You must not have explained it well, because I don't understand the change of read.SaintKerrigan wrote:I'm pretty sure I already explained that my read on Mae changed because of the recent flips and Mae's reaction (or seeming lack thereof) to the Netopalis controversy.Zachrulez wrote:Also this
is standing out like a sore thumb to me, especially considering SK's current position on Mae. (What changed your read on her btw?)SaintKerrigan wrote:I don't like Zach's subtle attack on arguably the most pro-town player in this game (Maemuki). At least the most pro-town player on the Netlava wagon (well, besides me, but I have to say that ).
What WERE you doing then?SaintKerrigan wrote:Pbbt. Whether I was intentionally doing that or not is debatable.Zachrulez wrote:Oh and of course rolefishing...
Ohhh look, accusations and no citations! Awesome!SaintKerrigan wrote:One other thing. I'm pretty sure I've seen every single one of Zach's arguments spoken previously by other people. He's not been active, he typically only responds when called for (or posts to avoid the prod), and he's parroting other arguments.
Hmm...
Vote: Zachrulez.
I'm not forgetting you today, Zach.
Your vote is still OMGUS.