Here's my case on your(Jason) ISO
#1 Activity related nothingness
#2 - 8 Arguing about something that is evidently null with CDB, which he explainst
#9 - 10 Activity related nothingness
#11 First actually content post. Actually filled with nothing important except theory talk and continuation on #2 - 8
#12 Activity related nothingness
#13 Theorytalk
#14 - 17 Wants to vote Grimm to set up a lynch. Doesn't have a case.
#18 Obvious vote
#19 - 23. Trys to make a case on me. Reason
"Scum don't kill people suspecting them, they kill people they can't lynch."
CDog was most likely town as stated by many players already. No one was able to lynch C-Dog. So everyone could be that "scum" you are talking about, so I don't see your reason holding jack shit.
Tl;dr: Your posts are shit. You are not trying to scum hunt. And when you do, you give crappy null reasons that doesn't hold just with a bit of thinking.
Lynch this scum.
In post 361, DrDolittle wrote:Here's my case on your(Jason) ISO
#1 Activity related nothingness
#2 - 8 Arguing about something that is evidently null with CDB, which he explainst
#9 - 10 Activity related nothingness
#11 First actually content post. Actually filled with nothing important except theory talk and continuation on #2 - 8
#12 Activity related nothingness
#13 Theorytalk
#14 - 17 Wants to vote Grimm to set up a lynch. Doesn't have a case.
#18 Obvious vote
#19 - 23. Trys to make a case on me. Reason
"Scum don't kill people suspecting them, they kill people they can't lynch."
CDog was most likely town as stated by many players already. No one was able to lynch C-Dog. So everyone could be that "scum" you are talking about, so I don't see your reason holding jack shit.
Tl;dr: Your posts are shit. You are not trying to scum hunt. And when you do, you give crappy null reasons that doesn't hold just with a bit of thinking.
Lynch this scum.
My "case" on you is your vote was based on nothing which wait a second.
DrDolittle wrote:CDog was most likely town as stated by many players already. No one was able to lynch C-Dog. So everyone could be that "scum" you are talking about, so I don't see your reason holding jack shit.
HOLY SHIT BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THETROLLIE WAS THE ONE THAT MADE THE KILL?
Returning win rate: 4/1, 80%
In the process of creating a game to mod, we will see what it holds.
I say trollie could be scum because early cheery-trollie interactions and the one way suspicion from Cheery to Trollie with the latter relenting. But then clearly this lynch on Jason is better. I still don't see the arguement and how is it contingent to what we are talking about. Also you haven't rebuffed shit on 361
In post 352, JasonWazza wrote:In other words, scum don't kill people suspecting them, they kill people they can't lynch.
But why would scum make people unlynchable in the first place with statements like the one DrDolittle made? Not buying that logic.
DrDolittle's case on you isn't as conclusive as he makes it out to be, but it's better than anything else we have right now, except for the case on Mac, but he's V/LA.
In post 352, JasonWazza wrote:In other words, scum don't kill people suspecting them, they kill people they can't lynch.
But why would scum make people unlynchable in the first place with statements like the one DrDolittle made? Not buying that logic.
DrDolittle's case on you isn't as conclusive as he makes it out to be, but it's better than anything else we have right now, except for the case on Mac, but he's V/LA.
And where are the others?
Why not make people unlynchable? you have kills.
Returning win rate: 4/1, 80%
In the process of creating a game to mod, we will see what it holds.
I exist. I'll catch up at some point; I'm actually v/la without computer access every weekend, but I think I can squeak out 15 pages. If not, it will definitely happen Monday!
