yeah why not
unvote vote: AGar
Empking is a scumread for me because of how he was deflecting attention earlier:
Empking wrote:I doubt Majiffy is scum. I'm not scum, and if talah and Nat are going to baselessly wagon someone can they put pressure on Beli or Sak, please.
AGar wrote:If you're town, you're wasting your vote and doing the rest of us a huge disservice by parking it on a wagon you either don't believe in or don't care enough to see through to a lynch.
1. I was following talah as part of a vote group. how is that "wasting" my vote? and what makes this different from everyone else in talah's vote group?
2. why does it have to be one of those two possibilities?
3. what makes you think I either don't believe in the Empking wagon, or don't care enough to see it through to a lynch?
AGar wrote:I really don't get why you keep bringing irrelevant posts up, unless you actually have nothing to contribute to the game.
nice way to try to cover up what I said :3 too bad it's not going to work
AGar wrote:I'm repeating this point for emphasis - the wagon-starter basically said "Yeah he's town."
so it's not a good wagon cause the leader stopped supporting it?
and regardless, why shouldn't wagons on townies exist? even if the person being wagoned is town, we can use people's reactions and interactions with others to get more information. saying wagons on townies shouldn't exist is like saying we should just sit here without even trying to get more information. clearly this scenario doesn't benefit town = =
AGar wrote:(unless not answering your questions makes people scum in your book, in which case I should be the towniest town who ever towned to you)
false logic. "failing to answer questions" -> "scum" does not imply that "answering questions" -> "town".
AGar wrote:Your post afterwords gave some content but left the vote parked and made no mention of Empking whatsoever. Another post passes, you list Empking as a "scumread," but you've actually given no reasoning to back it up (unless not answering your questions makes people scum in your book, in which case I should be the towniest town who ever towned to you), came at me (listed as a scumread so that's logical) but then again left your vote parked on the wagon.
what is this I don't even
first sentence: so you say that's suspicious. However, you had another post in between the post where you first declared it to be suspicious. Why wasn't it suspicious then? As for me leaving my vote, see above
second sentence: you're using something that happened AFTER you declared my vote to be suspicious as reasoning for declaring that vote to be suspicious? that's not how it works :>
speaking of not having any reasoning, I declared Empking's redirecting attention to be suspicious around the time it happened, so I definitely had reasoning.
AGar wrote:You're not generating pressure, you're not gathering any information.
false statement
if you really want me to demonstrate this, obviously I generated enough pressure on you for you to answer my questions. beautifully illustrating my point
Kalimar wrote:@pieguyn - I didn't like Beli's intro. Having read his ISO I like his carefree posting style, which usually tends to come from town.
what did you think of Beli's vote on me?
