Someone else "Z-2" cautions him about it in several posts, then:Nacho wrote:holy shit DOMO is flying down paranoiaville at the moment and nothing can stop him
muffin, my fake claim is friendly neighbor
i won't die
Nacho wrote:I don't think that I'm going to claim friendly neighbor at this point. If there was ever a time for a VT fakeclaim, that time is now.
^this girl is smart. Listen to her.In post 2352, Juls wrote:Yeah fuck that. Nacho needs to be lynched today! Everyone re-vote him.
Or that he refers to Yates' scumslip which got him modkilled in 172 - which featured a friendly neighbour / jailkeeper JOAT.In post 2341, zMuffinMan wrote:hey nacho
is it just a massive coincidence you rolled the fake claim you were considering using in 169?
He likes modifiers. In Always On I was a Fibonacci Mafia Cop - I could only investigate on nights that were Fibonacci numbers.In post 2357, zMuffinMan wrote:i think just for caution's sake it's probably best to let the nacho lynch wait a day just in case it happens to be one huge fucking massive coincidence (even though the fact he is 1-shot is also a massive coincidence given double actions)
(side note: does zoraster include many/any 1-shot roles in games?)
In post 2358, Juls wrote:Guys, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then nacho is a duck.
You wanna catch up instead of making bad jokes?In post 2362, Metal Sonic wrote:In post 2358, Juls wrote:Guys, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then nacho is a duck.
Might be an animated cgi duck... Oh it is still a duck
Guy in a duck suit?
I quoted the post in which Zito first talked about the scum claim, and asked why he was going for a veto that the first attempt at voting was done by the scum claim.In post 2228, AGar wrote:That wasn't the scum claim.In post 2187, Cheery Dog wrote:Why are we wanting to Veto something that scum has gone for the veto with? (even if they haven't voted in the proper format), since everyone managed to get replaced, I'm not seeing the issue with this event.
The ones we're want to use it on would be Latency or 3 Person Shootout.
And this seems directly contradictory to what I just quoted. Good job!
Much wondering about whether it changes his reads, I think this makes TiP town. Or buddies with Nacho unsure of whether to bus.In post 2236, TheIrishPope wrote:I don't think his play was indicative of him being scum but the veto vote is really a compelling point.In post 2232, Magua wrote:Better question: Do you think Nacho's scum?In post 2229, TheIrishPope wrote:What's his L- at?
Have you explained why you don't want nomination around?In post 2327, Venmar wrote:Can we just veto?
I also thought the timing of the veto was rather strange.In post 2264, Nachomamma8 wrote:Please don't be town after making a vote like this. Please, please, please don't be town after making a vote like this.In post 2115, Bulbazak wrote:Papa Zito actually makes a very good point.
Please.
The situation Papa Zito came up with is a possible situation, yes. Is it more likely than me skimming the rules? Not by much, if at all. This means that driving a wagon on me to lynch because of said scumslip without me having the chance to form reads, without me getting the chance to get properly invested in the game: this shoots town in the foot especially since once I flip town, this town is going to go back on the fucked up road of apathy and lazily lynching people they can't read once again. This completely takes away the potential for anything that I could possibly do for town: which, considering that I A) haven't slipped inside information only scum would know (this is a real scumslip, by the way), and B) haven't involved myself in a situation that would be far more likely coming from scum-me than town me, means that you're sucking away the majority of anything good I could possibly accomplish in this game because of an incredibly dumb argument.
You're better than this. Other people on this wagon might not be, but you're better than this.
