Desisted wrote:Ok, Jenter, you can take that vote off yourself now. I'm more than convinced you're just trying too hard to act town ("Oh look! My vote was still on myself! What a silly town thing to do, as scum would never do that.")
I was going to mention it earlier, but thought I'd wait a while longer.
Unvote; Vote: Jenter
Right now I'm convinced at least one of the following is scum:
trumpezia, Jenter, Kison, Eyceking
How definite a statement for page 4. I'm also unsure of your first string of logic of trying to seem town.
FoS:Desisted
I said, and I quote myself, "I'm not convinced you're the lynch for today." i.e. I do not think you are scummy enough to be lynched.
As for Kison, don't like the way his reason for BWing IH, the way he plays it off like it's a random vote.
Trump, for lurking.
Bandwagoning is not inherently scummy
Trump wrote:Yes, but I would still assume everyone read the death scene before posting.
It is distancing from the night kill because the scum would usually be more keen on seeing what roles they caught, really, because they still would have made a conscious choice, perhaps a rather arbitrary one, but a choice nevertheless.
Yet here you say the opposite, don't you? Or are you trying to force a statement that, to intentionally look like town, I said "what do you mean by masons?" Just curious to how that is scummy.
Desisted wrote:Unless of course you're implying we have a doc/roleblocker.
Can't say myself, but it is possible we have someone else who can kill besides the mafia. It is a closed setup you know
Para wrote:It would be very stupid for a vig to kill at random.
Not necessarily. it is a valid vig strategy.
Gatorguy wrote:d3sisted is very scummy, I admit, but, i think this is how he plays. FoS: desisted for now.
Major FoS:GatorGuy
Desisted wrote:Just because I didn't provide reasons, doesn't mean I changed votes because of his one-liner rebuttal. Don't get presumptuous here.
Those 4 make up the player list minus the pro-town ones. I don't see the need for bringing up cases unless I'm backing up a vote.
Untrue, majorly. You are suspicious of them. WHY are you suspicious of them?
unvote, vote:Desisted
I'm just assuming you're just trying to either A.Cast suspicion on someone, or B.declare suspicion on someone so you can say you've been suspicious of them.
These assumptions that its desisteds playstyle are horrible.
Para wrote:Wow Jenter certainly does look opportunistic. Like he's trying to establish suspicion with absolutely no actual substance.
Unvote, Vote: Jenter
Hey, isn't that what desisted did?
Jenter wrote:I'm still here, but have little to add.
unvote if I was.
Srsly.
two votes is not a bandwagon.
Woo content! I took a little two-three day break from all of mafiascum because of tests and stuff.
