196 - whether that post was RVS or something serious is pretty much crucial to the entire conversation surrounding it; if it was, then interpreting it is an entirely different matter. you seem to think that it's irrelevant. I'm bothered by that.
197 - that's true, but you're suggesting that always voting the largest wagon during RVS is a good thing to do simply as policy. I'm questioning whether that can actually consistently provide useful data if people do it just because it's a good idea. I don't think it benefits anyone, and is probably even less beneficial if you explicitly announce it.
201 - this is almost completely devoid of content as an explanation, and I don't like it at all.
204 - concerning what I wrote about
post 12, I think this is a valid point; the fact that discussion was generated doesn't necessarily imply that Robert2424 wanted to generate it, and it's the sort of post where such a concern is valid.
210 - having a ton of town reads and not any really solid scum reads is a really good way to blend in and look helpful without really contributing much. granted, you kind of back off from this idea almost immediately, but it initially bothered me.
222 - I agree with this.
226 - I'm really curious why you have a town read on Zachstralkita. please elaborate.
229 - it's absolutely absurd that you of all people are questioning someone's vote on Zachstralkita.
233 - this is a bad post and you should feel bad. simply stating you have a read on someone and not offering any reasoning why is super scummy and unhelpful.
235 - "When I voted Zach nobody else was" this is just objectively false??? I voted for Zachstralkita well before you. as Dunnstral points out in
238, even if you had been the first to vote him, you certainly wouldn't have been the first to be suspicious of him.
241 - this is
exactly
what Dunnstral was doing; stop trying to act like it isn't.
242 - I don't agree with nearly any of the points this post makes, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see Zachstralkita actually contribute to the game this much.
243 - you're not under an
obligation
to do anything, but not explaining a vote isn't going to look good at this point regardless of the circumstances.
245 - Jake from State Farm is scum. I'm keeping my vote on Zachstralkita, because I think it does more good there, but if Jake ends up being lynched today, I'll be happy with that result. I'm not going to bother linking directly to 246 and 247 since they're directly after this one, but they're all terrible. your entire point seems to basically be "Dunnstral is asking me to explain my actions, and therefore Dunnstral is scum."
255 - "because I like being difficult" is obscenely unhelpful and anti-town; if you want to benefit the town, you should be contributing more information, not deliberately obfuscating it. and stop pretending like posts 169 and 201 contributed anything meaningful. they did not. and the entire notion that people should simply remain silent until someone asks them to contribute is total nonsense. this is a fascinatingly terrible post and your obsession with proving that Dunnstral is a terrible, terrible liar is only making yourself look worse.
258 - I agree with this; if you agree with the reasoning for a wagon, not joining it solely because of the other people (besides the person whose argument you agree with) on it doesn't really make sense.
265 - I'd like to know why you made this post. I have my own thoughts regarding it (and regarding Zachstralkita's response to it, which I wasn't a huge fan of), but I'm curious about your goals with it.
271 - I know this isn't meant to be a super strong point, but I doubt that this is relevant given that Floof had just replaced in; it's entirely possible that they're scum together and Bins hadn't yet looked at their day talk thread.
274 I don't like how seriously you reacted to this question. I know being useless and uninformative is kind of your schtick in this game, but to stop doing so for a post like this doesn't indicate good things.
276 - you 4 hours earlier: "Town should only concern themselves with stating who they think are scum" -- why would you even bother telling us when you like a post someone's made if that's your philosophy?
277 - this would be all well and good were it not for the fact that you've still not explained in precise detail why you voted for Zachstralkita.
282 - as I noted in 188, I didn't actually know that the "post" tag existed; while I prefer not to quote posts for more than a few posts (because it's really easy to screw up those tags), I would've formatted #89 in a more readable format if I had been familiar with a way to. also, which question in
post 158 are you referring to?
The WIFOM that pours through my veins is telling me 
- that is the game, you find something suspicious, you vote. I believe my vote was the first vote, it was not me jumping on a bandwagon. if you want me to break down the development of my read of Jaaack I will.