Manuel is throwing suspicion on Square, but not voting or FOS'ing. That makes me suspect a Manuel/Square scum team is a possibility.In post 403, Grendel wrote:So to finish up I'd like to hear your hypothetical scum team.
VOTE: Square World
Manuel is throwing suspicion on Square, but not voting or FOS'ing. That makes me suspect a Manuel/Square scum team is a possibility.In post 403, Grendel wrote:So to finish up I'd like to hear your hypothetical scum team.
Why wouldn't it be scum casting shade on town?In post 600, eagerSnake wrote:Manuel is throwing suspicion on Square, but not voting or FOS'ing. That makes me suspect a Manuel/Square scum team is a possibility.In post 403, Grendel wrote:So to finish up I'd like to hear your hypothetical scum team.
VOTE: Square World
I explained that it felt awkward that he only mentioned your summary on Rhazh but that doesnt mean i have to scumread him for that.In post 600, eagerSnake wrote:Manuel is throwing suspicion on Square, but not voting or FOS'ing. That makes me suspect a Manuel/Square scum team is a possibility.In post 403, Grendel wrote:So to finish up I'd like to hear your hypothetical scum team.
VOTE: Square World
I suppose it could be, but I feel like he wouldn't have chainsaw-defended him and would have more than just a 'null' read on the slot if that was the case.In post 601, House wrote:Why wouldn't it be scum casting shade on town?
And this is a classic WIFOM defense.In post 602, Manuel87 wrote:Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?
no if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him what good does pointing out one minor detail do in form of distancing?In post 603, Gamma Emerald wrote:Distancing/Buddying
And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"In post 604, eagerSnake wrote:I suppose it could be, but I feel like he wouldn't have chainsaw-defended him and would have more than just a 'null' read on the slot if that was the case.In post 601, House wrote:Why wouldn't it be scum casting shade on town?And this is a classic WIFOM defense.In post 602, Manuel87 wrote:Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?
I meant Bussing, not buddying.In post 605, Manuel87 wrote:no if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him what good does pointing out one minor detail do in form of distancing?In post 603, Gamma Emerald wrote:Distancing/Buddying
I dont see how this would help me buddy someone can you explain why you would think like that?
There are plenty of reasons for why scum would throw suspicion on their buddy, and it's almost impossible to know which reason it is. I think you know that already. So why even ask that question? And then why doubtcast me just because I didn't drink your wine?In post 606, Manuel87 wrote:And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"
Where did i doubtcast you? I simply asked you a question about your read that you still refuse to answer.In post 608, eagerSnake wrote:There are plenty of reasons for why scum would throw suspicion on their buddy, and it's almost impossible to know which reason it is. I think you know that already. So why even ask that question? And then why doubtcast me just because I didn't drink your wine?In post 606, Manuel87 wrote:And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"
So you could say exactly this?In post 609, Manuel87 wrote:Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?
Actually if i changed stance on him right now that would be suspicious as i mentioned 2 times already so that argument is pretty bad at best.In post 616, eagerSnake wrote:Then, when called out on it, you take immediately to the WIFOM, almost as if you had already pre-planned to say "why would I do it as scum?"
Fact is your interaction with Square makes absolutely no sense, and leaves yourself open to change stances, and I would be very surprised if that's coming from town.
In post 609, Manuel87 wrote:[wifom]Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?[/wifom]
In post 602, Manuel87 wrote:[wifom]Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?[/wifom]
Also, you are more concerned about looking suspicious than determining his alignment.In post 605, Manuel87 wrote:[wifom]if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him[/wifom]
My reasons for you being scum are clear, and Square also.In post 617, Manuel87 wrote:Actually if i changed stance on him right now that would be suspicious
So for you, everyone starts with no suspicion, and they accumulate it as they post? That line of thought will lead to scum lurking their way to a win.In post 613, Manuel87 wrote:Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.
^^ Scum need to come up with bogus arguments for calling townies scummy.In post 613, Manuel87 wrote:At best it would be suspicious if i voted for him when he is getting lynched for sure after that.
Do you say my argument is wrong that its awkward to only mention your read on Rhazh?
Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.
How is that buddying? Also keeping myself open for lynching him later is bullshit since that would be suspicious af.
I am still confident in my Jester vote but i think Eager is the best lynch for today.
UNVOTE: The_Jester
VOTE: EagerSnake
Partly correct but they also accumulate trust.In post 619, eagerSnake wrote:So for you, everyone starts with no suspicion, and they accumulate it as they post? That line of thought will lead to scum lurking their way to a win.In post 613, Manuel87 wrote:Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.
I dont see any reason other then both of us presenting good arguments against you so please enlighten me.In post 618, eagerSnake wrote: My reasons for you being scum are clear, and Square also.
Also this.. "at that point" refers to post 84. These are all his posts before 84 (4 posts), which doesn't look like he's doing much scumhunting to me:In post 328, Manuel87 wrote:From my point of view i did more scumhunting then at least 6 other players in the game at that point.
"Good arguments?" I haven't seen any from you.. or him.. your sole argument for scumreading me throughout this game has been that my vote on Square was "very bad," which is basically calling me scum for scumhunting. Why not use the same logic for the other people who voted Square?In post 621, Manuel87 wrote:I dont see any reason other then both of us presenting good arguments against you so please enlighten me.