In post 222, KrazyEyeKilla7 wrote:If you say you will, then do it and not just make a statement?
Eager to bypass a claim aren't we? We'll deal with you later.
In post 222, KrazyEyeKilla7 wrote:If you say you will, then do it and not just make a statement?
In post 225, evilpacman18 wrote:In post 222, KrazyEyeKilla7 wrote:If you say you will, then do it and not just make a statement?
Eager to bypass a claim aren't we? We'll deal with you later.
vote: Lupo
In post 232, KrazyEyeKilla7 wrote:In post 225, evilpacman18 wrote:In post 222, KrazyEyeKilla7 wrote:If you say you will, then do it and not just make a statement?
Eager to bypass a claim aren't we? We'll deal with you later.
vote: Lupo
To lay down the hammer vote so swiftly lies some scummy behavior, especially when I made that comment before Lupo's claim.
So no, I wasn't bypassing a claim. Because there wasn't a claim to bypass. YOU bypassed a claim and killed a VT.
KrazyEyeKilla wrote:Doesn't matter if he's a PR or a VT, you still put a hammer vote down on someone who was on town side AND CLAIMED IT.
and yeah I know it's somewhat weak to go off on just a vote, but anyone who's truly pro-town wouldn't go off and make the scum/town ratio a staggering 2/5.
As for his claim on being a VT. Of course scum can claim VT, but even if that WAS the case, what makes that a just cause for a hammer vote? "Oh I don't trust your claim because scum is able to do this, so obviously you're scum"....?? Look, the fact of the matter is that you put the vote on him, you DIDN'T give him time, you only allowed him to claim his VT role.