Friend needs moar votes.
In other news, I reread and sebguer might need some rope. The first time through I missed post 102, which, while in a vacuum might not be particularly scummy, in context is shifty as hell.
Take a look at this exchange:
Socrates wrote:Sebguer wrote:Unvote
Vote: Furcolow[/b[
There is no way this guy is not scum. Seriously, just glance over his posts. He's either scum or an idiot. I'm sure he's going to be like "GAH, LOOK AT SEBGUER, TRYING TO LYNCH ME WHEN I AM HELPING TOWN WITH MY STUPID IDEAS AND POINTLESS POSTS INCLUDING POKER ANALOGIES THAT NO ONE BUT ME THINKS ARE INTERESTING. SCUM!"
I rest my case.
So he is either scum or an idiot. Why do you pick scum over idiot?
Sebguer wrote:Because lynching either is a plus?
He's scummier than anyone else who has posted.
Socrates wrote:Yes. Mislynching, always a plus.
Sebguer wrote:He's declaring someone's 98% scum from four posts. One of those posts was an RVS of Furc, the second was a "why do I need to justify my RVS?", third was "policy lynches are better for a vig to do", and last was calling out Furc's bullshit.
Furc is scum.
Let me simplify that for you:
That awesome guy: why is he scum and not just dumb?
Mister shifty: I don't care which he is.
That awesome guy: That's dumb.
Mister shifty: He is definitely scum for these reasons: blah blah blah.
The important observation here is that when I challenged his answer to my question, he didn't back up his answer or try and justify it,
he changed his answer
. Regardless of the veracity of his arguments (which I happen to think are crap anyway), it is different than the initial one he gave. He's probably scum that wanted to get in on the easy wagon. Scummy.