In post 623, kiwieagle wrote:When did I ever call you scum...?
My points against you do not hinge on whether you have actually called Kcdaspot/myself scum. Now please answer my questions.
In post 623, kiwieagle wrote:When did I ever call you scum...?
In post 626, Shadow Dancer wrote:@Petrol: Right now if Nobody is claiming the truth scum will likely NK him anyway, or probably roleblock him which would give us setup information. Lynching him now is counterpoductive. If he is fake claiming and there is a real cop he will sooner or later claim, thus uncovering Nobody, but ideally giving town more info. Right now he most likely only has on innocent and will then be NKed (or his innocent). Very little gain. If the cop is NKed by chance Nobody would still be exposed, so unlike with a guilty investigation there is no urge to get it out. In abstract: There's almost nothing to gain for town that would justify burning an unclaimed cop from an immediate counterclaim.
Lynching Nobody unCCed is obviously bad. If it's a mislynch scum NK Stevie and town gained less than nothing.
In post 612, kiwieagle wrote:One of my scum suspects votes me for not answering a question. (I admit it, I HATE HATE HATE answering many questions. Meta me.)
In post 612, kiwieagle wrote:I seriously dont know how to defend myself.
In post 617, kiwieagle wrote:If I was scum, wouldnt you think I would be MUCH MORE CAREFUL where I tread, PJ?
In post 614, DeasVail wrote:Hmm, I didn't think that scum would be so bold as to proclaim someone they knew would be a mislynch as an obvious mislynch.
In post 615, kiwieagle wrote:So I have a wagon on me.
YAY!
Atleast I know NS was lying now.
Nice counter-wagon though.
In post 499, Nobody Special wrote:Haven't looked at Stevie lately; will do that later, in tandem with other players.
In post 528, Nobody Special wrote:These two shining examples of scumminess far outshine Stevie, who, while less luminous, is still in my notes to be watched.
In post 638, Fishythefish wrote:@RBT, SC, vezok, kiwi: why do you believe NS? "There isn't a reason not to" is a pretty crap reason - what makes you think it isn't a fakeclaim?
In post 641, Nocmen wrote:I'm able to take the claim, but I want to take the result on Stevie with a grain of salt.
In post 632, StevieT92 wrote:In post 615, kiwieagle wrote:So I have a wagon on me.
YAY!
Atleast I know NS was lying now.
Nice counter-wagon though.
Why have you not considered the fact that NS could be telling the truth?
If you are town; are you that arrogant that you are so sure in your reads (me + NS)? after you just said you think your reads are crap and you have no idea who is scum?
In post 642, StrangerCoug wrote:In post 641, Nocmen wrote:I'm able to take the claim, but I want to take the result on Stevie with a grain of salt.
Why?
In post 641, Nocmen wrote:
At the same time, vezok again is disturbing me. Another vote that makes sense only as a wagon perspective. First mention of kiwi in his posts is a vote?
Unvote, Vote: Vezok
In post 640, StrangerCoug wrote:In post 638, Fishythefish wrote:@RBT, SC, vezok, kiwi: why do you believe NS? "There isn't a reason not to" is a pretty crap reason - what makes you think it isn't a fakeclaim?
As I remember saying, it explains why he stopped pursuing StevieT92.