On November 27 2014 17:43 Trfel wrote: So I still think that batsnacks is mafia for the reasons I (and several others) have mentioned many times.
My opinion also remains unchanged, filtered comments post-lynch is mostly spam. Answered a few questions on Kush but I don't see anything to indicate town in the slight.
Damdred drew scumlike behaviour well before the lynch, which I'd already addressed and then fell off before the bandwagon vote came rolling. I'm going to take a closer look at his filter regarding the points Trfel brought up. It just seems weird how he dropped off (timewise) and then voted DSMI before his explanation. Even with Kush providing the initial explanation, regardless of where Kush stands himself, it just struck me as opportunistic.
Alakaslam...I don't like the way he's playing at all. I really don't. Now I'll discount today since it's a major holiday for the US and I assume he's US, but prior to now, he's too much of a coaster. I also didn't like how he voted for himself when the rules clearly state you cannot. He's still a policy vote in my opinion.
Filtered SL...I don't really know what to make of this lad...if he's town, I can think of some rational explanations as to why he's acting this way. I do not know his meta, although Breshke said he was equally erratic in the last game too. Looking for contradictions, but I mostly see emotional posting from him.
Breshke still seems alright for me, I am not seeing any red flags with him. What he has said post-lynch is reasonable given the circumstances.
On November 27 2014 22:36 Breshke wrote: Also Trfel that is a big post. i will need to read it a couple more times when i wake up before I can look into the stuff you are putting forward because there is a lot to digest. The effort you go to with your posts and their flow reinforces my town read on you because I think you would be hard pressed to construct reads like these if you didn't truly believe them. I'm not sure why but your posts feel so emotionless to me though but i don't know if that is even relevant to anything.
On November 27 2014 22:46 Half the Sky wrote: It just seems weird how he dropped off (timewise) and then voted DSMI before his explanation. Even with Kush providing the initial explanation, regardless of where Kush stands himself, it just struck me as opportunistic.
Since I didn't say this in my last post, the evidence to support this is in the timestamps. Trfel already pointed out. Kush's explanation and campaigning happens in 3 minutes (go to page 23 and view it, do not filter), with Damdred's vote happening.
Look at when Damdred actually posts his explanation. It's not just later. More than 3h later.
Trfel you mentioned the quality of Damdred's case, but even more detrimental is the timing. In that span LS and myself had changed our votes after some examination (at least on my end) and explanation from kush along with some back and forth on DSMI.
As for me, I did not take any of Damdred's explanation into account when I voted, solely Kush, obviously the timing explains that.
On November 27 2014 23:08 Damdred wrote: Big posts=town is one of the worst reasons to town read someone ever you shouldn't do it
I am filtering Trfel like I am everyone else. I am not seeing anything to indicate scum, his explanations are reasonable, justified and the support is there to back his statements. So far, anyways.
On November 25 2014 10:11 Damdred wrote: @bats I missed you and glad you said that. Would you think I'm insane if I told you I'm scum reading half tight now
Damdred, I was not asking why you were questioning sicklucker. Either you've forgotten you mentioned you thought HTS was scum, or you're dodging the question. Considering I could never find your reasoning for this read, that is concerning.
Speaking of dodging, I presented my thoughts against him way back on page 16, and I have yet to see a defence. This isn't the first time. (NB: I will not hold him nor any American player accountable for any gaps in posting through the end of Night #1 given the holiday.)
On November 25 2014 07:26 Half the Sky wrote: because you're a baddie trying to lynch a good guy?
Calling sicklucker a "good guy" might indicate that HTS knows sicklucker is town, which only mafia would know, therefor TMI. But again I feel strongly about it.
Context please. That was a theoretical. That doesn't mean I know who anyone was. I would have had the same reaction regardless of who was voting who. When I said that, that simply means that IF (in that case) Breshke (who voted SL) WAS a bad guy, he is obviously voting someone down who was not mafia. I questioned his motive with that theoretical.
On November 28 2014 03:16 rsoultin wrote: Mmmmm...that could just be cause he's new, the big posts.
Honest question here - is there some sort of unwritten rule here against the sheer length of posts? I believe Bats and a few others have commented on this. Other forum mafia games, I've seen players get into a few thousand words with posts. Not regularly but it happens.
On November 28 2014 04:36 Damdred wrote: I do think half is scummy though over explained vote post few things earlier that were non commital and to agreeable I'll have to filter dive when I'm done here.
Pot...kettle...black?
I think you had the same argument with Oats, but your meta case and counter argument earlier I'm pretty sure was at least as twice as long as mine was. Not that post length should even be relevant, again it comes down to quality, I just find it ironic you're using those points to paint me (or anyone) as scum, when you are even more guilty/traceable to the same thing.
On November 28 2014 05:38 kushm4sta wrote: Way too much talking during night. Especially on thanksgiving. Stfu all of you.
Not all of us are in the States...and as I said before, I'm not holding anything against the Americans skipping out Night 1. You lot enjoy yourselves. Our last bank holiday was in August, next one Christmas. :/
Back on topic, Trfel I don't have a problem with your post length, if your posts were full of it, regardless of length, I'd have called you on it ages ago. I do find that in general, bullet points help readability though.
Did we seriously just lose both power roles in the first 36h?
(INSERT EXPLETIVES HERE.)
Looks like the scum are running scared, and there's a reason for that. I just cannot believe how unlucky we have been though. Unbelievable. More filter diving to come...
On November 28 2014 02:50 batsnacks wrote: I think Trfel is pretty scummy actually.
On November 28 2014 02:56 batsnacks wrote: Trfel writes these huge posts and I never finish reading them feeling like I've gained anything. I read his entire filter and the only thing I've taken away from it is that I'm mafia because meta, even though we've never played together, and damdred is my scum mate even though that makes zero sense.
On November 28 2014 03:15 batsnacks wrote: I really don't think I've been scummy enough to warrant being the focus of every single one of Trfel's long winded posts.
On November 28 2014 03:17 batsnacks wrote: Even his first post was about about me. He's gone into this game with the mindset of: Focus on bat, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
He has provided evidence on others but Bats and Damdred have both given him the most amount of material to work with. Sticking on point (for now) with Bats:
On November 28 2014 03:16 rsoultin wrote: Mmmmm...that could just be cause he's new, the big posts.
Picking you to look into and build a case against isn't completely out to lunch with your insta-vote, though you removed it when kush decided to participate, didn't you? Damdred seems more scummy to me than you do at the moment. Not really reading Trfel as scum just because he built a case on you though.
On November 25 2014 12:40 Oatsmaster wrote: Man, what is this.
Whos scum Trefel?
If I had to take a guess right now, I would guess sicklucker and Half the Sky. But I feel like it's far too early for me to confidently make reads. As the vote gets closer, I will consider more strongly who to vote for. Until then, a no lynch or a policy lynch on an inactive (kushm4sta?) seems better than trying to take a guess if it still seems unclear.
On November 25 2014 14:59 Trfel wrote: To be fair, kushm4sta, I would like some more from you. Batsnacks wants you to participate in the thread and share your thoughts, and that seems like a fair request. You obviously read batsnacks as scum. Any reasons we haven't mentioned yet? What about the rest of the people here?
On November 26 2014 12:25 Trfel wrote: To reiterate:
On November 25 2014 10:27 batsnacks wrote: I think you should all start voting kush since that's the most logical vote right now.
That's the problem post with the kushm4sta policy lynch for me. Yes, I'm glad that he forced kusmh4sta to the thread. However, we don't need to focus only on one afk player to bring them back into the game. We can still investigate the people here while pressuring kushm4sta to play, we don't need to sidetrack our discussions for a policy lynch.
Make sure you compare bolded words.
My interpretation of the above is that you are using the policy lynch discussion to distract from the real problem. That is a valid point. That is a scum behaviour.
More unsupported attacks:
On November 28 2014 04:54 batsnacks wrote: You know it's a problem when I don't feel like reading your posts because I already know everything I'm going to read will be useless and wrong and I won't remember any of it anyway.
On November 28 2014 05:09 batsnacks wrote: A claim that's wrong is weak no matter how much "evidence" or "reasoning" you give.
Yet Batsmacks is NOT saying WHY Trfel is wrong.
On November 28 2014 07:26 batsnacks wrote: Everything SL is saying is so wrong. "More than 1/4 chance I'm mafia" where do you get this stuff?
He's not refuting with support/evidence anyone (Trfel, SL, myself, whoever) who is pushing him. Again if you must, filter Batsmacks and read pages 4-6. On page 5, you will see the same type of unsubstantiated post again and again. Not much better on page 6.
Finally, the anti-tunnel argument is getting old. We're aware there are three scum in the game. It is just that at present, you are providing most of the material to be working with. If you are innocent, then you need to start poking holes in any of the arguments presented, which you have failed to do so far.
On November 28 2014 07:58 batsnacks wrote: So what exactly are you trying to say HTS?
Arguments that you are scum or at least exhibiting scum-like behaviour. But I have one last post since you had brought it up yourself (operative part in bold) -
On November 28 2014 02:56 batsnacks wrote: Trfel writes these huge posts and I never finish reading them feeling like I've gained anything. I read his entire filter and the only thing I've taken away from it is that I'm mafia because meta, even though we've never played together, and damdred is my scum mate even though that makes zero sense.
If we ignore the word "meta", the point still stands. He used a valid behaviour comparison from other games.
(If you want, filter Trfel, go to page 1, about mid-way down
On November 26 2014 08:02 Trfel wrote: Now, examining batsnacks' mafia history, it seems to show similar, non-accusatory play as mafia, but an ability to logically provide arguments against people as town.
In Fantasy Football Mafia Mini 2, his most recent mafia game, batsnacks was a mafia vanilla. His posts generally seem to lack content, for example this:
I only had to swap 2 letters, the A and the I. You have to swap 3, the N, O, and W. Plus you have an extra letter that doesn't even belong there.
Looks like I'm right about you. You're clearly reaching here.
batsnacks did give some analysis in saying that robik seemed to be town in that game, which ended up being correct. But he failed to provide specifics or any real evidence of this:
On October 24 2014 06:50 batsnacks wrote: I think robik looks pretty solid. I like how he's posting; he's focused, not all caps, consolidated, no personal dramas, that stuff is what reminds me of hard to get along with robik. @DrParnassus what about robik this game seem hard to cooperate with? Could you quote an example? You did say -everything about the way he's playing- reminds you of that.
He also defends Liam from an accusation. Up to now, the only two real things he's said are claiming these two people to be town. At this point he is accused of being mafia, and this is his defense:
On October 06 2014 23:26 batsnacks wrote: Oats if you are in fact "contributing" shouldn't you be thanking me? I did enable these "contributions" of yours. I feel like you're annoyed with me for allowing you to contribute.
Or are you annoyed with being in the spotlight this early?
You dont get to claim credit for something that happened accidentally.
What are your reads, mainly holyflare and me?
I agreed with HF a lot last game and he was town. I'm agreeing with him this game already so, tentatively town.
I'm voting you because I think you're scummy.
Also lol at "accidentally"
You claimed on accident now?
batsnacks accuses Oatsmaster of being mafia in this game (which ends up being incorrect). But when he defends someone as being town, he provides some support for this claim, and also shares his views a bit.
On October 07 2014 08:07 batsnacks wrote: Wait a minute, something isn't right. I quoted all of the following from the same post.
On October 07 2014 02:35 Blazinghand wrote: ...there's roughly speaking 13 players, right? If 3 are scum, then that gives us a solid 22% chance of lynching scum purely based on RNG.
No townie in this game knows the ratio of town to mafia, so it is correct here that BH gives us an example ratio of 10/3 or 22% as an example.
But then later in that post he says this:
On October 07 2014 02:35 Blazinghand wrote: ...the fact of the matter is, I'm offering a straight-up 22% chance to lynch someone.
BH how do you KNOW there are exactly 3 mafia? I bolded fact because that's a serious word to throw around when you're supposedly working with estimates.
Here's a critical analysis of a post in that game. It doesn't result in anything, but this post has more logic and scum-searching than his play to this point in the current game, as well as his play in the first game I mentioned, where he was mafia.
On October 08 2014 02:22 Hopeless1der wrote: You had one job batsnacks. + Show Spoiler +
and then HF gave you another one.
Does it make you nervous that I've already figured out you're mafia?
Then he claims Hopeless1der to be mafia, which ends up being correct. I don't see any reasoning listed, though. This post also came after the first 24 hours of the game, unlike all of the other posts quoted here.
I did notice this inconsistency between his post in this game:
On October 07 2014 08:19 Grackaroni wrote: You're implying that at the start of the post BH was careful not to slip that he had knowledge of the setup. (by pointing out that the number of scum is unknown) and then *slipped* that he was 100% sure there were 3 mafia within like 10 seconds of typing which is really unrealistic.
What I see is BH working off the assumption that random lynch provides at least 22% chance of hitting mafia compared to day 1 analysis which varies (and BH thinks is worse for catching mafia)
I think it's feasible that he slipped.
besides
The TL mafia database disagrees that random lynch is better. So by random lynching we 1) have worse odds of lynching mafia and 2) players who agree with the random lynch have zero accountability for their votes.
Why the change? Probably just a change in his playstyle, but another explanation is that he is searching for mafia in that game, and has less incentive to do so in this game.
Looking at batsnacks' play in the game preceding the above game, 2p2 Vanilla Werewolf 13er, batsnacks immediately comes up with a comprehensive look at GlowingBear:
On September 26 2014 08:14 batsnacks wrote: I'm not completely caught up yet but I still think GB is mafiawolf.
On September 25 2014 11:02 GlowingBear wrote: I think Storr is mafia because of this:
This post stinks:
On September 25 2014 09:20 StorrZerg wrote: (1) i'd lynch fecal for the donkey entrance to the game.
the overly troll attitude fecal has with the caps locks, and insta vote on holy is really throwing off scum vibes. Deff would lynch.
On September 25 2014 08:34 Fecalfeast wrote: The fact that nobody was using the voting thread made me think they were joke votes. That's why I didn't use the thread anyway.
Lol I actually like your case holyflare
"yeah right"
Also i don't like the GB entrance to the game
On September 25 2014 08:41 GlowingBear wrote: Oh THANK GOD I'm town again! I hate rolling scum.
Ok, Haru, tell me what you think of holyflower by now
(2)unless im missing a game he just played, last game he was scum. seems odd to lead with a lie.
(1) very has reason to call someone definetely scum. I did that no geript last game. There is nothing alignment indicative in fecal's entrance and that makes storr look bad.
(2) storr was scum with me and I clearly stated on the qt that I wanted to be town. I was mafia for 3 games and I wish I was town on this, which I am. I never lied.
The way he is disliking entrances looks like he is trying to pretend to be an aggressive town.
Also, he gives Haru free town pass for his entrance and also obiwan. None has alignment indicative posts.
On September 25 2014 10:11 StorrZerg wrote: obi probably town too.
I'm on a phone and I'm too lazy to search for the town pass on Haru now.
storr is my strongest scum read the moment
Here's his case on storr. He says storr is pretending to be aggressive town by disliking entrances. That is a weird thing to say. How can GB tell the difference between someone who is pretending to be aggressive town and someone who actually is aggressive town based on so few posts? Imo he can't and is just making stuff up.
He also scum reads storr for saying someone is "definitely" mafia and says he said the exact same thing as scum last game. Well, look at this:
On September 25 2014 11:32 GlowingBear wrote: Naaaah. I'm positive storr is scum. ##Vote: Storr
He did it again this game.
I also think this post is scummy:
On September 25 2014 13:09 GlowingBear wrote:
On September 25 2014 12:51 Hopeless1der wrote:
On September 25 2014 12:42 GlowingBear wrote:
On September 25 2014 12:28 Hopeless1der wrote:
On September 25 2014 12:22 GlowingBear wrote:
On September 25 2014 12:19 Hopeless1der wrote: not much time tonight, but right now severely dislike glowingbear. Very shallow reads imo. HF's case wasnt terrible, it was misplaced. If haru couldnt prove he was actually sad about rolling blue I'd be voting for him right now. Since the case has obviously failed, why would HF stay with it? Thats ridiculous.
Then there's his scumlist...what the hell is that about. players have literally not even posted yet, but GB has solved the game? I dont buy that in the slightest.
I'll probably be gone until this time tomorrow but should be generally more active when I'm around during my evenings. (Just started a new job, dont want to play at work)
Because that's his scum read and if the case didn't go through he should be asking more questions to Haru to get more information?
Lol...
HF's case on Haru was literally based on one post that was demonstrably false using out-of-thread but public information. Again, why try to stick with such a case? Refusing to "overlook" (which is a strange way to phrase it btw) his case would be way more suspicious than dropping it like he already has. The fact that this seems suspicious to you makes YOU look suspicious to me.
Because it's easy, as scum, to pick on a tiny problem to bus a partner then drop the read.
That is so incredibly shallow. Unless I have found surefire scum tomorrow, I'm voting you just based off this interaction.
btw, fecalfeast is behaving pretty similar to last game imo. No reason to hate on him just yet. Palmar seems to have gotten upset that no one uses the voting thread to follow his policy and has taken up a silent protest. Sky is new to TL but not to mafia. I'd like to hear his (her?) thoughts on why d1 claimers usually got lynched on SK. I'm gone for now, see you all later.
It can be shallow, but at least I'm the only one trying to get people talking. Nothing is in the way of updating my reads the more people starts to talk. If you lynch me, you'll be lynching a townie for stupid reasons and you'll soon lose the game as much as you lost our last one
The "at least" in that sentence is really scummy to me. It's a tone thing. It's like he's really saying "I'm mafia but at least I'm the only one trying to get people talking." It's also scummy how he says he's the -only- person getting people talking. GB made a case against HF earlier for dropping his case against HaruRH. I'm not a mind reader but I think HF made that case to get people talking. So GB is scum reading HF for trying to get people talking -- while saying he, GB, is the only contributor in the thread.
I also think this post is scummy:
On September 25 2014 10:18 GlowingBear wrote: Ok
Glowningbear's first scum team guess: Haru, HF, Storr
Gonna have dinner and give reasons
GB is referring to himself in the third person here in order to distance himself from his reads that he doesn't actually believe in. How can he be confident he's caught the whole scum team and solved the game? Later when he's drunk he posts this:
On September 25 2014 17:48 GlowingBear wrote: My dribk senses says JAT is possibly mafia
So now GB has found 4 mafia... HF is mafia for getting people talking with an early case, Haru is mafia for unflipped assosiations, storr is mafia because GB can tell somehow that storr is just pretending to be aggressive town, and JAT is mafia because ??? Speaking of reads, GB is frantic this game about "getting reads." He is addicted to reads and needs an intervention. He wants to convince us so badly that he is trying to get reads that he can not stop saying it:
On September 25 2014 08:46 GlowingBear wrote: It won't help me getting reads if you use day1 just to charge your solar beam.
On September 25 2014 09:46 GlowingBear wrote: Asking about holyflare's case to everyone is my way to get people talking and getting reads from them.
On September 25 2014 11:11 GlowingBear wrote: Why I think Haru is scum:
He doesn't want to talk much, not letting me getting reads:
On September 25 2014 11:11 GlowingBear wrote: Why not talking? He should be helping us with reads day1.
On September 25 2014 11:15 GlowingBear wrote: I'm done with the reads. I'm going to get ready for a party.
On September 25 2014 11:28 GlowingBear wrote: Because I want people talking about people so I can get reads.
On September 25 2014 13:09 GlowingBear wrote: Nothing is in the way of updating my reads the more people starts to talk.
On September 26 2014 00:33 GlowingBear wrote: Sorry, I'm guilty of getting people to talk to get my reads instead of immediately attacking both HF and hope.
On September 26 2014 00:33 GlowingBear wrote: I think that is good to register and to get reads.
On September 26 2014 00:49 GlowingBear wrote: Gut feelings VS actual reads. Actual reads won.
On September 26 2014 00:49 GlowingBear wrote: It could be totally wrong but at least I would get people talking more so I can have more reads
He's clearly thinking and investigating the posts, and trying to find the scum. Then he starts thinking that SkyDragon is scum:
On September 26 2014 08:18 batsnacks wrote: Also this post is really scummy:
On September 26 2014 01:07 SkyDragon wrote:
On September 25 2014 12:51 Hopeless1der wrote:Sky is new to TL but not to mafia. I'd like to hear his (her?) thoughts on why d1 claimers usually got lynched on SK.
"His" is correct. :p
d1 claimers got lynched depending on what they were saying.
- If they claimed to be Town with nothing to back it up, they were seen as suspicious and people would vote to lynch them if their play-style doesn't match. - Throwing out names on the first day was seen as suspicious. - Feigning ignorance of a particular role was suspicious unless he weren't very bright in the first place (As one guy did when he asked the Mod in the thread whether getting no pm means that you're a Villager - We straight away knew that he was trying it, lynched him and he turned out to be Mafia) - Changing votes repeatedly was seen as suspicious. - Normally active players who become quiet were seen as suspicious.
There's no one answer to fit all situations really. There were also power roles so someone may have been saying something considered "weird" because they were the Seer, Doctor, Vigi or some other good role (And the last thing you want to do is get them lynched). There would be some hesitation to vote to lynch anyone on Day 1 but sometimes something is said that just doesn't feel right to several people.
It's a long post filled with info that makes zero conclusions about anything. Perfect mafia post. If I'm not voting GB today I'm voting skydragon.
He continues to press on GlowingBear and SkyDragon. Both end up being town, but batsnacks is showing that he is capable and willing to attempt to find scum and provide logical accusations that other players are scum.
In conclusion, batsnacks seems very suspcious because he has not yet provided any real content, particularly at least one accusation of someone being mafia with an argument behind it. This resembles his play in his last game, where he was mafia, and contrasts with his play in previous games where he was town. What do you guys think?
It's a pattern. Scum-like behaviour (I will avoid the "m" word) attached to the previous post I made. Posts that do not have evidence hard for anyone or refuting arguments made against you. It was indicative then, and it's showing again now.
On November 28 2014 08:13 batsnacks wrote: ##vote: Half the Sky
I just filter dived you in my last two points (page 44, 2 posts top and bottom of page) and took point by point. I have zero problem with being proven wrong. Show me the counterpoints.
On November 28 2014 11:28 kushm4sta wrote: why are "the scum running scared"?
My first instinct, the scum killed Trfel because of how well he was putting his cases together. WIFOM, sure, but that was the first thing that came to my mind.
Three cases for scum - Bats, Meat, Kush
I think I've already explained my points against Bats. Meat is falling into the lurker category, having contributed slightly more than Alakaslam.
Kush, I filtered him again. I don't understand why his arguments for DSMI were stronger than the argument for Damdred. He didn't use much explanation for Damdred, but then again he was on his phone. For DMSI, he used a generic D1 argument (that was voiced by others and could have been used for others), and if he voted Damdred initially - who was vocal - why did he defend Batsnacks for the same reason (being vocal).
Regarding the potential policy lynches, Alakaslam is still a pure policy and should only be done for if nothing else. His bandwagon vote was a little annoying, if he acknowledged afk, he should have actually gone for the no-lynch, no information/participation to make a good informed vote. Then again, he may not even have known about that since mod posted that midway.
IMO if Meat doesn't get modkilled, I think halfway through D2 and he would become a more pure policy vote IMO. I am assuming his last post claiming storm was on his phone. Not sure when that storm hit before he posted that.
Oats, I know your vote appears on Meat a pressure vote, but if he's getting hosed (figuratively and literally) I'm not sure if we can gauge him unwilling or unable to answer. I'm not saying he's any more/less scum because of that, but just that pressure vote may not work as intended.
On November 26 2014 01:55 kushm4sta wrote: Damdred-stronger read His tone reads like a know it all. His arguments defending his shit pushes make no sense.
Now he didn't say Damdred was vocal, but Damdred was vocal.
His defence of Bats being vocal.
On November 27 2014 01:33 kushm4sta wrote: Batsnacks is way too active to lynch d1. The truth is that it's rare that someone is going to have strong reads d1, so you can't fault batsnacks for that. He has been promoting discussion and had a huge presence in the thread. You don't ever lynch someone like that d1. Oats, you should know that. And that's what makes me worry about you.
Now the argument he gave to me:
On November 27 2014 02:21 kushm4sta wrote: The keyword is DOUBLES. As in he's a good scumlynch as well as plynch. Alaka would be a better pure plynch sure, but Dicksmash has scummy content as well.
Dicksmash shows a need to survive. Earlier he came into the thread and tried to give some content.
On November 26 2014 12:48 Dicksmash McIroncock wrote: My mistake. It was page 10 when you first called HTS town but a couple posts later put him up as your scumread. SL wrant from null to scum as well. Though reading through bats filter I can see that of everyone he's made and effort to not post reads or reasoning for votes so for today my vote stand on him ## vote bats
This reasoning is generic bullshit. He's voting batsnacks for 1 fluidity of reads - which is common d1 2 not posting reads or reasoning - which other people have been worse about, plus is not even really true
His batsnacks vote is bullshit.
You can say anyone's reads D1 are poor. But if other people haven't been posting reads or reasoning what made DSMI the absolute prime candidate for him compared to Damdred (albeit different reasoning) or others he claimed was worse?
Also maybe this might sound dumb but I thought it over. How can someone be a (lurker) policy lynch and scum lynch at the same time? If you cannot get a read on someone or if you are going to policy lynch them, how does it make them scum? Haven't enough of you argued that lurker is because it's hard to get a read on?
EPT
