The prod caught me in the middle of typing this.
mikemike778 wrote:hiplop wrote:monk wrote:hiplop wrote:I post info when i have info. Usually i can find stuff quickly, but this game im just not doing well. Plus the whole council thing kind of makes whatever points i make, not mean anything. Im opposed to it for that reason.
Just saw this in mikemike's last post, seems like a poor excuse for not being active and an even poorer one for not liking the council, which also stems back into his whole reasoning for not posting much. As well as just mindly sheeping onto Archaist who to me is a townie.
VOTE: hiplop
Im posting lots. I just honestly have very little info atm. This game is difficult.
Posting lots without actually posting much is a sign of a scum player trying to look like they are contributing. Whats with all the sheeping anyway? - not sure why Arch is being wagoned I've not seen him as particularly scummy. Hip would probably be second pick at the moment. Still like an answer to the question of why the players (bgg, grey, akira, FD) who voted Monk didn't question his claim. Not going to let this slip easily as it must have looked a bit odd if nothing else but no-one called him out on it.
Actually Bgg looks the worst from this as he voted immediately after Monk's post. Which looks like he read Monk's post , quoted it but still didn't pick up or question the claim which makes me think
he's just taken what he wanted to see from the post
rather than reading it properly. OK I've promoted him, my scum rankings are currently:
1. Akira
2. Bgg
3. Hip
4. FD
mikemike778 wrote:Still like an answer to the question of why the players (bgg, grey, akira, FD) who voted Monk didn't question his claim.
bgg1996 wrote:mikemike778 wrote:Bgg, can you explain why your vote is still on Monk ? What do you think of his claim. To me, I don't see any possibility of Monk getting lynched today so looks to me like you are just hiding away avoiding getting on any meaningful wagon.
Monk lied three times in the same sentence. The other mason(s?) haven't confirmed it. The claim seems suspicious because he can just get another scum on his team to confirm it. He's still one of my prime suspects.
None of the "meaningful wagon"s stand out as suspicious. I'd rather lynch somebody I suspect with a mason claim than somebody I don't suspect.
What do you mean, didn't question his claim? The question is quite ambiguous. I've said that I don't believe him, I already know all of the general information about the role from the wiki, it's been said that it is best not to make the other claim, Any inconsistencies I can find out through the thread.
mikemike778 wrote:Actually Bgg looks the worst from this as he voted immediately after Monk's post. Which looks like he read Monk's post , quoted it
If you recall, I did not post immediately after the post I quoted, or, any of Monk's posts, actually. The post where I voted Monk was #190 at 3:24 PM, and quoted post #182 at 7:27 AM. That's an 8-hour, and 8-post difference.
Which looks like you read my post, mentioned it but still didn't pick up or question the time difference which makes me think
you've just taken what you wanted to see from the post
rather than reading it properly.
What is it about me that makes scum want to lie like this?
mikemike778 wrote:he read Monk's post , quoted it but still didn't pick up or question the claim
This implicates literally everybody here except for you. You're the only one who picked up the claim.
Don't want me to keep voting for Monk?
Okay, I'm game.
UNVOTE: Monk
VOTE: Mikemike778People both love and hate me... Without the 'love' part.
