I have a habit of thinking of more things after hitting the post button XPWojjan wrote:
1) 3 edits. What the hell.
Uh, no it doesn't. Let me elaborate since you're obviously not understanding me. I said that we SHOULDN'T lynch someone JUST for being inactive. It SEEMS like the inactives are USUALLY innocent, but we don't know for sure. Do you get what I'm saying now?Wojjan wrote:
2)Thiscontradicts thisDerekku Chan wrote:
EDIT: Actually, it should've been implied by my most that I DO care if inactives are killed off. If they haven't posted, then we know nothing about them and thus shouldn't be lynched just for being inactive. We could by killing an important aux role.since you obviously try to keep the votes here, and have a possible townie lynched offDerekku Chan wrote:
But who knows, it could be scum this time :<
inb4WIFOM
The third one you pointed out was my vote for the day. The second one in your list is what I elaborated on in your first list item. I'm not "reinforcing" my vote, I'm just elaborating on it.Wojjan wrote:
also, thisDerekku Chan wrote:
I was just stating that I'm not going to change my vote to someone else.Derekku Chan wrote:
Keeping my vote as is for now, though.makes 3 times. we KNOW you won't change your vote by not changing your vote. Why so dedicated to making us know for sure?Derekku Chan wrote:
My vote for Wojjan still stands. :S
Seriously, stop twisting my words around using these little word arguments. They're not helping your case and it's just making you look even more scummy
