Do you know exactly how anyone else developed their reads? If you genuinely found any of them suspicious and wanted to test how I generated them, why not do as sloonei did and ask about the specific reads, instead of pointing out the timing to the world and just calling it 'odd'? I could have told you why I had a slight town lean on any of them.Matt wrote:It's suss because at one point, you were just entering the first player on your rainbow list, and then suddenly you felt good enough about 6 other players that you wouldn't vote for them. And in between, you were making suss face joke posts and talking off topic about Canada, so I don't know exactly how you developed those reads.Golden wrote:Well, I went down the entire poll list figuring out who I had reads on in those 11 minutes. Don't say come on... why is it suspicious?Matt wrote:C'mon dude, like I said, within 11 minutes or less you went from having your first rainbow read to declaring seven players you wouldn't vote for.Golden wrote:Why? Diiny asked me to think about my reads, so I did. Putting LC on my list was reactionary to a specific post. The rest were me putting thought into the vibe I was getting from people.Matt wrote:I think that's odd.
Just a small ping, but it's there.
Anyway, thanks for responding. Nobody else commented on my brilliant case
Derp. Anyway, gotta go. If we're both still around, we can discuss this later tonight.
Your suspicion of me feels to me way more like trying to get others to see me in a strange light, and far less like you actually found something suspicious.
)
