|
On April 25 2012 05:37 Mattchew wrote:
We should still lynch BM
If you hadn't made it clear from the outset* that your decision to push BM was independent of BM's play then maybe people would take posts like this seriously.
But you did, they don't, move on.
+ Show Spoiler [*] +On April 21 2012 09:15 Mattchew wrote:
So anyway should we policy lynch Bill Murray because
a. he is scum in like 99% of his recent games
b. he gets away with everything "because he's Bill Murray"
|
|
|
into him ninja voting VE (not just some random), letting VE get lynched, yelling at others for lynching VE, and overall terrible posting. I think his town meta atleast has him say he'll try hard at somepoint
|
I am posting actively because every hour someone comes and asks the same questions since BJ's case.
Should I retreat till I can post a case? Defending myself is the only useful thing I can do atm (something VE did not do).
|
On April 25 2012 06:20 Ottoxlol wrote:
I am posting actively because every hour someone comes and asks the same questions since BJ's case.
Should I retreat till I can post a case? Defending myself is the only useful thing I can do atm (something VE did not do).
Do you actually think self defense does anything pro-town? You have a completely skewed view of yourself, your posts, and your actions as scum or town.
|
Of course defending myself is pro-town, what is this question i don't even.
The second part is very nice of your post. Maybe I am the helicopter!
|
On April 25 2012 06:28 Ottoxlol wrote:
Of course defending myself is pro-town, what is this question i don't even.
The second part is very nice of your post. Maybe I am the helicopter!
1) Please quote your posts for future reading.
2) Defending yourself isn't pro-town. Only if you're town is it some semblance of towniness, but even then scum can defend himself too so that doesn't count. Finding scum is pro-town.
|
On April 25 2012 06:28 Ottoxlol wrote:
Of course defending myself is pro-town, what is this question i don't even.
The second part is very nice of your post. Maybe I am the helicopter!
Maybe, if instead of defending yourself, you just scum hunt and let your play in the game do the defending for you? Instead you ignore the message of my post and just critique it like you have any idea what you are talking about.
You have firmly upgraded yourself from maybe ignorant to just arrogant, thus making you scum.
|
So you would rather have me not posting then try to prevent a misslynch?
|
On April 25 2012 06:33 Ottoxlol wrote:
So you would rather have me not posting then try to prevent a misslynch?
No, I'd rather have you looking at people's filters and seeing who's scum or not.
|
On April 25 2012 06:33 Ottoxlol wrote:
So you would rather have me not posting then try to prevent a misslynch?
you have 2 votes on you with over 24 hours before the lynch and you think your preventing a mislynch? This is a new height of paranoia
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
Alright, this has happened 3 times now, so I can't help but notice.
layabout soft or badly defending people.
Zephirdd:
On April 24 2012 09:06 layabout wrote:
He seemed unsure of himself.
At the time of voting VE i was unsure of myself because his play made next to no sense as either alignment*. It was his refusal to answer questions that was the eventual tipping point for me.
It seems that this was also the case for zeph.
*Also that is why i hate these it makes no sense as mafia arguments. It made no sense as town either, we shouldn't give a player the benefit of the doubt for being anti-town.
He completely ignores the main part of my case, while bringing up 'unsure' as a defence. He posts again on the issue where he quoted part of my case, ignoring where I flesh out further points and conclusions.
Sentinel:
On April 25 2012 05:23 layabout wrote:If the crux of your case is his lack of a contribution then i must inform you that, that is typical of him. his past games
Bill Murray:
On April 25 2012 06:14 layabout wrote:If you hadn't made it clear from the outset* that your decision to push BM was independent of BM's play then maybe people would take posts like this seriously. But you did, they don't, move on. + Show Spoiler [*] +On April 21 2012 09:15 Mattchew wrote:
So anyway should we policy lynch Bill Murray because
a. he is scum in like 99% of his recent games
b. he gets away with everything "because he's Bill Murray"
These encompass my 2 top scumreads (Sentinel/Zephirdd) and a quite potential scum (Bill Murray)
|
when you say badly defending people, do you mean badly as in his reasoning and logic is bad, or do you mean bad because you think they are bad people to defend?
|
I tried I came up with nothing. I posted it 10 times at least. I wouldn't get on any case just for the sake of having a case.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On April 25 2012 06:37 Mattchew wrote:
when you say badly defending people, do you mean badly as in his reasoning and logic is bad, or do you mean bad because you think they are bad people to defend?
the soft defences were on BM/Sentinel
I meant badly as in reasoning/logic. On zephirdd, picking up on his pre-day 1 lynch behaviour, which as i made clear in my post was irrelevant. Followed by quoting half of my subsequent case where i was simply laying things out.
|
On April 25 2012 06:38 Ottoxlol wrote:
I tried I came up with nothing. I posted it 10 times at least. I wouldn't get on any case just for the sake of having a case.
so you could, you know, read others cases and posts your thoughts about them (the ones that don't pertain to you) instead of pretending they don't exist.
|
On April 25 2012 06:17 Mattchew wrote:
into him ninja voting VE (not just some random), letting VE get lynched, yelling at others for lynching VE, and overall terrible posting. I think his town meta atleast has him say he'll try hard at somepoint
If that is the evolution of your case, then i think that your case is about to become a victim of natural selection
+ Show Spoiler +
In all seriousness
The ninja vote in that context is not alignment indicative.
Letting VE get lynch is something that only the people on BM did anything to stop.
Terrible posting is a vague criticism and depending on the critic could be misapplied or applied to nearly anyone in the game.
As far as i am aware he didn't yell at others for lynching VE, the closest post is here:
On April 24 2012 14:50 Bill Murray wrote:
I would be pretty hypocritical to vote him for that. I don't see it. It is really easy to mistake someone who is nervous with a Doctor or Jailkeeper role as being mafia... It's something we can't help. VE's vote for me was more like a placeholder. I was pretty busy during the time period. I didn't expect to get wagonned by mafia and for him to actually die. VE is a great player that shouldn't ever be lynched on D1. We should have lynched someone like Paqman on policy, though I'm glad we didn't now. His "we could have 3 vigs" comment cracked me up.
He says he put the vote on VE (which was before the claim)
He says he was busy and was unable to come back and change his vote.
The questionable part (unless you think he is a liar) is why he would put his place holder vote on a player that he thinks should never be lynched day1 one.
|
On April 25 2012 06:39 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:37 Mattchew wrote:
when you say badly defending people, do you mean badly as in his reasoning and logic is bad, or do you mean bad because you think they are bad people to defend? the soft defences were on BM/Sentinel I meant badly as in reasoning/logic. On zephirdd, picking up on his pre-day 1 lynch behaviour, which as i made clear in my post was irrelevant. Followed by quoting half of my subsequent case where i was simply laying things out.
the problem I have is i don't disagree with what layabout wrote about BM/Sentinel. I don't know about zeph cause thats more of a you and him issue, but his other 2 posts seem to not be soft defenses as much as his reason for disagreeing. I don't find them scummy
|
On April 25 2012 06:40 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:17 Mattchew wrote:
into him ninja voting VE (not just some random), letting VE get lynched, yelling at others for lynching VE, and overall terrible posting. I think his town meta atleast has him say he'll try hard at somepoint If that is the evolution of your case, then i think that your case is about to become a victim of natural selection + Show Spoiler +In all seriousness The ninja vote in that context is not alignment indicative. Letting VE get lynch is something that only the people on BM did anything to stop. Terrible posting is a vague criticism and depending on the critic could be misapplied or applied to nearly anyone in the game. As far as i am aware he didn't yell at others for lynching VE, the closest post is here: Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 14:50 Bill Murray wrote:
I would be pretty hypocritical to vote him for that. I don't see it. It is really easy to mistake someone who is nervous with a Doctor or Jailkeeper role as being mafia... It's something we can't help. VE's vote for me was more like a placeholder. I was pretty busy during the time period. I didn't expect to get wagonned by mafia and for him to actually die. VE is a great player that shouldn't ever be lynched on D1. We should have lynched someone like Paqman on policy, though I'm glad we didn't now. His "we could have 3 vigs" comment cracked me up. He says he put the vote on VE (which was before the claim) He says he was busy and was unable to come back and change his vote. The questionable part (unless you think he is a liar) is why he would put his place holder vote on a player that he thinks should never be lynched day1 one.
But when do we stop saying "oh its BM" and say "lynch that scum"
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On April 25 2012 06:41 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:39 marvellosity wrote:On April 25 2012 06:37 Mattchew wrote:
when you say badly defending people, do you mean badly as in his reasoning and logic is bad, or do you mean bad because you think they are bad people to defend? the soft defences were on BM/Sentinel I meant badly as in reasoning/logic. On zephirdd, picking up on his pre-day 1 lynch behaviour, which as i made clear in my post was irrelevant. Followed by quoting half of my subsequent case where i was simply laying things out. the problem I have is i don't disagree with what layabout wrote about BM/Sentinel. I don't know about zeph cause thats more of a you and him issue, but his other 2 posts seem to not be soft defenses as much as his reason for disagreeing. I don't find them scummy
Alright, I'm willing to be wrong on this one. I'm going to keep it in my mind though because it jumped out at me.
At this point I think layabout has posted generally strongly, and he's not one of my scumreads. I just found what I posted to be odd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
