|
On June 09 2012 12:02 grush57 wrote:
Also, do you really think that I'm scum? Why the hell would a scum even post right now when 80% of people didn't even post yet.
As far as i can tell, your agenda is to get a lurker lynch , you want to exclude yourself from the pool or lurkers.
|
On June 09 2012 12:05 grush57 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:04 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 11:00 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 10:39 Release wrote:
Low activity levels and lurkers are Town-Killers. Start talking, or i will find you, and i will shove a dirty sock up you anus. Yeah, but absolutely nothing to talk about right now. There is no mayor vote so really nothing to talk about right now. You are trying to get people to believe that there is nothing to talk about on day 1. If people don't talk, there is no need for mafia to talk either, and this eliminates their chances of making scumslip. Then the night actions occur, where we can assume someone dies. But we still have "nothing" to talk about because no one talked on day 1 and we can't use the death to the town's advantage. Then another night action, more silence, ... , until the whole town is dead. This doesn't help the town, therefore On June 09 2012 11:51 Release wrote:
grush57 must be scum because one of the rules of this game is "play to win" and well, he clearly isn't. That was when there were 2 posts? 3?
There are many things to talk about though and your defeatist, lets-not-talk attitude does not help town.
Those 2/3 posts at least had content in them. Yours was simply trying to discourage discussion.
|
On June 09 2012 12:07 grush57 wrote:
Yeah, but I'm not a lurker.
Therefore, in your agenda, you won't be lynched. Pretty funny how logic works isn't it?
|
On June 09 2012 12:12 grush57 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:09 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:07 grush57 wrote:
Yeah, but I'm not a lurker. Therefore, in your agenda, you won't be lynched. Pretty funny how logic works isn't it? Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker. However, if there are no clear scum then a lurker lynch would be best.
!
Something to talk about. Guess you were lying earlier.
Now your helpi No shit we want to lynch a lurker. Thank you for repeating points that have already been made.
|
On June 09 2012 12:22 grush57 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:21 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:12 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:09 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:07 grush57 wrote:
Yeah, but I'm not a lurker. Therefore, in your agenda, you won't be lynched. Pretty funny how logic works isn't it? Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker. However, if there are no clear scum then a lurker lynch would be best. ! Something to talk about. Guess you were lying earlier. Now your helpi No shit we want to lynch a lurker. Thank you for repeating points that have already been made. So you don't want to lynch a scum. You want to lynch a lurker that will give no information. Ah, that isn't scummy.
Actually, you're right; that is scummy.
It is a response to "Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker" and it should have been "No shit we want to lynch a scum." I'm sure you could have figured that out, and i'm pretty sure the others did and that's why they didn't feel the need to bring it up.
|
On June 09 2012 12:26 grush57 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:25 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:22 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:21 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:12 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:09 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:07 grush57 wrote:
Yeah, but I'm not a lurker. Therefore, in your agenda, you won't be lynched. Pretty funny how logic works isn't it? Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker. However, if there are no clear scum then a lurker lynch would be best. ! Something to talk about. Guess you were lying earlier. Now your helpi No shit we want to lynch a lurker. Thank you for repeating points that have already been made. So you don't want to lynch a scum. You want to lynch a lurker that will give no information. Ah, that isn't scummy. Actually, you're right; that is scummy. It is a response to "Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker" and it should have been "No shit we want to lynch a scum." I'm sure you could have figured that out, and i'm pretty sure the others did and that's why they didn't feel the need to bring it up. How would I know if it was a typo or not. And find me a post that said that.
You would know because of the tone.
I responded as if it were dead obvious. Your "Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker" was something that was dead obvious. Therefore, the two are likely to be linked.
That said what? "i'm pretty sure the others did and that's why they didn't feel the need to bring it up." means that there won't be other posts to say "that"
|
On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote:
Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me.
i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching.
|
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol.
"Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!!
Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread.
On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote:
Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me. i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching. Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing?
Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum.
On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote:
I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen
I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that.
|
On June 09 2012 12:56 grush57 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:51 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol. "Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!! Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread. On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote:
Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me. i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching. Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing? Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum. On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote:
I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that. Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ.
Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content.
Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker."
I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts.
I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important.
|
+ Show Spoiler +After all that i have said, you still refuse to acknowledge how i want to lynch.
It's dead obvious that i want to hunt scum first. Obviously that's not possible, so whoever appears scummiest, if they appear scummy. However, if no one appears scummy, and there are lurkers, then a lurker. If no lurkers, then you. In fact, i would put you in the first category right now.
"You're just echoing what everyone else says"
Yeah, and that's why i haven't posted until this moment. But since you insist to not read what i have already said, i feel that you need to read this in order to see how i want to lynch.
To be honest, this post is quite useless, so unless your name is grush57, I don't think you need to read it.
|
On June 09 2012 13:19 grush57 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 13:11 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:56 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:51 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol. "Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!! Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread. On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote:
Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me. i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching. Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing? Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum. On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote:
I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that. Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ. Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content. Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker." I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts. I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important. I posted before them and I answered their questions of what I said, I'm not just blindly echoing their thoughts. Plus, with all the lurkers the only thing to talk about is lynching policy and the lurkers.
Another attempt to avoid discussion of your play and posts. We have quite a few pages discussing you play and there is only lurkers to talk about?
|
On June 09 2012 13:31 grush57 wrote:
You just posted exactly what I posted 2 pages ago. Seriously, stop saying stuff every townie sais.
"Yeah, and that's why i haven't posted until this moment. But since you insist to not read what i have already said, i feel that you need to read this in order to see how i want to lynch
"
You told me to write that did you not? I told you that everyone (who wants to appear townie) will post the same thing did I not? That why i included the bolded phrase, to show that only you wanted to read what i wrote. That only you wanted me to make the extra post that would inevitably clog up the thread.
Answer me this: Why is it only you who wants me to make a post to answer a question that has already been answered?
|
If it's as obvious as "let's hunt scum," there's no point in discussing it.
|
lazermonkey, you were putting words in grush's mouth. Stop it.
Grush, i find it incredibly convenient that in all of this time, you have not answered to me.
On June 09 2012 11:51 Release wrote:
Depending on how many people are lurking and how many people appear scummy, we have to adjust our strategy.
Right now, Grush is appearing incredibly scummy, but we can't let the lurkers off the hook.
Grush, pick up your game. To be honest, grush57 must be scum because one of the rules of this game is "play to win" and well, he clearly isn't.
On June 09 2012 12:08 Release wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:05 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:04 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 11:00 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 10:39 Release wrote:
Low activity levels and lurkers are Town-Killers. Start talking, or i will find you, and i will shove a dirty sock up you anus. Yeah, but absolutely nothing to talk about right now. There is no mayor vote so really nothing to talk about right now. You are trying to get people to believe that there is nothing to talk about on day 1. If people don't talk, there is no need for mafia to talk either, and this eliminates their chances of making scumslip. Then the night actions occur, where we can assume someone dies. But we still have "nothing" to talk about because no one talked on day 1 and we can't use the death to the town's advantage. Then another night action, more silence, ... , until the whole town is dead. This doesn't help the town, therefore On June 09 2012 11:51 Release wrote:
grush57 must be scum because one of the rules of this game is "play to win" and well, he clearly isn't. That was when there were 2 posts? 3? There are many things to talk about though and your defeatist, lets-not-talk attitude does not help town. Those 2/3 posts at least had content in them. Yours was simply trying to discourage discussion.
On June 09 2012 13:11 Release wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:56 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:51 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol. "Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!! Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread. On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote:
Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me. i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching. Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing? Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum. On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote:
I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that. Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ. Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content. Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker." I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts. I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important.
On June 09 2012 13:19 grush57 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 13:11 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:56 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:51 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol. "Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!! Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread. On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote:
Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me. i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching. Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing? Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum. On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote:
I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that. Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ. Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content. Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker." I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts. I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important. I posted before them and I answered their questions of what I said, I'm not just blindly echoing their thoughts. Plus, with all the lurkers the only thing to talk about is lynching policy and the lurkers.
subtle, very subtle, but see how you're avoiding me?
On June 09 2012 13:40 Release wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 13:31 grush57 wrote:
You just posted exactly what I posted 2 pages ago. Seriously, stop saying stuff every townie sais. " Yeah, and that's why i haven't posted until this moment. But since you insist to not read what i have already said, i feel that you need to read this in order to see how i want to lynch
" You told me to write that did you not? I told you that everyone (who wants to appear townie) will post the same thing did I not? That why i included the bolded phrase, to show that only you wanted to read what i wrote. That only you wanted me to make the extra post that would inevitably clog up the thread. Answer me this: Why is it only you who wants me to make a post to answer a question that has already been answered?
Still no answer
|
On June 09 2012 13:31 grush57 wrote:
You just posted exactly what I posted 2 pages ago. Seriously, stop saying stuff every townie sais.
this little gem.
Why would you post that? I said that my post was only for you, that it was a waste of space and time, and you just use the reasoning i used against you when the only reason i answered was because you wanted me to answer something that "every townie sais" and should be exactly what you posted 2 pages ago.
|
On June 10 2012 05:21 grush57 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 05:14 Release wrote:lazermonkey, you were putting words in grush's mouth. Stop it. Grush, i find it incredibly convenient that in all of this time, you have not answered to me. On June 09 2012 11:51 Release wrote:
Depending on how many people are lurking and how many people appear scummy, we have to adjust our strategy.
Right now, Grush is appearing incredibly scummy, but we can't let the lurkers off the hook.
Grush, pick up your game. To be honest, grush57 must be scum because one of the rules of this game is "play to win" and well, he clearly isn't. On June 09 2012 12:08 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:05 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:04 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 11:00 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 10:39 Release wrote:
Low activity levels and lurkers are Town-Killers. Start talking, or i will find you, and i will shove a dirty sock up you anus. Yeah, but absolutely nothing to talk about right now. There is no mayor vote so really nothing to talk about right now. You are trying to get people to believe that there is nothing to talk about on day 1. If people don't talk, there is no need for mafia to talk either, and this eliminates their chances of making scumslip. Then the night actions occur, where we can assume someone dies. But we still have "nothing" to talk about because no one talked on day 1 and we can't use the death to the town's advantage. Then another night action, more silence, ... , until the whole town is dead. This doesn't help the town, therefore On June 09 2012 11:51 Release wrote:
grush57 must be scum because one of the rules of this game is "play to win" and well, he clearly isn't. That was when there were 2 posts? 3? There are many things to talk about though and your defeatist, lets-not-talk attitude does not help town. Those 2/3 posts at least had content in them. Yours was simply trying to discourage discussion. On June 09 2012 13:11 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:56 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:51 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol. "Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!! Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread. On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote:
Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me. i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching. Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing? Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum. On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote:
I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that. Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ. Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content. Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker." I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts. I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important. On June 09 2012 13:19 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 13:11 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:56 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:51 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:
Seriously you accuse me of discouraging discussion and want me to discuss, and then when I do you make it a bad thing, lol. "Let's lynch scum." I'm contributing to the discussion. Yay!!! Do some real contribution like analysis (you said it yourself). Summary is useful for clogging up the thread. On June 09 2012 12:44 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:31 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:29 grush57 wrote:
Actually, I state how I want to lynch and you just blindly tunnel me. i decided to lynch you when you made the "there's nothing to talk about post," far far far earlier than your post telling us how you want to lynch, which was essentially how any townie wants to lynch, with a touch of solstice's opinion of lurker lynching. Why are you making me posting something how any town wants to lynch a bad thing? Because it doesn't move the discussion forward. It clogs up the thread. It's already in people's heads and they don't need to see it on the screen because it's so dead obvious. And it doesn't help us find scum. On June 09 2012 12:35 KtheZ wrote:
I think we're straying a little deeper into ad hominem territory than needed gentlemen I disagree. His play is bad for town and i am attacking that. Oh and I think like 4 people posted so far(including me). You are just flooding the thread with 1 liners tunneling me, solstice has just been talking about lynching policy like me, and the same with KtheZ. Less than 50% of my posts against you have been 1 liners. 1 liners are not necessarily useless if the point is clear. My points are pretty obvious. And instead of responding to my analyses, you are attacking my posts literally, and not the content. Stop avoiding the content. Hardly; you have been echoing their thoughts and providing useless "lynch scum > lynch lurker." I don't think i'm tunneling. It's only 4 hours in, there's a good chance that the other 5 are working/sleeping. But you have been here and because of that, i feel that it is more useful to be focusing on you, rather than people who will take hours to respond to my posts that will have been buried in the thread by non-related posts. I haven't forgotten about the lurkers, if that's what you're getting at. We just don't need to deal with the lurkers right at this moment. When 24 hours comes and goes, i'll start dealing with what to do with the lurkers, but right now, dealing with you is much more important. I posted before them and I answered their questions of what I said, I'm not just blindly echoing their thoughts. Plus, with all the lurkers the only thing to talk about is lynching policy and the lurkers. subtle, very subtle, but see how you're avoiding me? On June 09 2012 13:40 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 13:31 grush57 wrote:
You just posted exactly what I posted 2 pages ago. Seriously, stop saying stuff every townie sais. " Yeah, and that's why i haven't posted until this moment. But since you insist to not read what i have already said, i feel that you need to read this in order to see how i want to lynch
" You told me to write that did you not? I told you that everyone (who wants to appear townie) will post the same thing did I not? That why i included the bolded phrase, to show that only you wanted to read what i wrote. That only you wanted me to make the extra post that would inevitably clog up the thread. Answer me this: Why is it only you who wants me to make a post to answer a question that has already been answered? Still no answer LOL, my answer was the sarcastic remark...
That is you answer to why discouraging discussion is playing to win for town?
Why your post of the first 3 or 4 was the only one to lack content?
Why you lied about my post (labelling them as 1-liners)?
Why you insist on repeating obvious generic pro-town words in your posts?
Why you literally wanted me to post crap so you could call it crap?
And ofc, i don't believe for a second that the sarcastic remark counts as a response to all those, why you have been avoiding answering these for such a long time?
|
On June 09 2012 23:09 ha236 wrote:Allright, I've read this boring discussion between grush and release and I hope I can give some insight as to what my opinions are. As a first time player I probably would have made the same mistake grush did (I don't know if this is his first time but w/e) and say that there is nothing to talk about on the first day, but as Release said that obviously puts us in a bad situation when no one is posting at all. Also the content of grush's posts has been pretty lackluster but again, seeing as this is a noob-game I think that's something we have to expect. The This being said I think Release is being way too hard on the guy, just after a couple of posts by grush he says "grush is appearing incredibly scummy" which I think is very harsh to say this early on in the game. After this discussion ended we tasted some new blood in the thread - Lazermonkey and Zen man. While not being able to get a good "read" on any of you two (you not having posted much yet) some of Lazermonkey's comments on the Release-grush discussion seemed strange to me. Show nested quote +
On June 09 2012 11:38 grush57 wrote:
(What case?)
Whats to talk about, seriously give me something lol. People are lurking? Yeah mlg is on and it's not even 3 hours
So your third post is this. Now you changed your mind. It's fine if people lurk. He does not say that it is "fine if people lurk". My interpretation of the sentances is that he does not know what to post about and then proposes the subject of why people are not posting and offers his explanation (being that the game just started, people might not be by the computer and even if they are they may be watching MLG). Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 13:55 grush57 wrote:
K well it's hard to do with half the people didn't even post yet. I wouldn't be suprised if the 2 mafia are in those lurkers. So now you are once again really suspicious of people not posting. Also if there are two mafia among the lurkers it means that you have a townread on s0Lstice, KtheZ and Release. Correct? In this paragraph Lazermonkey is trying to make the rest of us believe that grush said something he has not, that he is "suspicious of people not posting". Grush says he "wouldn't be surprised if the two mafia are in those lurkers" and from this Lazermonkey believes him to have a town read on the rest of the posters at that time. Lastly, I like the way Lazermonkey explained his stance on lurkers (two different kinds) however I don't think you can justifiably apply the one about posting stuff with no actual content so early on in the game and I ultimately agree that grush has been changing his stance on whether it is good or not to lynch lurkers.
not that you could know this, but Grush is the most experienced one of us all. To my knowledge, he has played at least twice in the "big leagues."
Go read those few posts. They are scummy as hell.
I agree, lazermonkey has been putting words in grush's mouth
Lazermonkey is correct on the two different types though. And i think that grush fits into the one about posting stuff iwth no content. He has the (second) longest filter and there is pretty much nothing at all useful, however there is a ton of harmful stuff.
|
On June 09 2012 19:21 Lazermonkey wrote:grush57 you are confusing the hell out of me atm. Yes, your comment about ''Nothing to talk about'' is scummy but that's not all. You're filter is already 1 page long, but all your posts are very short one or two liners. Literally you don't have a singel post that's more than 2 lines. Most of your filter is in fact quotes which makes it look longer than it is in fact. Your second post is this: Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 11:13 grush57 wrote:
(Yes, lets pressure the only non-lurker) Woo! So this doesn't add anything to the discussion really. If I understand this correctly, you think that because you are posting (which at the point isn't true at all because you only posted once before but w/e) it makes you look townie and that s0Lstice and Release should instead focus at the people that havn't posted yet. Long story short: you think that lurkers are scummy. Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 11:38 grush57 wrote:
(What case?)
Whats to talk about, seriously give me something lol. People are lurking? Yeah mlg is on and it's not even 3 hours So your third post is this. Now you changed your mind. It's fine if people lurk. Some hours later you post this. You clearly don't want to be viewed as a lurker. Still you post only very short posts, wouldn't it be more effective to post longer posts with better content if you wanted to apear non-lurker? Instead of telling everyone that you aren't a lurker? Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:12 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:09 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:07 grush57 wrote:
Yeah, but I'm not a lurker. Therefore, in your agenda, you won't be lynched. Pretty funny how logic works isn't it? Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker. However, if there are no clear scum then a lurker lynch would be best. Even later, Unless you find a clear scum(this is on D1, aka hard to find clear scum) you are fine with lynching lurkers Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:22 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:21 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:12 grush57 wrote:On June 09 2012 12:09 Release wrote:On June 09 2012 12:07 grush57 wrote:
Yeah, but I'm not a lurker. Therefore, in your agenda, you won't be lynched. Pretty funny how logic works isn't it? Yeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker. However, if there are no clear scum then a lurker lynch would be best. ! Something to talk about. Guess you were lying earlier. Now your helpi No shit we want to lynch a lurker. Thank you for repeating points that have already been made. So you don't want to lynch a scum. You want to lynch a lurker that will give no information. Ah, that isn't scummy. Once again you change your mind. Lurkers gives no information. I take this as lynching lurkers are terrible I guess. The last post before you are off. Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 13:55 grush57 wrote:
K well it's hard to do with half the people didn't even post yet. I wouldn't be suprised if the 2 mafia are in those lurkers. So now you are once again really suspicious of people not posting. Also if there are two mafia among the lurkers it means that you have a townread on s0Lstice, KtheZ and Release. Correct? You are all over the place atm. You don't take a clear stance with your opinion on lurkers but flip your opinion like 4 times. And you also seem very concerned with the possibilty of being a lurker. It's really simple. If you post good stuff, you will not be considered a lurker. There is no point in trying to convince us wheter oor not you are one. FoS: grush57
He isn't claiming to look townie. He is claiming to not be a lurker and that he looks better than lurkers atm.
My opinion on this is that the lurkers won't respond to shit so we can only focus on him and he is trying to avoid attention.
He saying that people haven't had time to get on yet. He doesn't say that it's fine, but it does contradict his first point.
Can't disagree with you on this one.
No, he's not saying anything here. This is generic townie shit that works to clog up the thread and nothing more.
He responding to my typo (he couldn't figure out the typo) so in context, he is correct. But this is still generic town shit saying lynch scum > lynch lurker. he is not saying that lynching lurkers are terrible, only that it's worse than a scum. I gave him credit for this earlier too.
He's not suspicious. He's trying to draw attention away from him and my questioning of his play. See how we had this long drawn out arguement and he suddenly decides to act cooperatively? (he still doesn't answer my questions and this may have gone unnoticed if i hadn't realized what happenend)
|
On June 10 2012 05:47 s0Lstice wrote:
Grush, the best way to defend yourself is to hunt scum. Spend your time doing that, not wasting all of your time responding to Release.
Should that go in the Mafia QT? 
But if he does turn out to be scum, we shouldn't be giving him advice. That's what the post game is for.
|
On June 10 2012 04:54 s0Lstice wrote:Very happy to see that the discussion has picked up. Now I want to talk about ha236Let's look at his post on grush and LazerMonkey. Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 23:09 ha236 wrote:
As a first time player I probably would have made the same mistake grush did (I don't know if this is his first time but w/e) and say that there is nothing to talk about on the first day, but as Release said that obviously puts us in a bad situation when no one is posting at all. Also the content of grush's posts has been pretty lackluster but again, seeing as this is a noob-game I think that's something we have to expect. This is a soft defense of grush, based on the sentiment that a first time player makes mistakes, yet you don't care enough to check if this really is his first game? How is that 'w/e' when your defense of him relies on qualifying the mistakes he is making as first time player mistakes? Then you talk about LaserMonkey.. Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 23:09 ha236 wrote:After this discussion ended we tasted some new blood in the thread - Lazermonkey and Zen man. While not being able to get a good "read" on any of you two (you not having posted much yet) some of Lazermonkey's comments on the Release-grush discussion seemed strange to me.
On June 09 2012 11:38 grush57 wrote:
(What case?)
Whats to talk about, seriously give me something lol. People are lurking? Yeah mlg is on and it's not even 3 hours
So your third post is this. Now you changed your mind. It's fine if people lurk. He does not say that it is "fine if people lurk". My interpretation of the sentances is that he does not know what to post about and then proposes the subject of why people are not posting and offers his explanation (being that the game just started, people might not be by the computer and even if they are they may be watching MLG). On June 09 2012 13:55 grush57 wrote:
K well it's hard to do with half the people didn't even post yet. I wouldn't be suprised if the 2 mafia are in those lurkers. So now you are once again really suspicious of people not posting. Also if there are two mafia among the lurkers it means that you have a townread on s0Lstice, KtheZ and Release. Correct? In this paragraph Lazermonkey is trying to make the rest of us believe that grush said something he has not, that he is "suspicious of people not posting". Grush says he "wouldn't be surprised if the two mafia are in those lurkers" and from this Lazermonkey believes him to have a town read on the rest of the posters at that time. Lastly, I like the way Lazermonkey explained his stance on lurkers (two different kinds) however I don't think you can justifiably apply the one about posting stuff with no actual content so early on in the game and I ultimately agree that grush has been changing his stance on whether it is good or not to lynch lurkers. Very loud contradiction. If Lazermonkey's comments are strange then why are you agreeing with them? Why did you defend grush if you think Lazermonkey has something there? ##FoS: ha236
To check if this really is Grush's first game is a tremendous waste of time. There are far too many game to check. (i believe we have 55 regular mafias and 15 newb ones.)
To me it looks like he is trying to buddy up to grush but i can't be sure of that.
I agree; playing the noob card as reasoning is too much assumptions.
It looks more like the two quoted posts are strange (and putting words in grush's mouth) but the agreement is that grush has been wishy-washy.
I think ha is setting himself to jump on the bandwagon if there is one, or to avoid starting one if there isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
33974
2783
1342
EPT
