|
On October 25 2012 22:43 Djodref wrote:
As for now, the only guy I would like to lynch right now is Inig.
On what do you base that?
All I see is he made no contributions. So did other people. Some didn't even post yet.
If it's what he said, why do you see him as scummier than Roco?
Because I don't, so I'd like to know where this is coming from.
|
On October 25 2012 22:48 Dandel Ion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 22:43 Djodref wrote:
As for now, the only guy I would like to lynch right now is Inig. On what do you base that? All I see is he made no contributions. So did other people. Some didn't even post yet. If it's what he said, why do you see him as scummier than Roco? Because I don't, so I'd like to know where this is coming from.
EBWOP: The "I don't" in the last line refers to him saying Ingi is scummier than Roco.
I think it's the other way around.
|
On October 25 2012 22:52 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 21:43 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Just woke up fella's, have a few moments to read this over and give my thoughts. In the name of brevity, I'll keep it short. On Debears-Rad incident: Debears came out of the gate swinging; reminiscent of DP from the last newbie game. Personally, I don't like this style of hot-headed pursuit, but it can work. However, I feel the reasons he's giving for Rad being suspicious are ill-founded. There is all this talk of confidence and policy lynching, and everything seems to be a matter of personal opinion rather than a role shining through to the exterior. There may be something there in what Debears has concluded, but I cannot be sure of my opinion of Rad at this time. I'd much rather vote for a lurker atm because the evidence is just not there. Djodref: I find him to be exceedingly odd. I first thought his initial comment of my "serious policy lynching" to be weird, but with his recent two posts I find him suspicous. On October 25 2012 18:25 Djodref wrote:I'm not planning on defending you this game so I expect you to do your job as town  How do you know he's town??? On October 25 2012 18:31 Djodref wrote:On October 25 2012 17:57 Roco69 wrote:
@djodref
To keep it simple, "lurker policy on D1" seems to be a well known and basic strategy so I will do the exact opposite,=>so I will never be suspected.
@RocoI have more questions for you. Why do you want to never be suspected ? Are you mafia ? Why would you specifically ask someone about them being mafia. What do you hope to accomplish??? I find these two statements to be suspicious as hell. ##FOS DjodrefI'll be back in about 6 hours, after my classes. @CheeseCalling daoud town was a slip, I've already explained it. Regarding you and your "serious policy lynching", I have asked you a question and your answer satisfied me. I don't think you are 100% for a policy lynch anymore. I misinterpreted your post. Regarding my question "are you mafia?", this is a very uncomfortable question to ask to a mafia player, believe me or not. They have to lie to answer such a question and this is the best way to pressure them imo. So I want to see Roco reaction to this question. I'm not expecting him to admit that he is mafia. I'm going to gauge his reaction to this question in comparison to my own experience as a mafia player.
Uuuuh
Not really.
You just say "no" as an answer. That's the 'correct' answer for both alignments. I'd imagine you won't be able to interpret much out of those 2 letters.
I know in a post yesterday I semi-seriously pressured Roco to answer that same question, but as I just said, semi-seriously. You seem to really think that's a good strategy, lol.
|
On October 25 2012 22:59 Dandel Ion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 22:52 Djodref wrote:On October 25 2012 21:43 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Just woke up fella's, have a few moments to read this over and give my thoughts. In the name of brevity, I'll keep it short. On Debears-Rad incident: Debears came out of the gate swinging; reminiscent of DP from the last newbie game. Personally, I don't like this style of hot-headed pursuit, but it can work. However, I feel the reasons he's giving for Rad being suspicious are ill-founded. There is all this talk of confidence and policy lynching, and everything seems to be a matter of personal opinion rather than a role shining through to the exterior. There may be something there in what Debears has concluded, but I cannot be sure of my opinion of Rad at this time. I'd much rather vote for a lurker atm because the evidence is just not there. Djodref: I find him to be exceedingly odd. I first thought his initial comment of my "serious policy lynching" to be weird, but with his recent two posts I find him suspicous. On October 25 2012 18:25 Djodref wrote:I'm not planning on defending you this game so I expect you to do your job as town How do you know he's town??? On October 25 2012 18:31 Djodref wrote:On October 25 2012 17:57 Roco69 wrote:
@djodref
To keep it simple, "lurker policy on D1" seems to be a well known and basic strategy so I will do the exact opposite,=>so I will never be suspected.
@RocoI have more questions for you. Why do you want to never be suspected ? Are you mafia ? Why would you specifically ask someone about them being mafia. What do you hope to accomplish??? I find these two statements to be suspicious as hell. ##FOS DjodrefI'll be back in about 6 hours, after my classes. @CheeseCalling daoud town was a slip, I've already explained it. Regarding you and your "serious policy lynching", I have asked you a question and your answer satisfied me. I don't think you are 100% for a policy lynch anymore. I misinterpreted your post. Regarding my question "are you mafia?", this is a very uncomfortable question to ask to a mafia player, believe me or not. They have to lie to answer such a question and this is the best way to pressure them imo. So I want to see Roco reaction to this question. I'm not expecting him to admit that he is mafia. I'm going to gauge his reaction to this question in comparison to my own experience as a mafia player. Uuuuh Not really. You just hear "no" as an answer. That's the 'correct' answer for both alignments. I'd imagine you won't be able to interpret much out of those 2 letters. I know in a post yesterday I semi-seriously pressured Roco to answer that same question, but as I just said, semi-seriously. You seem to really think that's a good strategy, lol.
EBWOP, hear instead of say.
Tho I'd imagine you'd say the same thing.
|
On October 25 2012 23:04 debears wrote:
@djo
But why did you use the wording "I expect you to do your job as town". That statement implies that you know he is town. Theres no wishy washness or "if your town". That's why its very weird
And daud (sry I'm calling you that now). Using logic involving a sk at this point is not good logic.
1) a seri killer wouldnt know if you are town while mafia would.
2) we don't have any idea whether there is a sk. Its best to not worry about it unless there are a pair of nks on any night
He's saying a scum Djo couldn't know daoud is town since there is the possibility of a SK. Not that Djo is SK.
Not that I particularily agree with that reasoning, the chances there is a SK is relatively small afaik.
|
On October 25 2012 23:06 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 22:59 Dandel Ion wrote:On October 25 2012 22:52 Djodref wrote:On October 25 2012 21:43 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Just woke up fella's, have a few moments to read this over and give my thoughts. In the name of brevity, I'll keep it short. On Debears-Rad incident: Debears came out of the gate swinging; reminiscent of DP from the last newbie game. Personally, I don't like this style of hot-headed pursuit, but it can work. However, I feel the reasons he's giving for Rad being suspicious are ill-founded. There is all this talk of confidence and policy lynching, and everything seems to be a matter of personal opinion rather than a role shining through to the exterior. There may be something there in what Debears has concluded, but I cannot be sure of my opinion of Rad at this time. I'd much rather vote for a lurker atm because the evidence is just not there. Djodref: I find him to be exceedingly odd. I first thought his initial comment of my "serious policy lynching" to be weird, but with his recent two posts I find him suspicous. On October 25 2012 18:25 Djodref wrote:I'm not planning on defending you this game so I expect you to do your job as town How do you know he's town??? On October 25 2012 18:31 Djodref wrote:On October 25 2012 17:57 Roco69 wrote:
@djodref
To keep it simple, "lurker policy on D1" seems to be a well known and basic strategy so I will do the exact opposite,=>so I will never be suspected.
@RocoI have more questions for you. Why do you want to never be suspected ? Are you mafia ? Why would you specifically ask someone about them being mafia. What do you hope to accomplish??? I find these two statements to be suspicious as hell. ##FOS DjodrefI'll be back in about 6 hours, after my classes. @CheeseCalling daoud town was a slip, I've already explained it. Regarding you and your "serious policy lynching", I have asked you a question and your answer satisfied me. I don't think you are 100% for a policy lynch anymore. I misinterpreted your post. Regarding my question "are you mafia?", this is a very uncomfortable question to ask to a mafia player, believe me or not. They have to lie to answer such a question and this is the best way to pressure them imo. So I want to see Roco reaction to this question. I'm not expecting him to admit that he is mafia. I'm going to gauge his reaction to this question in comparison to my own experience as a mafia player. Uuuuh Not really. You just say "no" as an answer. That's the 'correct' answer for both alignments. I'd imagine you won't be able to interpret much out of those 2 letters. I know in a post yesterday I semi-seriously pressured Roco to answer that same question, but as I just said, semi-seriously. You seem to really think that's a good strategy, lol. @dandelI've just played a game as a mafia player and the most difficult thing I had to answer to was "why do you think you are not going to be targeted tonight ?" I had a very strong case written against me at one time. But rather than this dead-on case (from mementoss if you want to read our Looney Lynching game), this only simple question has made my whole mentality crumbled. I know everybody is going to say "lol, no, I'm not mafia". But my question is psychological warfare ^^
That's a different situation and a different question..
Most importantly, it's not a question you can just wave off with a "no". It's one that requires an answer with reasoning and logic. It's a decent question to ask.
"are u scum" can be answered in a word, non-commitically. I don't think it's a good question.
But I'm starting to argue semantics....
|
On October 26 2012 00:30 debears wrote:@Djo Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 23:18 Djodref wrote:On October 25 2012 23:12 Dandel Ion wrote:On October 25 2012 23:06 Djodref wrote:On October 25 2012 22:59 Dandel Ion wrote:On October 25 2012 22:52 Djodref wrote:On October 25 2012 21:43 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Just woke up fella's, have a few moments to read this over and give my thoughts. In the name of brevity, I'll keep it short. On Debears-Rad incident: Debears came out of the gate swinging; reminiscent of DP from the last newbie game. Personally, I don't like this style of hot-headed pursuit, but it can work. However, I feel the reasons he's giving for Rad being suspicious are ill-founded. There is all this talk of confidence and policy lynching, and everything seems to be a matter of personal opinion rather than a role shining through to the exterior. There may be something there in what Debears has concluded, but I cannot be sure of my opinion of Rad at this time. I'd much rather vote for a lurker atm because the evidence is just not there. Djodref: I find him to be exceedingly odd. I first thought his initial comment of my "serious policy lynching" to be weird, but with his recent two posts I find him suspicous. On October 25 2012 18:25 Djodref wrote:I'm not planning on defending you this game so I expect you to do your job as town How do you know he's town??? On October 25 2012 18:31 Djodref wrote:On October 25 2012 17:57 Roco69 wrote:
@djodref
To keep it simple, "lurker policy on D1" seems to be a well known and basic strategy so I will do the exact opposite,=>so I will never be suspected.
@RocoI have more questions for you. Why do you want to never be suspected ? Are you mafia ? Why would you specifically ask someone about them being mafia. What do you hope to accomplish??? I find these two statements to be suspicious as hell. ##FOS DjodrefI'll be back in about 6 hours, after my classes. @CheeseCalling daoud town was a slip, I've already explained it. Regarding you and your "serious policy lynching", I have asked you a question and your answer satisfied me. I don't think you are 100% for a policy lynch anymore. I misinterpreted your post. Regarding my question "are you mafia?", this is a very uncomfortable question to ask to a mafia player, believe me or not. They have to lie to answer such a question and this is the best way to pressure them imo. So I want to see Roco reaction to this question. I'm not expecting him to admit that he is mafia. I'm going to gauge his reaction to this question in comparison to my own experience as a mafia player. Uuuuh Not really. You just say "no" as an answer. That's the 'correct' answer for both alignments. I'd imagine you won't be able to interpret much out of those 2 letters. I know in a post yesterday I semi-seriously pressured Roco to answer that same question, but as I just said, semi-seriously. You seem to really think that's a good strategy, lol. @dandelI've just played a game as a mafia player and the most difficult thing I had to answer to was "why do you think you are not going to be targeted tonight ?" I had a very strong case written against me at one time. But rather than this dead-on case (from mementoss if you want to read our Looney Lynching game), this only simple question has made my whole mentality crumbled. I know everybody is going to say "lol, no, I'm not mafia". But my question is psychological warfare ^^ That's a different situation and a different question.. Most importantly, it's not a question you can just wave off with a "no". It's one that requires an answer with reasoning and logic. It's a decent question to ask. "are u scum" can be answered in a word, non-commitically. I don't think it's a good question. But I'm starting to argue semantics.... @dandelYeah, it's not exactly the same kind of question but I don't think you can freely wave it off as scum. If you have to lie, it makes you uncomfortable. If you are uncomfortable, you are going to post some shit. Why did you ask the question? The answer is pretty obvious as town or scum You'd say "I'm town" no matter what. The question was useless and you know it. There is no real reaction that can be read from a question like that. It's not a big lie if the person is mafia by any means. I don't like that. It makes you look like you are contributing without actually doing so
He did already explain it...
You're beating a dead horse over there.
|
On October 26 2012 00:25 Alsn wrote:
All right, here I am again. First things first, Dandel asked me about lurker policy. I think that it's a potent tool in order to pressure scum into participating. Scum slips are nice and all, but if there's no pressure there's less chance of one happening. That being said in general I feel that lurker lynching is at the very best a ~25% chance of catching scum(random chance), policy or no. Generally I've gotten the feeling that lurkers don't lurk for strategic reasons, but because something pulled them away from the game and that's definitely something which can happen to anyone.
With regards to other policy, what would that be, exactly? I'm all in favour of logical policy lynching. If an argument can be made that town benefits from it I'm all for it(see my thoughts on kush from my first few posts last game if you're interested in an example of why I think so). There's no player in this game that warrants such a lynch though, unless we are talking behavioural policy, but I'm not really familiar with any example of that so I would have to address such policy on a case by case basis.
A few things stood out to me when I skimmed through the thread earlier today and I'll be posting some of my comments on what has actually happened so far over the course of the evening.
Lynching liars, lynching trolls, things like that.
I don't see any of those in this game so far, so that's good. I just wanted to mention there can be other policies too
|
On October 26 2012 00:35 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 00:24 Djodref wrote:
@sylver
I don't care about who hasn't posted right now. I want to know what info you were expecting to get by asking your question. I was making that list because I wasn't even sure myself who/how many people hadn't spoken up. I was trying to stir something up and you can also consider it a kind of "roleclaim-lite" (I hardly expect anyone to claim they enjoy playing scum when I ask ingame, but i think it could have been interesting to see if some people said they like a particular pro-town power-role.)
So, you admit you were rolefishing?
|
On October 26 2012 00:48 debears wrote:
I never said we are lynching a non lurker no matter what. I want to push cases, and if we have something good, then we lynch that person. Lurkers are a last resort. There are most likely 3 mafia. A lynch wasted on a lurker is suboptimal as town if there are people posting some really scummy things.
I basically said the same thing, and you FoS'd me for it.
reference:
On October 25 2012 10:26 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 10:08 Dandel Ion wrote:On October 25 2012 10:02 Inigmaticalism wrote:For lurking I think it seems even more of an issue in Newbie games than regular games because too many lurkers results in mafia wins most of the time in the Newbie games I looked at. That said, if we get any confirmed mafia I'll always vote confirmed mafias over suspicious lurkers. Btw Im a noob ...  That goes without saying. Having a confirmed scum can be hard though.. And is next to impossible day 1 (since no possible DT checks) unless there is a serious slip. That is why policy lynches day 1 can end up being a necessity. That said, I'm going to sleep. See you in a few hours. What are you saying here exactly? Policy lynches are by no means a necessity. If we are confident and push reads, like dp did last game, then the scum will show. Why do you lack the confidence of catching scum d1? FOS dandelBtw guys officially postjng from phone for rest of night. Tell me if something gets messes up and u can't read
Now the question is, did you read my post wrong, or are you being hypocritical?
|
Confidence is a stupid word, and I have no idea why debears is so stuck on it.
Being suspicious of somebody because he's not "confident" enough, is equally stupid.
Rad, don't play the newbie card. We've been over this.
|
As I get Ninja'd, a wild Clarity appears.
|
On October 26 2012 01:20 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:15 Dandel Ion wrote:
As I get Ninja'd, a wild Clarity appears. Will be active from now on, just didn't have it in the back of my head to check TL a lot. Now that the game has started I will basically be checking as much as possible.
Well, I'm sure you have more thoughts than just a FoS on debears for "advocating chaos"
So, how about you present those for now.
|
So many Ninjas in this damn game.
I need to train my speed.
|
On October 26 2012 01:28 Rad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:21 debears wrote:
Ok. But what individually makes us stand out as scum?
I'm going to reread the thread a couple of times tonight and figure this all out.
##Unvote This is some of what I've got from you and/or djo 1. Pushed the confidence theme hard, as if to make it seem like we NEED to have a scum lynch d1 rather than a policy lurker lynch. 2. Acted overconfident as if it was easy to make a scum read on d1 (is it? doesn't seem like it, and that's not due to lack of confidence, it's due to lack of information). 3. Twisted people's statements, either responding with something that had nothing to do with the original statement, or focusing heavily on a particular statement as if to give it more importance than it really should have. All of these things feel scummy to me.
I personally find it hard to be convinced by an argument like this, tbh.
It was annoying and all, but it might as easily be a overeager-town-tell as a scum-tell.
In my first game, I tunneled a dude HARD during day1 because he constantly misinterpreted posts wrong and I thought it to be intentional. He ended up being town.
What I learned from it: Stupidity is a null-tell in newbie games. Misinterpretations are a null-tell in newbie games.
Basically how I see things right now: de bear and Djokovic have not yet learned this lesson, so they are overly confident they can nail scum.
It's also why I'm not very confident in finding scum day1.
|
On October 26 2012 01:42 Djodref wrote:@RadMy comments in red in your quoted post. Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:28 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 01:21 debears wrote:
Ok. But what individually makes us stand out as scum?
I'm going to reread the thread a couple of times tonight and figure this all out.
##Unvote This is some of what I've got from you and/or djo 1. Pushed the confidence theme hard, as if to make it seem like we NEED to have a scum lynch d1 rather than a policy lurker lynch. FUUUUUuuu. You are doing it again. Policy lynching is just an option and it is a bad option in my opinion because mafia can avoid it easily, especially when town decides to apply this strategy from the beginning. Lynching a suspicious player get us more chances to lynch mafia. We should start to scumhunt in order to do so, not throwing FoS at each other for disagreeing over policy.2. Acted overconfident as if it was easy to make a scum read on d1 (is it? doesn't seem like it, and that's not due to lack of confidence, it's due to lack of information). I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying it is totally possible and you should have this mentality rather than the policy lynch solution mentality. Would you like to comment about Inig by the way ?3. Twisted people's statements, either responding with something that had nothing to do with the original statement, or focusing heavily on a particular statement as if to give it more importance than it really should have. Please be more specificAll of these things feel scummy to me.
You don't get it.
You establish a lurker-lynch policy early.
Potential lurkers see it and go all "oh shit if I lurk I'm gonna die"
So they don't lurk.
If you say "nah I'm completely against lynching lurkers" or "We should lynch the most active people"
What do lurkers do when they see that?
They'll tell themselves "cool, I'm set"
And then they lurk.
|
On October 26 2012 02:04 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:45 Dandel Ion wrote:On October 26 2012 01:42 Djodref wrote:@RadMy comments in red in your quoted post. On October 26 2012 01:28 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 01:21 debears wrote:
Ok. But what individually makes us stand out as scum?
I'm going to reread the thread a couple of times tonight and figure this all out.
##Unvote This is some of what I've got from you and/or djo 1. Pushed the confidence theme hard, as if to make it seem like we NEED to have a scum lynch d1 rather than a policy lurker lynch. FUUUUUuuu. You are doing it again. Policy lynching is just an option and it is a bad option in my opinion because mafia can avoid it easily, especially when town decides to apply this strategy from the beginning. Lynching a suspicious player get us more chances to lynch mafia. We should start to scumhunt in order to do so, not throwing FoS at each other for disagreeing over policy.2. Acted overconfident as if it was easy to make a scum read on d1 (is it? doesn't seem like it, and that's not due to lack of confidence, it's due to lack of information). I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying it is totally possible and you should have this mentality rather than the policy lynch solution mentality. Would you like to comment about Inig by the way ?3. Twisted people's statements, either responding with something that had nothing to do with the original statement, or focusing heavily on a particular statement as if to give it more importance than it really should have. Please be more specificAll of these things feel scummy to me. You don't get it. You establish a lurker-lynch policy early. Potential lurkers see it and go all "oh shit if I lurk I'm gonna die" So they don't lurk. If you say "nah I'm completely against lynching lurkers" or "We should lynch the most active people" What do lurkers do when they see that? They'll tell themselves "cool, I'm set" And then they lurk. I'm not against a policy lynch but I think it would be better to bring it up when the right time comes (like 6 hours before the lynch ? anyway at a time we can finally identify some serious lurker). Taking an early decision against or for policy lynches is just going to help mafia to use this decision on their favor. Anyway, a lot of people seem to favor a policy lynch for today. I'm not going to go against it but I would appreciate these people to get into super scumhunting mode right now. I'm not going to forgive laziness at all, especially if you are supporting a policy lynch. By the way, what do you think about Inig ?
I certainly have concerns regarding Inig.
It's been said: He doesn't take a stance on anything.
And that is a worrying behaviour.
As far as my personal scummy lurker ranking goes, I'm still more suspicious of Roco (neither posted in the meantime, so it's hard to change opinion on that)
I'd like to say that so far, I agree that Roco seems suspicious, but more than anything else, he just makes no sense. More than anything else that's a null read to me, especially with how early in the game we are. However, if his play doesn't change dramatically I would say he is at risk for getting a vote from me simply due to being unhelpful to town.
I know "not making sense" doesn't neccessarily = scum, especially in newbies.
My biggest problem right now, is that he posted those confusing/nonsensical statements, and then just disappeared from the face of earth without explaining himself, even though people called him out on it in a very reasonable timeframe.
|
On October 26 2012 02:04 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:45 Dandel Ion wrote:On October 26 2012 01:42 Djodref wrote:@RadMy comments in red in your quoted post. On October 26 2012 01:28 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 01:21 debears wrote:
Ok. But what individually makes us stand out as scum?
I'm going to reread the thread a couple of times tonight and figure this all out.
##Unvote This is some of what I've got from you and/or djo 1. Pushed the confidence theme hard, as if to make it seem like we NEED to have a scum lynch d1 rather than a policy lurker lynch. FUUUUUuuu. You are doing it again. Policy lynching is just an option and it is a bad option in my opinion because mafia can avoid it easily, especially when town decides to apply this strategy from the beginning. Lynching a suspicious player get us more chances to lynch mafia. We should start to scumhunt in order to do so, not throwing FoS at each other for disagreeing over policy.2. Acted overconfident as if it was easy to make a scum read on d1 (is it? doesn't seem like it, and that's not due to lack of confidence, it's due to lack of information). I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying it is totally possible and you should have this mentality rather than the policy lynch solution mentality. Would you like to comment about Inig by the way ?3. Twisted people's statements, either responding with something that had nothing to do with the original statement, or focusing heavily on a particular statement as if to give it more importance than it really should have. Please be more specificAll of these things feel scummy to me. You don't get it. You establish a lurker-lynch policy early. Potential lurkers see it and go all "oh shit if I lurk I'm gonna die" So they don't lurk. If you say "nah I'm completely against lynching lurkers" or "We should lynch the most active people" What do lurkers do when they see that? They'll tell themselves "cool, I'm set" And then they lurk. I'm not against a policy lynch but I think it would be better to bring it up when the right time comes (like 6 hours before the lynch ? anyway at a time we can finally identify some serious lurker).
Also, about that, I sometimes have the tendency to overexaggerate. I'm trying to restrain myself, but it keeps happening.
For the record, I know you never said you're completely against it :/
|
Well, if they don't vote/post, they'll get replaced or modkilled, so lynching super-lurkers is not only a crapshoot, but also redundant.
|
On October 26 2012 03:42 Inigmaticalism wrote:
As for everyone else I need to read their posts again. It seems my scum-hunting has so far resulted in town-finding, but thats how its gone.
What scumhunting exactly?
I didn't ever see you do something that would qualify as such.
Also, I deliberately dodged sylvers question about what your favorite role is to play to show I was town(which, ironically because he was role hunting, still answered his question). I would never have posted such an awkward response I was mafia, I would have simply ignored the question all together, but it seems no one took it that way.
Pure WIFOM.
You said you wouldn't do it as scum, but if you are scum, you could do it, point at it, and say "I'd never do this as scum".
It's impossible to get a read on your original answer, but the INSTANT you try to argue with "I'd never do this as scum"-WIFOM shit, it gets me riled up.
Don't do that. It doesn't make you look good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
