|
*Sigh*
Of course I'm focused on defending myself. I started to post some stuff you on Debears in regards to Alsn posting about you, but then Djo proceeds to tunnel me.
Here's the obligitory OMGUS case on Djo. I learned a lot of stuff from Nack last game, despite him being an arrogant SOB.
On November 03 2012 13:51 Djodref wrote:
@ Cheese
Regarding your pokemon joke explanation, I didn't like how you focused on the content instead of precising what were your motivations for this joke at that time. It would be acceptable if you just told me that it was genuine or an attempt to frame me (it occurred during last game after all).
Nevertheless, I would agree that we should drop this discussion. But you are still on my radar.
I made this exact mistake last game as scum, "Djo is not off the hook" thing. He wants to ensure that his suspicions for me are known. As town, he would not have to make this statement because he would have faith that we already know that.
On November 03 2012 12:06 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 12:00 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 03 2012 10:50 Djodref wrote:
@ debaers
I don't think this one deserves a FoS. When Alsn says that it is technically a lie, that's just Alsn arguing about math and logic. On November 03 2012 11:52 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 11:12 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 03 2012 11:11 Clarity_nl wrote:On November 03 2012 11:10 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 03 2012 11:09 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 11:04 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Debears you seem really paranoid. On November 03 2012 10:42 debears wrote:
Yeah i am. He calls me a liarin red and then peaces out without wanting to hear my thoughts. Aint that scummy? Considering how active he was around lynch time last game, which was only an hour before this He didn't call you, Debears the person, a liar. You're taking Alsn's nit-pick of a post awfully personally. The quick, useless FoS is also the same exact tactic you used last game. Old hat, Debears, old hat.
1) i don't wear a hat2) i rescind my argument. The red text threw me off Scumtell. Howso? Mafia usually wear hats. He's so adamant that he most certainly does NOT wear a hat. Therefore, scumtell. @ CheesecakePlease refrain from joking when talking about scumtells. It's confusing. FoS Cheese The logic is strong with this one. @ CheeseI was re-reading the thread and I really didn't like this "it's a scumtell" joke. I'm not against jokes but scumtells are quite serious business. I've got my eyes on you.
Again, another exact mistake I made last game. Feeling the need to tell people that you have been reading the thread. For the second part, he's assuring that we realize that he knows this game is important to him. As town, he wouldn't feel the need to tell us that the game is important.
Then there is the entire "joke" case he makes, which is, no matter how you slice it, a terrible argument. He summons it up from nowhere and makes a huge deal about it. I want to drop the conversation because it's irrelevant and cluttering the thread. He insists that there is something there, but I reiterate, there is not.
On November 03 2012 13:53 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:48 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 13:43 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 13:28 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 13:26 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 13:22 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 13:11 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 13:04 Clarity_nl wrote:
Okay re-reading your post you're saying we shouldn't focus on one/two people, instead considering everyone and not consolidate on a lynch? @ ClarityExactly, I think you everyone should just vote for his top scumread while giving enough reason to do so and then we start again from there and see who is likely to be lynched, be it 2 or 3 players. I think it's the best way to use plurality lynch. Considering only 2 possibilities narrows the discussion and allows mafia players to have some excuse to lynch town (cf Cheese last game lynching daoud in the daoud/ini match-up). The downfall is that the end of the day could be a bit messy. seriously.....why are we having to explain this? 1) Scumhunt 2) Vote for your top scumread 3) When the voting comes down to 2 candidates and lynch is near, pick one of two said candidates and give reasoning why you're voting them Is that clear enough for all of you to understand? Please stop talking about policy @ debearsMy point is that it would benefit us to consider more than 2 candidates for the lynch. Anyway it's too late to discuss about it now, I was just answering Clarity's question about it. By the way it's not policy, it's lynch mechanics  More semantics, anyways it's useless. What do you think of Obsy's, Dau0d's, and Sylver's epic uselessness so far? @ debearsThe game has just started. Regarding daoud and sylver, the longer it takes for them to join the discussion, the bigger my expectations are for their future input. Obsy has to step up a little bit. @Obsy if you are town, you should definitively ask Hapa for help So you're saying Obsy is town????? Obvious scumtell omg guyszzzz instalynch him Lol NMM XXVIII Never forget @ debearsYou really made me chuckle with this one ^^
Need I even mention how utterly hypocritical this post is?
##FOS: Djodref
|
On November 03 2012 14:22 Rad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 14:10 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 03 2012 13:51 Djodref wrote:
@ Cheese
Regarding your pokemon joke explanation, I didn't like how you focused on the content instead of precising what were your motivations for this joke at that time. It would be acceptable if you just told me that it was genuine or an attempt to frame me (it occurred during last game after all).
Nevertheless, I would agree that we should drop this discussion. But you are still on my radar. I made this exact mistake last game as scum, "Djo is not off the hook" thing. He wants to ensure that his suspicions for me are known. As town, he would not have to make this statement because he would have faith that we already know that. I'd like to point out that throughout the last newbie game, I kept pointing out that djo was still on my radar. I don't consider this a scum tell. Perhaps bad town, perhaps not, but certainly not necessarily scum tell (at least at this level, no idea if it is at a higher level). I considered it a "keep the pressure on" type move last game.
Well Nack pointed it out for me, and he was right. I think the key here is that in the last game, everyone knew my stance on Djo and I reiterated it. Here, everyone knows his stance on me, and he reiterates it.
In the last game, I don't think your read on him was as apparent as mine was--Which is why it wasn't a big tell
|
|
|
Waking up y'all.
@Obzy
My newbie card statement wasn't directed towards you in the least. It's merely a blanket clause, as I don't want people to attribute scumtells to being a newbie with bad play. Inig basically did this last game without defending himself, and I built a foundation for a case on him which got us the perfect as scum. I don't mind if people say they are new at this, etc (this is only my second game after all), just make sure to defend yourself and not only say you're a noob like Inig did.
|
On the Sylverfyre vote...
While I don't necessarily agree with a vote on Debears, I can see where he's coming from. A half-assed FoS on Alsn, asking all the questions to seem pro-town; it's exactly how he played last game. About Sylver's "scumslip"... hmm, perhaps. He could just be referring to the entire town (thread) in general.
|
On November 04 2012 01:20 Djodref wrote:
@ sylverfire
I don't know debears alignment. I'm already saying it in the post where I vote against you.
I think town players should not use their vote to cast suspicion upon someone. Town players should build cases to convince everybody to lynch the player they find the most suspicious.
You have the right to be suspicious of debears. But I think you have to bring better reasons to persuade us to do so. If you think that casting suspicion upon him is enough and expect other players to build a case against debears for you, then I would say that you are mafia.
Why did you use the word townies instead of players ?
So, you say that town players shouldn't vote as a pressure move / attract suspicion to someone?
You used your vote last game on Inig as vote pressure:
On October 26 2012 09:16 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:34 Inigmaticalism wrote:
Right now I dont have any scum reads, only town reads which Ive already said in earlier posts. So I would lynch one of the lurkers probably. Also, Djo you seem to be the only one really going after me, so while your asking everyone what they think of me, you should answer your own question. what you you think of me?
-Should be back to post something in around 6-7 hours. I have already my eyes on you and I think that your posts lack content and scumhunting. You are my top scumread right now. Let's assume that the lurkers are going to get modkill today, who would you like to lynch ? Vote-pressuring you ## Vote Inig
Same with Nack:
On October 28 2012 22:44 Djodref wrote:
We still have no insight from Nackht at all. He has only said that he was sure that Kush was scum.
I'm not sure about Cheese anymore. I'm null on him right now. His case shows good scumhunting efforts, even if they go in the wrong direction. Him using a "djo attempt to discredit me" paragraph in his case is a towntell for me because it shows that he has natural sense of innocence (in opposition of the usual self-culpability). If he still believes I am scum after my answers to his case, I want him to look for my potential scumbuddies. No by association by the way because I am town and anyway you should wait for me to flip to start this kind of thing.
I want dandel to decide if I am scum or SK and bring consequent proofs to his case.
I'm very very wary of Nackht. He has given us nothing (expect him being sure that Kush was scum) so far and I don't understand why a town replacement would be retaining info like he does. The other thing speaking against him is that I don't have a strong scumread at the moment and it makes the probability for the lurkers to be mafia higher. So I hope that we have a modkill on Roco today.
I'm going to vote pressure him to make nackht talk. Keeping this vote on him until he gives us a complete assessment of what is going on here according to him. He promised it but he has just given us a "lol" so far.
##Vote nackhtjogger
You obviously believe in vote pressure to cast suspicion from a townie perspective.
|
On November 04 2012 01:39 Alsn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:13 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 14:44 sylverfyre wrote:
Holy shit, this flavor. What.
If we're gonna lynch a lurker, I'd rather it be early game than late, at least. But I think that we have more... dedication among the townies this game. There wasn't a long wait for the last few signups - everyone here seems pretty pumped to play some mafia seriously. I don't think lurker policy lynch will come up at all. You said townies. That's very different than saying the town or players. Very, very different. It means that you either 1) Think the people being active are townies 2) Know that the people being active are townies There is no other reason for using townies to describe those of us who are showing activeness and dedication Also, you voted me, meaning you voted for someone who you think is townie based on the above. That is scummy as shit debears, even if we hypothetically assume the two most active players are scum, it would still mean that town on the whole is being active and not lurking. I think your argument is bad and your insistence that his statement is a scum slip is far fetched imho.
I agree with the underlined. As scum last game I focused on Djo's scumslip to help push his lynch even though it was a very questionable one.
|
On November 04 2012 01:47 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:33 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 01:20 Djodref wrote:
@ sylverfire
I don't know debears alignment. I'm already saying it in the post where I vote against you.
I think town players should not use their vote to cast suspicion upon someone. Town players should build cases to convince everybody to lynch the player they find the most suspicious.
You have the right to be suspicious of debears. But I think you have to bring better reasons to persuade us to do so. If you think that casting suspicion upon him is enough and expect other players to build a case against debears for you, then I would say that you are mafia.
Why did you use the word townies instead of players ?
So, you say that town players shouldn't vote as a pressure move / attract suspicion to someone? You used your vote last game on Inig as vote pressure: On October 26 2012 09:16 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:34 Inigmaticalism wrote:
Right now I dont have any scum reads, only town reads which Ive already said in earlier posts. So I would lynch one of the lurkers probably. Also, Djo you seem to be the only one really going after me, so while your asking everyone what they think of me, you should answer your own question. what you you think of me?
-Should be back to post something in around 6-7 hours. I have already my eyes on you and I think that your posts lack content and scumhunting. You are my top scumread right now. Let's assume that the lurkers are going to get modkill today, who would you like to lynch ? Vote-pressuring you ## Vote Inig Same with Nack: On October 28 2012 22:44 Djodref wrote:
We still have no insight from Nackht at all. He has only said that he was sure that Kush was scum.
I'm not sure about Cheese anymore. I'm null on him right now. His case shows good scumhunting efforts, even if they go in the wrong direction. Him using a "djo attempt to discredit me" paragraph in his case is a towntell for me because it shows that he has natural sense of innocence (in opposition of the usual self-culpability). If he still believes I am scum after my answers to his case, I want him to look for my potential scumbuddies. No by association by the way because I am town and anyway you should wait for me to flip to start this kind of thing.
I want dandel to decide if I am scum or SK and bring consequent proofs to his case.
I'm very very wary of Nackht. He has given us nothing (expect him being sure that Kush was scum) so far and I don't understand why a town replacement would be retaining info like he does. The other thing speaking against him is that I don't have a strong scumread at the moment and it makes the probability for the lurkers to be mafia higher. So I hope that we have a modkill on Roco today.
I'm going to vote pressure him to make nackht talk. Keeping this vote on him until he gives us a complete assessment of what is going on here according to him. He promised it but he has just given us a "lol" so far.
##Vote nackhtjogger
You obviously believe in vote pressure to cast suspicion from a townie perspective. I have no problem with people using their vote to pressure people into talking or whatever reason they have if they state a reasonable explanation for a pressure vote. My problem with sylverfire post is that the initial reasons he gave for his vote were that debears filter was fluffy and that he cast a quick FoS on Alsn. Then he said that he also wanted to cast suspicion upon debears. He never said that he was using his vote as a pressure vote in the first place. The regrettable thing is that other people said this before he could defend himself. According to me, if you think that a player is suspicious enough to vote against him, you should persuade other players to vote for him, which sylverfire has failed to do imho. But I might not understand exactly the meaning of "cast suspicion", I see this expression as quite pejorative.
- He never said anything about the FoS on Debears, I did. He just said that his reaction was odd to Alsn.
- In you're post about Inig, your explanation was "lack of content / scumhunting" ---> hardly a reason. Especially to have other people vote for him. Same with Nack, nobody else voted for him and you didn't persuade anyone else to do so.
- In both instances, your prime goal was to cast suspicion. Get people interested in what Inig was doing, get people interested in what Nack was lurking about.
Your logic is backward this game.
|
On November 04 2012 01:54 Rad wrote:
This is a great catch, cheese. It's pretty damning, but to be honest, djo is someone I can see innocently contradicting himself like this, so I don't know what to think about it in the end.
Agreed. And that's why it's so darn hard to read him.
|
On November 04 2012 02:01 Djodref wrote:I would like to add a point regarding sylver's scumslip. Please take note how he reacted to it. Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:08 sylverfyre wrote:
/snip
And finally, on your final point:
I'm not saying townies will be more dedicated this game. I'm saying PLAYERS will be more dedicated this game. Why? The game filled up instantly and we don't have anyone from last game who lurked like crazy except for da0ud (who was on vacation, and is presumably more available now. I hope.) We have no Roco69 players this game, even da0ud has posted some content now. I don't think we'll have a day 1 lynch with anything less than 9 votes cast.
Your scumslip is grasping at straws and making up scum tells is really bad for town. Leaving my vote on you.
/snip
He denies the fact that he used the word "townies". In my opinion, a town player would have said "I've used the word townies but I meant players, I've slipped, my bad". Last game, I've accepted my slip and explained why I've slipped. I think it is mafia reaction to deny it like that.
He's not denying using the word townies. He's denying the connotation of the word townies. There is no motivation for anyone to outright deny that they used a word, because, well, it's written in stone.
On November 04 2012 01:59 debears wrote:
@CC
What do you think of Djo's seriousness attitude this game?
His personality seems different from last game in that regard, where he seemed much more amicable
Top scumread atm (Woa, is this last game already?) He's still smileydjo, but seasoned with something I can't recognize this game. He's contradicting his own town play and, previously, trying to nitpick at me for little to no reason.
|
On November 04 2012 02:08 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:56 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 01:40 sylverfyre wrote:
You're reading what you want to read.
Remember that I spent last game mostly obsing, and it was depressing watching town lose because of inactivity when 2 out of 3 scum had blatantly labelled scum. I said what I said because I don't WANT that to happen this game. And I don't think any of these 9 players will do that. Just because "oh, I'm the most active" doesn't mean you're the only one contributing.
I am expecting a better game this time, and predicting that we aren't going to need to enact a policy lynch on lurking, or have town suffer from excessive lurking. Why are you trying to read more into what I said anyway?
Maybe I said townies because I am scum. Maybe I said townies because I'm town. You can't read into it - it's just a dumb WIFOM loop.
Or maybe, I'm just talking about the whole friggin game and you're reading WAY TOO MUCH into arbitrary word choice.
(technically, even scum are "part of the town" when it comes to posting voting and lynching) I reiterate: Your vote is both OMGUS and backed up by arbitrary "scum tells".
Also it's interesting that you're defending your own "make them post with pressure" while OMGUS voting me. You know your OMGUS vote is doing here? Nothing. It's just keeping my pressure on you, because they remove any reason.
(Press F5 to check thread again)
I liked "Confidence" a whole hell of a lot better than "Useless." Useless reeks of hostility. Last game literally has nothing to do with voting me for "fluff" when I do have content. You weren't active. You hadn't posted anything. That's no content up to the point you vote for me in my view. The "townies showing dedication" comment is not WIFOM at all. WIFOM is whether a scum would make a certain action (nks for example) The townies comment is about you contradicting what you said You either thought or know that the actives are townies, based on your word choice. You vote one of the actives Yeah I have my vote on you because I find your inital post pretty scummy. I'm keeping my vote on you because I want to pressure you back. OMGUS? Sure. Warranted if I find you scummy? Hell yes. And about useless. It reeks of "hostility". Does it reek of scumminess? If not, your just trying to cast suspicion on me for bullshit reasons I come to thread. I see it has exploded by like 10 pages. Then when I more closely examine those 10 pages, I see a lot of fluff. I was disappointed, and I expressed as much. I was calling out the actives for posting a lot of garbage. It isn't condusive to scumhunting to post "LOL" as the entire content of a post. It fills up filters and threads with emptyness. Hostility breeds a bad environment for town be free to speak their minds, a bad environment for scumhunting. I'm not saying you're scum by saying you're hostile, but I'm saying hostility isn't going to help town. Case in point: Nack was being pretty hostile. In the end, he had the right reads, but had a very hard time convincing people of them because he was so hostile. Bad for town.
I duly apologize for some of my one liners last night, I just couldn't stop laughing at Djo's accusation hence the LOL. And yeah, I agree that most of the fluff wasn't really doing much. In terms of hostility = anti-town, I would say so at this level. Look at people like Kush who are genuinely hostile regardless of alignment, and get lynched/shot right away.
|
On November 04 2012 02:11 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:55 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 04 2012 01:47 Djodref wrote:On November 04 2012 01:33 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 01:20 Djodref wrote:
@ sylverfire
I don't know debears alignment. I'm already saying it in the post where I vote against you.
I think town players should not use their vote to cast suspicion upon someone. Town players should build cases to convince everybody to lynch the player they find the most suspicious.
You have the right to be suspicious of debears. But I think you have to bring better reasons to persuade us to do so. If you think that casting suspicion upon him is enough and expect other players to build a case against debears for you, then I would say that you are mafia.
Why did you use the word townies instead of players ?
So, you say that town players shouldn't vote as a pressure move / attract suspicion to someone? You used your vote last game on Inig as vote pressure: On October 26 2012 09:16 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:34 Inigmaticalism wrote:
Right now I dont have any scum reads, only town reads which Ive already said in earlier posts. So I would lynch one of the lurkers probably. Also, Djo you seem to be the only one really going after me, so while your asking everyone what they think of me, you should answer your own question. what you you think of me?
-Should be back to post something in around 6-7 hours. I have already my eyes on you and I think that your posts lack content and scumhunting. You are my top scumread right now. Let's assume that the lurkers are going to get modkill today, who would you like to lynch ? Vote-pressuring you ## Vote Inig Same with Nack: On October 28 2012 22:44 Djodref wrote:
We still have no insight from Nackht at all. He has only said that he was sure that Kush was scum.
I'm not sure about Cheese anymore. I'm null on him right now. His case shows good scumhunting efforts, even if they go in the wrong direction. Him using a "djo attempt to discredit me" paragraph in his case is a towntell for me because it shows that he has natural sense of innocence (in opposition of the usual self-culpability). If he still believes I am scum after my answers to his case, I want him to look for my potential scumbuddies. No by association by the way because I am town and anyway you should wait for me to flip to start this kind of thing.
I want dandel to decide if I am scum or SK and bring consequent proofs to his case.
I'm very very wary of Nackht. He has given us nothing (expect him being sure that Kush was scum) so far and I don't understand why a town replacement would be retaining info like he does. The other thing speaking against him is that I don't have a strong scumread at the moment and it makes the probability for the lurkers to be mafia higher. So I hope that we have a modkill on Roco today.
I'm going to vote pressure him to make nackht talk. Keeping this vote on him until he gives us a complete assessment of what is going on here according to him. He promised it but he has just given us a "lol" so far.
##Vote nackhtjogger
You obviously believe in vote pressure to cast suspicion from a townie perspective. I have no problem with people using their vote to pressure people into talking or whatever reason they have if they state a reasonable explanation for a pressure vote. My problem with sylverfire post is that the initial reasons he gave for his vote were that debears filter was fluffy and that he cast a quick FoS on Alsn. Then he said that he also wanted to cast suspicion upon debears. He never said that he was using his vote as a pressure vote in the first place. The regrettable thing is that other people said this before he could defend himself. According to me, if you think that a player is suspicious enough to vote against him, you should persuade other players to vote for him, which sylverfire has failed to do imho. But I might not understand exactly the meaning of "cast suspicion", I see this expression as quite pejorative. - He never said anything about the FoS on Debears, I did. He just said that his reaction was odd to Alsn. - In you're post about Inig, your explanation was "lack of content / scumhunting" ---> hardly a reason. Especially to have other people vote for him. Same with Nack, nobody else voted for him and you didn't persuade anyone else to do so. - In both instances, your prime goal was to cast suspicion. Get people interested in what Inig was doing, get people interested in what Nack was lurking about. Your logic is backward this game. @ CheeseFoS on debears ? Where did I say that ?
It's bolded. Sylver never said anything about the FoS on Alsn from Debears, but you seem to think he did.
|
On November 04 2012 02:22 Alsn wrote:
I'd say the latter half of your filter is mostly you defending yourself, which isn't fluff in the slightest. However off the top of my head I remember you addressing the fucking observers at one point, and sylver certainly wasn't wrong in saying that you've seemed almost deliberate in "splitting" your posts such that your thoughts are less condensed.
This was actually me, Alsn. t.t
|
Pre-game stuff is irrelevant, imo. It's waaaay to reminiscent of Rad going "Why didn't you say hi to cheesecake?" case. Pre-game banter = inconclusive, doesn't matter.
|
@Obzy
You say that Clarity and Rad are looking town. What makes you think this?
Also, I find it alarming that you dismiss my post concerning Djo's "vote pressure". He completely has a change of opinion from last game to this one. As town, he favored vote-pressure and used it to cast suspicion on people he found slightly scummy. This game, he abhors it. It's completely contradictory no matter how you look at it (we could aruge the intricacies of it all day, but it's still a reversal of opinion).
@Debears
Who is your biggest scumread at this point, and why?
@Rad
Debears aside, who do you think is acting the most suspicious? Do you think Sylver's opinion / vote on Debears is in any way scummy?
On a related note: You guys talking about fluff is producing more fluff than the fluff itself.
|
Oh, and @Da0ud
I have the inclination to agree with Clarity on your thought process. Your first post is a FoS on Djo that completely reiterates my point about him saying "I was re-reading the thread...". I'd like to see some more original thoughts from you.
|
@Djo
This pretty much sums up my case on your pressure voting.
On November 04 2012 05:24 Rad wrote:
2. You being against pressure voting when you pressure voted multiple times last game. Who cares if he didn't explicitly state that it was a pressure vote? It's a vote super early in the game and has very little chance of riding into the lynch, obviously it's a pressure vote.
Your defense basically states that suspicion votes and pressure votes are different, but they're basically the same thing. If you're suspicious of someone, you vote to pressure them. You did this at least twice last game, are advocating against it this game, and condemning Sylver for having no case. You may say the situation isn't the same etc. etc but it pretty much is.
Also, the reference to the FoS against Alsn isn't explicitly stated, it's implied and I get that.
|
On November 04 2012 05:40 Djodref wrote:
@ Rad
1My main goal with the sudden FoS on Cheese was to spark some discussion. I said it was confusing but it was more a pretext. The truth is that I didn't like it. Using sarcasm was not a brillaint idea but agin, I wanted to show that I was trying to spark discussion.
2.It's very important to state your reasons for your vote. Sylverfire failed to explain what he wanted from debears with his vote so I didn t see it as a pressurr vote. It turned out that it was more like a super FoS. I'm not against pressure voting but you have to state clearly what is your goal with it. Voting for casting suspicion upon someone sounds like voting for voting in my opinion.
3. It was me indeed but I don t think we need the policy for this game. The activity level is high and you can vote for anyone if you have a problem. It works better this way I think.
Hmm...
@Rad
What do you think about that underlined portion right there?
|
On November 04 2012 05:53 Djodref wrote:
Could you please stop nit-picking my posts ?
It should be clear right now that my goal was to try to spark some discussion. If you find my FoS suspicious, please tell me me what is the mafia motivayion behind it.
Your motivation behind it? To try to show that you were sparking discussion.
|
@Rad
It's alright, Clarity already picked up on it xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
