|
On February 12 2013 11:40 Mocsta wrote:
"he has only been here 24hrs, so i dont have an opinion" - yet he wants to hunt Sylencia?!?!?
*back to active lurking*
a) I literally didn't say "I don't have an opinion", I said "I don't have strong opinions right now". [b]Why are you lying about what I said, Mocsta? And you are [b]lying, the proof is right here, just click the link 
b) I don't have a strong opinion that someone who is a currently active poster is scum, enough to want to lynch them D1. It's that simple. Someone with 2 or 3 crappy posts is scummier to me than the current active posters. Except maybe you, because you lie.
|
if you dont have a strong opinion; as far as I am concerned, that is the same as having no opinion
Im not sure why you are calling this out as a lie? seems pretty desperate to me.
|
Hey guys I'm back sorry I have not been super active today its my only day off of the week.
catching up on the thread will be able to post opinions shorty.
|
No, they are not the same. I am forming opinions, which will later become strong opinions as the game develops. You read my post, and then claimed I said something different. Therefore you lied about what I said.
I'm only saying you lied, not that you're scum. I think you're probably just impulsive, you simply have confirmation bias for me, so you twisted my words in your own mind, which isn't necessarily scummy (potentially just suboptimal town play).
|
On February 12 2013 12:38 warbaby wrote:
No, they are not the same. I am forming opinions, which will later become strong opinions as the game develops. You read my post, and then claimed I said something different. Therefore you lied about what I said.
I'm only saying you lied, not that you're scum. I think you're probably just impulsive, you simply have confirmation bias for me, so you twisted my words in your own mind, which isn't necessarily scummy (potentially just suboptimal town play).
This is an argument about matter of perspective, I dont think either is objectively wrong so bin it pls.
If you want my perspective it is as I said.
If you dont have an opinion you can share; then there is no opinion.
Saying you are forming means nothing; that is something we all are doing with every post we read.
In my head, i did no lie OR misrepresent your post.
|
On February 12 2013 12:23 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 12:17 warbaby wrote:
9bit and macheji have 0 posts and will be replaced. No point lynching them OK. I will just say this: I think that is a silly reason; ppl present these arguments all the time, and its very rare they do just drop out. Look at Acid in NMM XXXV; had 0 posts, people present the modkill argument, and then he came in with a bang. If your going to push lurkers; push them all please; otherwise I want genuine reasons why you are giving preferential treatment.
Yeah, but acid came in with a bang and was very helpful to town (ending up championing your lynch which ended up winning the game I think). And cakepie who replaced in last time was very helpful as well.
My point is (and I've made it many times), There are people worth LESS to town than a random as-yet unknown replacement may be.
|
OK Mocsta, that's fair.
Sevryn is back, rejoice! Hopefully he makes some decent posts and helps to narrow down the legitimate lurker pressure to sylencia.
I'm really tired after a long day of work. I'll review the thread and post my opinions on whether I think any of the active players really seem scummy to me, but I still maintain that if there are lurkers to lynch, we would be safer lynching a lurker than an active player on D1.
|
Warbaby you still haven't addressed my concerns from last page.
I'm pretty sure that this would come a long way in changing Mocsta's opinion of you, but the longer you go without addressing this, the harder it is for me to deny that maybe Mocsta is right.
On other news, geript's last post was a thorough defense of himself from Mocsta's assault, yet he has said nothing more regarding his vote on me. The last things he pointed out regarding me were weak affirmations of everything zarepath already pointed out, and his only original point was
His last post is more of the same. While I still don't like Mocsta so far, your case is better and his last post nails it in for me. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far.
In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it.
Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis. ##change vote waveofshadow
I've already made my choice to put pressure on the no-post lurker I have chosen. Would you rather I flip-flop voting in the span of an hour like you just because someone brought up a superior case and you can hide behind it? I have done plenty of analysis since then
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 08:58 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:46 glurio wrote:Let's take a look at sn0, shall we? He has a total of 26 posts since the game started. I'll now spoiler all posts with actual content that isn't discussing the english language or talking about lurkers. (Why i don't count these i'll explain later). + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:19 Sn0_Man wrote:
Warbaby looks scummy, but I don't see how you lynch somebody this active day 1. FWIW he looked something like this last game (although he was doing a lot more "scumhunting" and a lot less "plz don't lynch me I townie for sure")
For what it's worth mocsta I think that you too are looking kinda similar to the last game I played with you (minus a key difference in a post a while back about lynching lurkers and scum vs bad town). And we know what that entails.
What I really want are introductory posts from our remaining players 9-bit, severyn and macheji. Well, that and for warbaby to lose his victim card somewhere so that he stops playing it. On February 12 2013 01:55 Sn0_Man wrote:
Personally, I think geript is getting a bit of a free ride with a bunch of low-content posts designed to look "active" without really helping town or pushing much of an agenda. Long post to follow once I finish it (be warned). On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote:My review of geript: At the start of the game (utterly disregarding pre-game), geript leads with some lighthearted banter-style posts, pretty much continuing the pre-game: + Show Spoiler [Fluff Posts] +On February 11 2013 09:38 geript wrote:
/confirm
/this time for realz
Both geript and warbaby are self admitted to be terrible. In the interest in addition through subtraction, I suggest people make an argument as to which is better to keep.
##vote warbaby On February 11 2013 09:47 geript wrote:
@Warbaby, did Mr. Bimble tell you to post that? That out of the way, geript proceeds with some "content" posts. These are short posts that seem primarily aimed at, well, establishing a non-fluff presence in town. They seem pretty null to me. + Show Spoiler [warning: this one is decently large] +On February 11 2013 09:51 geript wrote:
Mocsta: four people one way or another have responded in the negatory to RNG vote. That in the least is enough to negate the usefulness of RNG vote. Please cease your discussion of RNG as it is more likely to be a waste of time (both posting and rereading) at this point. On February 11 2013 09:58 geript wrote:
@Cora can we please keep the tone constructive. Turning people directly towards an emotional response is worthless right now.
@Mcosta please reread my post. I did not say it was a majority at all, just that it was enough to negate any perceived value of RNG. On February 11 2013 10:29 geript wrote:
My point was thus: should everyone else adhere to RNG, 4 votes represents a voting majority in most cases. This it is better to ignore RNG as the benefits it has/may have (dependent on viewpoint) are negated by an outside majority. /done with talking about RNG. On February 11 2013 12:00 geript wrote:
@Sn0_man. If the English discussion/correction was irrelevant, why post it? On February 11 2013 12:30 geript wrote:
I find it to be a rhetorical question in that things irrelevant to the game aren't worth discussing.
My WB vote is just an opening I wanted to try out that got outpaced by RNG. I for one am fine with addition by subtraction as a policy as I feel it is the basis for both the Lynch All Lurkers policy--in that lurkers add little to nothing-- and is the basis of scum hunting--in that they tend to actively try to detract from discussion through inaction, burying and misdirection. On February 11 2013 12:46 geript wrote:
I mean that the general concept of it: make the town better by removing the person(s) with the least qualitative additions. We are either removing detractors (thus net gain) or removing scum (actual gain).
## change vote unvote On February 11 2013 13:22 geript wrote:
I would argue that removing room to hide is important as it forces scum to constantly be better than the guy in last place. If scum can in fact beat the curve so to speak, then it's the bottom end's fault for not making their role/side clear. I wouldn't blame to top end for voting out scummiest/least town-like in that case. I would argue least qualitative = least town-like; note that's qualitative not quantitative. Bare minimum does not automatically equal least qualitative. Having established his interest in "Addition by Subtraction" (a legitimate idea, though poorly explained), he moves on to his one big post (also his first post today). + Show Spoiler [Geript's big post] +On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker. A few things to highlight in the post above: 1) A town read on warbaby. While he gives OK reasons for a null read, I didn't really see any justification for "I do think warbaby is town". 2) A target that is distinctly not "addition by subtraction" based. Mocsta isn't a low-content poster. Sure most of his posts are bleh but at least he is making them. 3) Most of geript's points are based on ad-hominem attacks on mocsta and his style rather than on his play and contributions. I mean, I don't like Mocsta or his style either, but I think this game he has begun making real contributions to town. Rather than outline stuff that is scummy, geript is focusing on more peripheral stuff. Basically, I thought that yesterday, geript said a bunch of nothing while trying to look active, then today he made a big bullshit case trying to look like he was contributing. Not really clear scum, but not enough good things to deserve the easy ride he has had. I'm not voting him because I don't see the value in voting 30+ hours pre-deadline, and I thing "FoS"s are retarded, but I will say that geript has my attention. PS: geript's entire filter is in there minus his most recent fluff post. just btw. On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. Thats a total of 5 out of 26 If you include the one liner #2. Now let's look at some of his posts. Heres one quoted for your convenience. + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). I bolded the odd part. Why wouldn't scum tell the town what exactly they should be looking for and just avoid exactly these things? Since Sn0 spotted the seemingly non-scum-motivated theory how come he thinks he wouldn't have spotted the much more deceptive scum-motivated theory? On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. So I would up my game if i roll scum again, but i'm not so i'm a scummy lurker? What? That doesn't even make sense. If I up my game now am i scum? If i won't i'm a scummy lurker? WIFOM Now let's get to all the lurker posts, i won't quote them all, just read the filter it's most of his posts. It's the easiest thing in the world to point to lurker. Be it the no-post lurker or the few-post lurker which, according to sn0, are actually worse then the no-post lurker. Everyone can do it. I can just look into the thread every hour, post something about the guy with the lowest post count, tell everyone he only has X posts. After that i start pointing out the other lurkers, because hey don't forget about them. And then theres always the thing about recent games where at some point of the game one of the scum players lurked. If you really want me to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but i try to actually contribute something with my posts. Not bury my filter in useless posts about lurkers. Honestly glurio, I don't think your case really holds water, I appreciate the analysis though. You talk about how it's the easiest think in the world to point to a low or no-post lurker but you make a case about how only 5 of Sn0's posts are useful? Wouldn't that make him an active lurker? Then you accuse him of WIFOM, and frankly I'm ready to just ignore all WIFOM cases brought up because it really gets us nowhere. More likely in this case to be a factor of bad town than scum (see my case as example). It looks as though his WIFOM was on accident and was really just looking for a way to paint you as scummy. This is null. As for his lurker posts, maybe I'm biased because I agree with him somewhat, but I don't see how bringing up points about low post count lurkers is not contributing. If anything massive wall-of-text posts drawing attention away from important targets and baseless accusations are more likely to be distractions since they are more difficult to follow and require much more analysis. In short, I don't see anything overly scummy about Sn0's play so far, though I appreciate the effort. As this to me seems like a pretty weak case (didn't detect TOO much OMGUS but I guess it's a possibility?) I expect more from you, and preferably something a little more valuable. With your claims that posting about lurkers are useless, will you be lynching an active poster today?
+ Show Spoiler + On February 12 2013 11:18 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 11:05 warbaby wrote:
Reasons I think sylencia is "scummy": his posts are minimal and blendy. But he has more than zero posts, so it could be possible to say we're lynching him as a lurker. There is still 50% of D1 left, so I want to see what more he posts. Sevryn and (less so) Mandalor are in the same category right now, IMO.
All these accusations of active players being scum around aren't completely bad, but none of them are really making sense to me right now in D1. Problem with this is, warbaby, is you're really just echoing exactly what I and other members have been saying for hours already. You have contributed nothing new to the thread and upon viewing your filter, you jump on whatever bandwagon seems best to you at the time. Zarepath makes a case on me? FoS. (Then you go on to talk about 'false dichotomies' and I don't even know what you were talking about. You either think I'm suspicious or you don't.) LA comes up? Vote 9-bit. Except of course you contradict yourself right after: Show nested quote +You're right, we shouldn't consolidate LAL votes until much closer to the deadline. But what is even the point of putting 1 vote on each lurker? It's not going to make them feel much pressure if there's (at that time) no chance of them actually being lynched.
Anyway, you are right that we shouldn't consolidate now. I didn't think of that -- I'm trying to get work done today and I'm not paying 100% attention to the game right now (I work Mon-Fri 9-5 EST). I want to see a case from you; at the very least something more concrete then following everything everyone else has already laid the groundwork for. Be your own man! Note that I'm pressuring you because I want to see something positive come out of you; I'm inclined to agree with Mocsta's analysis of bad town. Stop focusing on defending yourself because you only make yourself look worse.
so I'm interested to see if you still find me inherently scummy and why.
|
EBWOP: I'm really tired, so after that I'm gonna try to go to bed.
|
Warbaby, ever since I've made the original case against you, you have done nothing to refute my arguments, and have continued most of the behaviors I called you out for (except for playing the victim from XXXVI).
When Mocsta pressures you, you ask him to drop it and stop pressuring you.
When the request is granted, you drop out of sight trying to hide behind pressuring others.
You sheep onto every single idea that more than one person agrees with.
You randomly decide that we should vote Sylencia instead of the 5-6 other people who are exhibiting the same behavior without justifying why we need to vote out Sylencia in particular.
You're playing without a purpose. You're not interested in who we lynch, as long as it isn't you. You're trying to keep the attention off of you and hide in the shadows while we sit around and mull who to lynch. You haven't contributed anything ORIGINAL to this town, and it's not looking good for you now.
|
On February 12 2013 12:52 cDgCorazon wrote:
Warbaby, ever since I've made the original case against you, you have done nothing to refute my arguments, and have continued most of the behaviors I called you out for (except for playing the victim from XXXVI).
When Mocsta pressures you, you ask him to drop it and stop pressuring you.
When the request is granted, you drop out of sight trying to hide behind pressuring others.
You sheep onto every single idea that more than one person agrees with.
You randomly decide that we should vote Sylencia instead of the 5-6 other people who are exhibiting the same behavior without justifying why we need to vote out Sylencia in particular.
You're playing without a purpose. You're not interested in who we lynch, as long as it isn't you. You're trying to keep the attention off of you and hide in the shadows while we sit around and mull who to lynch. You haven't contributed anything ORIGINAL to this town, and it's not looking good for you now.
When did I ever ask Mocsta to stop pressuring me? I've suggested he could post less because he's spamming the thread, but I've never once suggested what the content of his posts should be. I can't address your other criticisms because they're bullshit, and I don't know how to logically explain this, because I don't speak bullshit-ese. I explained multiple times, in the pre-game, that I would be more IRL busy this game, and not posting every 20 minutes 18 hours a day like I did last game.
My justification for pressuring sylencia is because his contributions are very minimal, which classes him as a lurker. How many times do I have to tell you I don't want to lynch an active player D1 (barring major scumslips, which there have been none of) when there are still lurkers around?
Anyway, I'll review the thread and see if I find anything scummy (other than lurkers) that hasn't been brought up yet. Either way I'm going to bed after that.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). I bolded the odd part. Why wouldn't scum tell the town what exactly they should be looking for and just avoid exactly these things? Since Sn0 spotted the seemingly non-scum-motivated theory how come he thinks he wouldn't have spotted the much more deceptive scum-motivated theory? this is straight up WIFOM which as i think we established earlier helps scum more and is distracting to townShow nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. So I would up my game if i roll scum again, but i'm not so i'm a scummy lurker? What? That doesn't even make sense. If I up my game now am i scum? If i won't i'm a scummy lurker? WIFOM and now your against WIFOM after pointing it out earlier?Now let's get to all the lurker posts, i won't quote them all, just read the filter it's most of his posts. It's the easiest thing in the world to point to lurker. Be it the no-post lurker or the few-post lurker which, according to sn0, are actually worse then the no-post lurker. Everyone can do it. I can just look into the thread every hour, post something about the guy with the lowest post count, tell everyone he only has X posts. After that i start pointing out the other lurkers, because hey don't forget about them. And then theres always the thing about recent games where at some point of the game one of the scum players lurked. If you really want me to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but i try to actually contribute something with my posts. Not bury my filter in useless posts about lurkers. what does this actually say? im not active lurker so im not scum? I feel like your defense here is also WIFOM because you could obviously use that defense to justify real lurking.
so from your case I'm getting a theme of you not saying anything substantial other than counting his posts which is scum behavior
##FOS Glurio
|
On February 12 2013 12:23 warbaby wrote:
Someone with 2 or 3 crappy posts is scummier to me than the current active posters.
You can't seriously say that considering the posts I made were targetting you. You don't have an objective view when it comes to things regarding you and your attitude towards anyone who accuses you of anything is the worst.
I'm not going to argue against the quantity of posts or my lack of discussion so far but your attitude is pissing me off.
|
Also I would like to see some more posts from the inactive people specifically Mandalor who made one anti lurker post and also made a pretty bandwagony FOS on WoS while he has made a few posts they dont really say much or bring anything new to the table which is a great way for scum to appear helpful.
|
Well, I reviewed stuff, and I keep ending up typing up cases on why geript really doesn't look that scummy (he's consistent in his play, seems to be interested in keeping the discussion going instead of finding out who the most likely bandwagon is), or sn0_man doesn't look that scummy (he doesn't have a ton of posts, but they're fairly constructive when he's not being wrong about spelling xD), or Mocsta doesn't look that scummy (he's does seem to be honestly interested in scumhunting, and he's not trying to control town any more).
Sorry, but I just don't see how I can make a convincing, new case that anybody is scum right now, except the idea that a low-post lurker could be a scum (it's fairly common in newbie games). I'll try again tomorrow morning when I'm not so worn out from work. Hopefully the low-post-count lurkers will have posted some more by then, too.
On February 12 2013 13:03 Sylencia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 12:23 warbaby wrote:
Someone with 2 or 3 crappy posts is scummier to me than the current active posters. You can't seriously say that considering the posts I made were targetting you. You don't have an objective view when it comes to things regarding you and your attitude towards anyone who accuses you of anything is the worst. I'm not going to argue against the quantity of posts or my lack of discussion so far but your attitude is pissing me off.
Er, I don't recall saying you attacked me. I just said your posts so far were fairly minimal (maybe crappy wasn't a nice way to put it).
|
On February 12 2013 13:03 Sylencia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 12:23 warbaby wrote:
Someone with 2 or 3 crappy posts is scummier to me than the current active posters. You can't seriously say that considering the posts I made were targetting you. You don't have an objective view when it comes to things regarding you and your attitude towards anyone who accuses you of anything is the worst. I'm not going to argue against the quantity of posts or my lack of discussion so far but your attitude is pissing me off.
Wait....what?
Did I miss something?
Uh...welcome back Sylencia but wtf did that come from? When did he ever say you were targeting him??
Boy oh boy here I thought you posting might remove your aura of scumminess...
|
On February 12 2013 13:12 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 13:03 Sylencia wrote:On February 12 2013 12:23 warbaby wrote:
Someone with 2 or 3 crappy posts is scummier to me than the current active posters. You can't seriously say that considering the posts I made were targetting you. You don't have an objective view when it comes to things regarding you and your attitude towards anyone who accuses you of anything is the worst. I'm not going to argue against the quantity of posts or my lack of discussion so far but your attitude is pissing me off. Wait....what? Did I miss something? Uh...welcome back Sylencia but wtf did that come from? When did he ever say you were targeting him?? Boy oh boy here I thought you posting might remove your aura of scumminess...
Yeah, my thoughts exactly 
|
On February 12 2013 12:58 warbaby wrote:
When did I ever ask Mocsta to stop pressuring me? I've suggested he could post less because he's spamming the thread, but I've never once suggested what the content of his posts should be.
Oh really?
On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while?
Anyways...
I can't address your other criticisms because they're bullshit, and I don't know how to logically explain this, because I don't speak bullshit-ese. I explained multiple times, in the pre-game, that I would be more IRL busy this game, and not posting every 20 minutes 18 hours a day like I did last game.
First of all, don't say my arguments are BS. They aren't.
The problem is that you've only been active before you were attacked by me and Mocsta. After that, here's what you did:
Made a sarcastic comment to Mocsta
Agreed to LAL and voted for 9-Bit (when there are other lurkers out too)
Zare make a case on WoS: "Hey Zare, that's a good case, FoS!"
Repeated your same argument on Gloria
Made a list of lurkers (again)
Said we should vote out Sylencia for lurking
That amounts to a grand total of zero scum hunting and no original contributions to town. No one is expecting a post every 20 minutes, but we are expecting a higher quality of posts than yours right now.
My justification for pressuring sylencia is because his contributions are very minimal, which classes him as a lurker. How many times do I have to tell you I don't want to lynch an active player D1 (barring major scumslips, which there have been none of) when there are still lurkers around?
You literally could replace Sylencia's name with the names of 5 other people. I've hammered this point to death but you've said nothing about what makes him different from the other lurkers.
Please, give me your opinion on Geript. Tell me why you think he is town/scum/null.
|
My only posts have really been against warbaby - thought it was assumed <.<
|
EBWOP: Scratch the "give opinion on Geript" part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
