|
On March 26 2013 10:34 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 10:16 Acrofales wrote:On March 26 2013 08:09 Hapahauli wrote:On March 26 2013 08:05 ObviousOne wrote:
Hi guys! I'm ObviousOne!
Since some of us are strangers I think we should get to know one another a little better.
Let's introduce ourselves to each other! List three things, only let two of them true!
1. I have a list of my games in my profile.
2. I have played newbie games on TL.
3. I have read my role PM. 1) I policy lynch people who don't read their role PM because it's incredibly anti-town. 2) My name is Hapa. 3) I am a pink unicorn. ##Vote ObviousOne Wait. This is something I do NOT understand. Why is not reading your role PM anti-town? It is stupid. Yes. But: If town, you are, at worst, missing out on a blue role. Given that town should never rely on blue roles (they are helpful, but what should win the game for town is the lynch) and assuming you play as a townie, if you haven't read your role PM, you are still contributing your most important contribution to town. If scum, you are not town. Therefore, if you are playing like a townie, you are (potentially) playing against your own wincon. That is fucking fantastic for town. The downside, of course, is that you are not playing like scum, and it is therefore hard for townies to find you. But a D1 policy lynch sounds pretty stupid. If 3P, you are not town, so if you are playing like a townie, that is great for town, and possibly not so great for you (depending on wincon) Therefore, if Hapa BELIEVES OO is not reading his role PM, then he should NOT be trying to lynch him. The reason for wanting to lynch someone who claims not to have read his role PM, is because you don't believe him (and the only reason to lie about not having read your role PM is because you're scum trying to spread chaotic misinformation). Hapa should know this. Hapa, explain why you are policy voting OO? Sure it is. It means that you can post without being held accountable for anything that you post. It provides a ton of misleading information and promotes people trolling for the hell of it. I've had to deal with this in the last few games I've played and quite frankly I'm sick of it.
With the rather serious risk of bussing your teammates. If he trolls and does nothing useful, then we lynch him THEN. I see no reason to policy lynch. I will DEFINITELY hold him accountable for everything he posts.
|
Hello thread.
I have concluded that Grackaroni is scum. Please lynch him.
##Vote Grackaroni
|
|
|
On March 26 2013 10:41 cDgCorazon wrote:My comment about the meta reads was directed at this post: + Show Spoiler +On March 26 2013 09:42 Acrofales wrote:
Lets put it this way: the only people with any reason to lie about not having read their role PM are scum. However, given my experiences, the 2 previous times I encountered this phenomenon, the player had in fact not read his role PM. Once was Drazerk, so good luck figuring out his motives. And the other was Ver in Personality 2, who was trying some new and improved way of playing, which failed miserably due to time constraints.
In both cases, lynching them would have been equivalent to a random lynch. I don't feel like random lynching, so lets find scum instead and IGNORE OO until he starts playing the damn game like a normal player.
I don't think ANYTHING that has happened so far says anything about anybody's alignment... except Marv, whose very existence proves he's scum. I've been saying the whole time that the whole thing about OO was silly. It was relevant when I said it, and it was relevant when I read a few more posts and saw people still talking about it. I'm trying to get people to actually take this seriously. Unlike Rayn, who made a joke vote but called it serious and has gone on to attack 3 separate people and back down when they decide to actually put up a fight against Rayn. It's timid scummy play. @Rayn: Who is the scummiest player here so far and why?
But there WAS NO META THERE. I never once said OO is town because he did that, or scum. I just gave previous examples of people doing that and not lying about it, and therefore it should be ignored until OO starts playing the damn game. I said: I choose to believe OO this time, and will therefore ignore everything he says until I can make a read on him, taking into account that he may, in fact, not have read his role PM.
However, if you BELIEVE OO is lying about not having read his role PM; you should really be in favour of lynching him. The ONLY reason to LIE about this, is because he's scum. There is no townie reason to lie and say you have not read your role PM. Your weird stance on the matter is setting all number of alarmbells off.
|
On March 26 2013 10:54 Keirathi wrote:
##Vote: Palmar
Explain.
|
On March 26 2013 10:53 Palmar wrote:
Hello thread.
I have concluded that Grackaroni is scum. Please lynch him.
##Vote Grackaroni
Any reason in particular?
|
On March 26 2013 10:56 Dandel Ion wrote:Explain.
What is there to explain? He randomly voted for someone for no reason, so I did too.
|
On March 26 2013 10:53 Palmar wrote:
Hello thread.
I have concluded that Grackaroni is scum. Please lynch him.
##Vote Grackaroni
I don't believe you.
##vote Palmar
|
On March 26 2013 10:56 Grackaroni wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 10:53 Palmar wrote:
Hello thread.
I have concluded that Grackaroni is scum. Please lynch him.
##Vote Grackaroni Any reason in particular?
Yeah you have a funny hat and you're scum.
|
On March 26 2013 10:58 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 10:56 Dandel Ion wrote:On March 26 2013 10:54 Keirathi wrote:
##Vote: Palmar Explain. What is there to explain? He randomly voted for someone for no reason, so I did too.
okay
let's form a line.
|
On March 26 2013 10:58 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 10:56 Dandel Ion wrote:On March 26 2013 10:54 Keirathi wrote:
##Vote: Palmar Explain. What is there to explain? He randomly voted for someone for no reason, so I did too.
No you didn't, in fact this sentence cannot possibly be true, since the latter part "so I did too" implies that you voted based on my vote, and thus you have a reason, which contradicts your first sentence that claims there is no reason to either vote.
|
On March 26 2013 10:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 10:53 Palmar wrote:
Hello thread.
I have concluded that Grackaroni is scum. Please lynch him.
##Vote Grackaroni I don't believe you. ##vote Palmar
I cancel my fusion dance.
|
Palmar clearly modconfirmed town, dunno what you guys doing.
|
On March 26 2013 10:53 Palmar wrote:
Hello thread.
I have concluded that Grackaroni is scum. Please lynch him.
##Vote Grackaroni
Was going to do the whole "rabble rabble explain vote pl0x" but I rather agree with this looking at Grack's filter thusfar.
He has 3 posts up until now...
On March 26 2013 09:14 Grackaroni wrote:
What scum motivations are there to claim that you haven't read your role PM? That makes no sense to me.
On March 26 2013 09:31 Grackaroni wrote:
Well I don't like Sinani including it in his reasoning for OO's question being scummy. he's using the fact that OO didn't read his role PM (which should be a null tell) to say that he thinks OO is scum.
On March 26 2013 10:34 Grackaroni wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 10:29 raynpelikoneet wrote:
And given that you don't (at least you should not) know prplhz's alignment how exactly is it not beneficial to see how he reacts to the case first? The case is so weak that there wouldn't be any reaction worth watching. if it were me I would probably just ignore it.
... all of which seem like idle statements rather than anything substantive. He kinda jumps into a conversation between other players, makes a random comment, then stops.
Quote 1) Idle comment on how something "makes no sense." No conclusions drawn.
Quote 2) "Doesn't like Sinani" with no mention of his feelings of Sinani's allignment. More of a criticism than a read.
Quote 3) Says a case is weak, and that he (as prplhz) would ignore it.
A lot of pointless, objective-less comments.
##Unvote
##Vote Grakaroni
|
Okay let's play a game. There's one main reason why I think Grackaroni is scum, his filter is very short. Whoever can figure out why I think he's scum gets to be my second in command.
|
[QUOTE]On March 26 2013 10:41 cDgCorazon wrote:
My comment about the meta reads was directed at this post:
[spoiler]
[QUOTE]On March 26 2013 09:42 Acrofales wrote:
@Rayn: Who is the scummiest player here so far and why?
[/QUOTE]
I can't tell. Or i could but it wouldn't be my actual thoughts because my head does not work very well and i need to sleep.
I try again tomorrow.
|
On March 26 2013 11:00 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 10:58 Keirathi wrote:On March 26 2013 10:56 Dandel Ion wrote:On March 26 2013 10:54 Keirathi wrote:
##Vote: Palmar Explain. What is there to explain? He randomly voted for someone for no reason, so I did too. No you didn't, in fact this sentence cannot possibly be true, since the latter part "so I did too" implies that you voted based on my vote, and thus you have a reason, which contradicts your first sentence that claims there is no reason to either vote.
Touche.
|
EBWOP:
On March 26 2013 10:41 cDgCorazon wrote:
@Rayn: Who is the scummiest player here so far and why?
I can't tell. Or i could but it wouldn't be my actual thoughts because my head does not work very well and i need to sleep.
I try again tomorrow.
|
On March 26 2013 11:00 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 10:58 Keirathi wrote:On March 26 2013 10:56 Dandel Ion wrote:On March 26 2013 10:54 Keirathi wrote:
##Vote: Palmar Explain. What is there to explain? He randomly voted for someone for no reason, so I did too. No you didn't, in fact this sentence cannot possibly be true, since the latter part "so I did too" implies that you voted based on my vote, and thus you have a reason, which contradicts your first sentence that claims there is no reason to either vote.
While true, it is an entirely pointless post to make, just as everything you have done so far, including your initial ninja-vote on the flavour-of-the-day.
|
pro-tip: hapa was close but no sugar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
