EPTOn April 12 2013 03:33 Smancer wrote:
Warent gets a couple votes then these guys hop on? There is too much to risk today for a mislynch and they just post 2 lines and hop on bored.
I didn't just jump on him. I've thought he was scum for a while now.Warent gets a couple votes then these guys hop on? There is too much to risk today for a mislynch and they just post 2 lines and hop on bored.
My original case against Warrent:
On April 09 2013 22:02 JarJarDrinks wrote:
Warent looks pretty bad to me too. On day 1 he tries to twist rainbows words and (mafia 101) makes a big deal out nothing:
Warent looks pretty bad to me too. On day 1 he tries to twist rainbows words and (mafia 101) makes a big deal out nothing:
Show nested quote +
Man is he harping on that one post that rainbows made. And what better way to try to solidify that case? Kill Saraf and have him flip green.On April 06 2013 02:15 Warent wrote:
He did. And you are trying to make Even if you are into probably are. These are two very different statements. What reasons do you have for twisting the meaning like that, unless you are trying to promote a miss-lynch?
On April 06 2013 01:49 Rainbows wrote:
You were summing up the thread because I was the only one doing things.
Saraf literally said: EVEN IF YOU'RE TOWN YOU SHOULD BE LYNCHED. Your defence is lawlzy, please try harder.
On April 06 2013 01:24 Warent wrote:
I was not providing a summary of events in the thread - I was summing up your actions. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough, no worries, hopefully this will make things more clear.
##Vote Rainbow
As far as policies goes, this is my opinion: we should not lynch people based on whims, misinterpretations or lies.
Rainbows third, so called, case against Saraf is completely based on either an obvious misinterpretation or a lie.
Saraf:
Rainbow:
Rainbow:
Saraf has never called Rainbow town. Even if does NOT equal probably town! Rainbow must know this.
I don't think this is a misinterpretation, I think this is Rainbow trying to create something out of nothing. Most likely reason the obvious one - he is scum. And he's not helping himself when he refuses to explain his own action but rather continue to accuse others.
A bunch of generic pro-town things being advocated. He provides a (bad) summary of events in the thread and... that's it.
I was not providing a summary of events in the thread - I was summing up your actions. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough, no worries, hopefully this will make things more clear.
##Vote Rainbow
As far as policies goes, this is my opinion: we should not lynch people based on whims, misinterpretations or lies.
Rainbows third, so called, case against Saraf is completely based on either an obvious misinterpretation or a lie.
Saraf:
even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie (who should have applied the litmus test "does this post help town?")
Rainbow:
I think we should all rally around lynching Saraf, because he called me town and expressed interest in lynching someone he called probably town.
Rainbow:
Saraf seems to know I'm town, because he refers to me as such and tells me how I should be playing.
Saraf has never called Rainbow town. Even if does NOT equal probably town! Rainbow must know this.
I don't think this is a misinterpretation, I think this is Rainbow trying to create something out of nothing. Most likely reason the obvious one - he is scum. And he's not helping himself when he refuses to explain his own action but rather continue to accuse others.
You were summing up the thread because I was the only one doing things.
Saraf literally said: EVEN IF YOU'RE TOWN YOU SHOULD BE LYNCHED. Your defence is lawlzy, please try harder.
He did. And you are trying to make Even if you are into probably are. These are two very different statements. What reasons do you have for twisting the meaning like that, unless you are trying to promote a miss-lynch?
On April 06 2013 08:23 Warent wrote:
I enter with a suspicion and I provided a case. As far as evidence go: I caught rainbow trying to to push towards a lynch based on a misinterpretation that has been pointed out to him several times - yet he argues that his interpretation is the correct one. Why are you ignoring what I wrote in that post?
Cute theory.
Need to sleep now.
On April 06 2013 08:01 Fishgle wrote:
jarjar needs to stop lurking and explain his vote. i also want to see TheRavensName, jampidampi, and Moloch post more so I can get better reads on them.
However, the more i look at Warent's entrance though, the scummier it looks. He gets mad at Rainbows for questioning him and then casts an emotional vote, despite not having any evidence. I think Rainbows was just throwing out votes to create discussion. Warent however, seems dead set on lynching rainbows, and argues semantics.
Now, there's an interesting back'n'forth between rainbow and warent. The most interesting thing about it is that while rainbows is defending his vote, warent instead is defending saraf. What I think happened is that rainbows blindfired, got a lucky hit on a skinny (saraf), and then warent came in to try to defend his skinny exercise buddy. It doesn't help that Saraf is so anti-"spam". Obzy has posted just as much as rainbows, and i don't see anyone complaining that he's "spamming". Discussion is useful. What are we supposed to do, chit chat about nothing while the skinnys kill us off? True, some of rainbow's posts have been less substantial than i would have liked, but he got some discussion going. I don't think that's anything to get lynched over.
jarjar needs to stop lurking and explain his vote. i also want to see TheRavensName, jampidampi, and Moloch post more so I can get better reads on them.
However, the more i look at Warent's entrance though, the scummier it looks. He gets mad at Rainbows for questioning him and then casts an emotional vote, despite not having any evidence. I think Rainbows was just throwing out votes to create discussion. Warent however, seems dead set on lynching rainbows, and argues semantics.
Now, there's an interesting back'n'forth between rainbow and warent. The most interesting thing about it is that while rainbows is defending his vote, warent instead is defending saraf. What I think happened is that rainbows blindfired, got a lucky hit on a skinny (saraf), and then warent came in to try to defend his skinny exercise buddy. It doesn't help that Saraf is so anti-"spam". Obzy has posted just as much as rainbows, and i don't see anyone complaining that he's "spamming". Discussion is useful. What are we supposed to do, chit chat about nothing while the skinnys kill us off? True, some of rainbow's posts have been less substantial than i would have liked, but he got some discussion going. I don't think that's anything to get lynched over.
I enter with a suspicion and I provided a case. As far as evidence go: I caught rainbow trying to to push towards a lynch based on a misinterpretation that has been pointed out to him several times - yet he argues that his interpretation is the correct one. Why are you ignoring what I wrote in that post?
Cute theory.
Need to sleep now.
On April 06 2013 17:00 Warent wrote:
Obzy,
Before we forget about this: My initial concern was not about his first post. It was the lie (?) in this post that caught my attention: + Show Spoiler +. A lie/misinterpretation you seem to be completely okey with? Even though you later point at the same post at Sarafs and say it yourself - it even wasn't about Rain + Show Spoiler +
Up until know you've been careful, but now you've decided TRN is a good lynch target - why? Any other reason than Meta stuff? You think Rains case against him is good, care to elaborate some?
Obzy,
Before we forget about this: My initial concern was not about his first post. It was the lie (?) in this post that caught my attention: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=8#148
Obzy: I don't know what to think of Raven. He hasn't really posted enough - only his last two posts have content I care about;
Why does he think Saraf called Rain an asshole and an idiot? "even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie" - how is that implying Rain, unless it's taken for granted that Rain is a spammy asshole? >_>;;; Also, how did Rain interpret it to be calling him out? - -; w/e. I would like to see Raven post more. Raven, are you implying that nobodywonder is town (haven't read him yet, will form an opinion momentarily) with this post?
Why does he think Saraf called Rain an asshole and an idiot? "even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie" - how is that implying Rain, unless it's taken for granted that Rain is a spammy asshole? >_>;;; Also, how did Rain interpret it to be calling him out? - -; w/e. I would like to see Raven post more. Raven, are you implying that nobodywonder is town (haven't read him yet, will form an opinion momentarily) with this post?
Up until know you've been careful, but now you've decided TRN is a good lynch target - why? Any other reason than Meta stuff? You think Rains case against him is good, care to elaborate some?
On April 06 2013 17:02 Warent wrote:
Clarification: the same post Rain was misinterpreting of Sarafs and you seem to interpret it like most others.
Clarification: the same post Rain was misinterpreting of Sarafs and you seem to interpret it like most others.
