EPTOn November 05 2013 20:36 marvellosity wrote:
He only said these things under significant pressure from me to explain his vote
Show nested quote +
On November 05 2013 20:35 Koshi wrote:
Isn't this kinda claiming that he won't leave his vote there? These are the 2 posts Seuss made right after voting Kush. Seuss is actually not pressuring shit. He just leaves vote there for a second.
On October 29 2013 10:04 Seuss wrote:
I have unshakeable faith in the lurker policy lynch.
I'm probably just biased because the lurkers in that game really made it a hair-pulling experience. Their presence was always looming in the background whenever I tried to make sense of anything, and it frustrated me (especially because it turned out they were all town, ugh). But you're right, there's a logical disconnect between "God lurkers are horrible and should all die" and "lurkers are scum and should be lynched".
On October 29 2013 09:56 marvellosity wrote:
Correct, and scum are liable to put some effort in, whereas usually players who do literally nothing (hello nyxnyxnyx) are the townies. Pretty surprised you're making this argument given how your game went actually. The scummers in your game actually put in effort, bad effort.
On October 29 2013 09:47 Seuss wrote:
There's a notable difference between OOCHILD and Clarity_nl, effort. It takes effort to make an argument, even a bad one. It takes zero effort to do nothing and/or post utter shit.
On October 29 2013 09:22 marvellosity wrote:
And yet you're convinced enough that OOCHILD would make himself blatantly voteable by doing absolutely nothing and posting shit? That's more convincing to you? Ok Wave.
On October 29 2013 09:16 WaveofShadow wrote:
So Clarity pushing an obviously bad case makes him scum?
I see the point you make regarding he should know he's bad and not push it, but I posit that it's entirely possible that, you know, he wouldn't be pushing a bad case in the first place if he was scum because it looks like shit and would cause these problems for himself.
I agreed with your 'yuck' I am not convinced it's bad-scum.
On October 29 2013 09:13 marvellosity wrote:
You, yourself, said "yuck" to Clarity's post, and since then, he just went to play dota and disappeared? Why aren't *you* convinced given what you've posted, or at least convinced enough to vote him over OOCHILD? That's really weak, WoS.
On October 29 2013 09:12 WaveofShadow wrote:
Too bad.
If you want me to lynch your target then you should be looking to convince me, no? I'm not convinced. Be back in a little while.
On October 29 2013 09:12 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
I literally could not have said anymore, and I think it's pretty dodgy you're saying this. Stop being bad please, it's giving me scumvibes.
[quote]
I literally could not have said anymore, and I think it's pretty dodgy you're saying this. Stop being bad please, it's giving me scumvibes.
Too bad.
If you want me to lynch your target then you should be looking to convince me, no? I'm not convinced. Be back in a little while.
You, yourself, said "yuck" to Clarity's post, and since then, he just went to play dota and disappeared? Why aren't *you* convinced given what you've posted, or at least convinced enough to vote him over OOCHILD? That's really weak, WoS.
So Clarity pushing an obviously bad case makes him scum?
I see the point you make regarding he should know he's bad and not push it, but I posit that it's entirely possible that, you know, he wouldn't be pushing a bad case in the first place if he was scum because it looks like shit and would cause these problems for himself.
I agreed with your 'yuck' I am not convinced it's bad-scum.
And yet you're convinced enough that OOCHILD would make himself blatantly voteable by doing absolutely nothing and posting shit? That's more convincing to you? Ok Wave.
There's a notable difference between OOCHILD and Clarity_nl, effort. It takes effort to make an argument, even a bad one. It takes zero effort to do nothing and/or post utter shit.
Correct, and scum are liable to put some effort in, whereas usually players who do literally nothing (hello nyxnyxnyx) are the townies. Pretty surprised you're making this argument given how your game went actually. The scummers in your game actually put in effort, bad effort.
I have unshakeable faith in the lurker policy lynch.
I'm probably just biased because the lurkers in that game really made it a hair-pulling experience. Their presence was always looming in the background whenever I tried to make sense of anything, and it frustrated me (especially because it turned out they were all town, ugh). But you're right, there's a logical disconnect between "God lurkers are horrible and should all die" and "lurkers are scum and should be lynched".
On October 29 2013 10:21 Seuss wrote:
Yeah. I honestly don't find OOHCHILD scummy or worth a lynch, but I voted for him and didn't say that aloud because I was hoping he'd feel pressure and post.
On October 29 2013 10:07 marvellosity wrote:
As long as we're clear, Seuss, that you're policy lynching and not actually aiming for mafia.
As long as we're clear, Seuss, that you're policy lynching and not actually aiming for mafia.
Yeah. I honestly don't find OOHCHILD scummy or worth a lynch, but I voted for him and didn't say that aloud because I was hoping he'd feel pressure and post.
Isn't this kinda claiming that he won't leave his vote there? These are the 2 posts Seuss made right after voting Kush. Seuss is actually not pressuring shit. He just leaves vote there for a second.
He only said these things under significant pressure from me to explain his vote
Yes, and do you see how he is already making sure you don't pressure him more when he removes his vote? He is already giving reasons to move off Kush.
