|
It makes too much sense.
WoS kill was senseless. The guy had Seuss as townread...
The best reason is that it is 9 vs 4 and scum would outnumber town in 2 misslynches because they have Seuss minus vote when it is 5 vs 4. But us lynching Seuss ruined that plan.
Pandain was killed for his reads. The guy had SnB/Kush/Seuss//Koshi as his reads early day 2!! That's crazy.
|
Why else was Pandain killed? I am pretty sure they figured out the CobraTank.
|
Well, if this is true I claim Town MVP.
|
ok ok ok
Such a party pooper. Tss
|
Damned. We really sucked with our blue roles. Like why would you doc me. We should have RB 2 of our 3 scumreads.
|
Come on, read Kush filter. He is blatantly pushing marv/prom as misslycnhes.
Kush is totes scum. SnB is totes scum.
Scum surrender and give me my Town MVP award.
|
What's so crazy about that?
|
It's not a sabotage. Somebody can't power us up and he can let the thread know it.
It's the worst power if you are town. Why would you ever use it???
|
|
|
Do you know what Kush power is? Kush can remove people their twitter power. This means that:
Pandain, WoS could not use their power.
A guy can't power up Koshi/Oats/marv/Prome.
But town blues would not be sabotaged because the guy that was targetted by Kush would got a message that he can't power up people.
|
It's 100% anti-town. Kush was just silly and told the entire thread.
|
Dude. marv. I am 100% Koshi guarantee on Kush.
|
Ah yes. Now I see. 0o
Ok cool. We cool. We cool.
|
|
|
On October 29 2013 10:04 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 09:56 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:47 Seuss wrote:On October 29 2013 09:22 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:16 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 29 2013 09:13 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:12 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 29 2013 09:12 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:11 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 29 2013 09:03 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
Are people not looking at who they're signed in as. If you're thinking enough to post "test" then you're thinking enough to look at who you're signed in as. I disagree, but like you said, inconsequential. Convince me that Clarity is scum, marv. 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:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
On October 29 2013 09:47 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 09:22 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:16 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 29 2013 09:13 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:12 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 29 2013 09:12 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:11 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 29 2013 09:03 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:02 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 29 2013 09:00 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
I'm sorry, I'm trying not to comment on too many inconsequential things, but this is ludicrous. If someone is capable of smurfing, then someone is capable of looking at the top left to see who they're signed in as rather than having to post "test". This is spectacularly dumb, Wave.
Really? Well I guess all of the smurfslips we've seen in past games are.....what exactly? Are people not looking at who they're signed in as. If you're thinking enough to post "test" then you're thinking enough to look at who you're signed in as. I disagree, but like you said, inconsequential. Convince me that Clarity is scum, marv. 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.
damn I forgot this one. This was the first post after his "pressure" on Kush.
He already starts saying Kush made more effort than Clarity.
|
On November 05 2013 20:36 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 20:35 Koshi wrote:On October 29 2013 10:04 Seuss wrote:On October 29 2013 09:56 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:47 Seuss wrote:On October 29 2013 09:22 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:16 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 29 2013 09:13 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:12 WaveofShadow wrote: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.
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: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. 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.
|
On November 05 2013 20:37 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 20:36 Koshi wrote:On October 29 2013 09:47 Seuss wrote:On October 29 2013 09:22 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:16 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 29 2013 09:13 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:12 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 29 2013 09:12 marvellosity wrote:On October 29 2013 09:11 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 29 2013 09:03 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
Are people not looking at who they're signed in as. If you're thinking enough to post "test" then you're thinking enough to look at who you're signed in as. I disagree, but like you said, inconsequential. Convince me that Clarity is scum, marv. 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. damn I forgot this one. This was the first post after his "pressure" on Kush. He already starts saying Kush made more effort than Clarity. no it's the other way round
Ah damned. You are ruining my tunnel.
|
Does rayn have the balls to send that nuke to Oats? Nothing was wrong for scum at that point.
|
Do you think that once the nuke is sent, rayn could delay it? Or is it before that you had to send the nuke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
3313
567
182
EPT
