White Flag Mafia

On October 31 2013 11:53 Asinine wrote:
Hello comrades. I will be doing an ASA (Ask Smurf Anything) today. It starts now. I cannot guarantee that I will answer any questions that seem to be fishing for my real TL account.

On November 01 2013 14:24 Grackaroni wrote:
I've seen town Oats. Town Oats would be arguing with me in all caps right now.

On November 01 2013 16:18 Laughing Jack wrote:
No, Are you happy with them? Do you think anyone's vote suck, do you think my vote suck? How would you like the votes to be, who do you want pressured?, is Pandain really your top scumread? Plenty to talk about.

On November 02 2013 02:56 Stutters695 wrote:
Explain your read on Grack please Panda.

On October 31 2013 22:00 JarJarDrinks wrote:
Hey all. First off I'll add my name to the very much against random lynching list for the exact reasons Oats posted.

Also, I'm suspicious of the people pushing for it. Most notably hzflank because he only said he was for it after people brought it up. Like, even though it's only a 30% chance, if I'm scum and someone talks about random lynching my first thought is probably something like "Oh god, what if one of us gets chosen? There'd be nothing we could do." So he makes his post saying he'd be for a RNG lynch to show everyone that he's not afraid of it. Even going as far as sayingHow in the world could his odds actually be worse than random? Even if he had no scumhunting skill whatsoever, it would be @ worst equal to random.

On October 31 2013 23:01 JarJarDrinks wrote:
##vote hzflank

Might as well untill I see a better choice. Seemed like there's a decent amount of support for a hzflank lynch

On November 01 2013 04:15 JarJarDrinks wrote:
OK, you're saying that you were being sarcastic in that post as well as the following one. Didn't understand that's what you were saying. If that's the case then it didn't come across that way to me at all but I can definately see it that way now.

Since that was the bulk of my case:

##unvote hzflank

On November 01 2013 12:22 JarJarDrinks wrote:
I think I'm not liking laughing jack right now. Go look @ his posts. He pretty much attacks me and that's it. Like he tells me my posts are fluff because I don't reach a conclusion about the RNG thing (even though I did). And then when I ask him outright what his position on it is, he dodges the question.

The rest of his posts are him asking other people their opinions.

On November 01 2013 23:30 JarJarDrinks wrote:
So, I think we should lynch a lurker. There's like 7 of em so odds are pretty good that there's scum among em.

Odin and hermeane haven't posted anything so they should probably be exempt.

Mig and fuba have like 2 posts each. And they both went after hzflank which seemed like an easy bandwagon @ the time

tehpoofter, Pandain, Bereft and Asinine can't have posted much either. I'm gonna go through their filters now.

On October 31 2013 23:19 Laughing Jack wrote:
I think we should be one Jarjar less at the end of this day.
##Vote: JarjarDrinks

On November 01 2013 03:09 mkfuba07 wrote:

Actually, I think I'm going to vote for him. He's talked quite a bit, but always ends with a noncommittal statement. He kind of narrates the thread, but doesn't give a conclusion.

As far as his involvement in the rng debate, the apparent inconsistency in his position is the most concerning thing to me, though I'm not even sure there is one. I think rng-ing would be bad play, so advocating for it or opposing it are pretty null. I agree with jjd that he appears to be supporting it in one post, then the next one appears to be agreeing with the first. However, I guess it could be interpreted the way hzflank says he meant it, so overall that just makes me lean slight scum on him.

Altogether, I feel pretty confident with a vote on hzflank.

##Vote: hzflank

On November 02 2013 05:46 mkfuba07 wrote:

dat omgus



My main issue with hzflank has always been that while he was posting a lot, he wasn't coming to conclusions. He was throwing accusatory statements around, then ending with the equivalent of "... but I don't know if he's scum or not." It gets suspicions out there but insulates him from the consequences of a mislynch.

My entire second paragraph was there because I'd spent a bit of time thinking about the rng discussion, and came to the conclusion that it made me only lean slightly scum on him. I often get bitched out for my first posts not being related to the ongoing discussion, and didn't want to sidetrack the thread by not commenting on the silly rng discussion that took over up to that point.

So long-story-short, my main reason for finding him scummy was that he was posting in a scummy manner, and my thoughts on him haven't changed a lot since then.

On November 01 2013 01:58 mkfuba07 wrote:

Would scum, knowingly voting for someone to look good, openly state that they're placing the vote because many others appear willing to do so?