EPTNo Namecalling.
No discussing ongoing games
Back To The Basics Mini Mafia - Page 19
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
No Namecalling. No discussing ongoing games | ||
|
Rean
Netherlands808 Posts
On November 21 2013 04:10 raynpelikoneet wrote: Yeah my problem with Aqua is not his case on Rean. My problem is that based on what he posted after that i think he should be voting for Corazon instead of Rean. That's really weird. Exactly. He votes me because "I wanted to start a second bandwagon", it seems like a ridiculous argument to me and an excuse to not commit too heavily to voting for me, continuing the non-commiting playstyle I already called him out on earlier. But for now I want to give him a chance to defend himself while looking at some other people. Onegu, please, while I don't think (yet) that you're an idiot or anything, change the way your posting, your arguments are annoying as hell to read. Step up the quality please. Also, you've called me "very scumm" "uber scummy" but as far as I can tell that's only based off of my first post? (maybe I missed something in the post by post of Mocsta but don't think so). Other than that, Lonemeow is lurking hard. Whether he's simply not around or choosing to lay low I don't know but I want to hear some more. To get discussion started: top scumread + who do you want to know more about? | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
| ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
The whole game you've done nothing productive to the town. That case was so bad it's anti-productive. Try harder. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
People sheep all the time. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On November 21 2013 05:50 raynpelikoneet wrote: Cora why not having "any original reasoning" for voting for someone is scummy? People sheep all the time. But sheeping on arguments made 15 hours ago? That's not scummy? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 21 2013 05:51 cDgCorazon wrote: But sheeping on arguments made 15 hours ago? That's not scummy? Well, I don't think you've given a satisfactory answer to the case against you. I've been waiting for u to get back so I can hopefully hear an answer to this: On November 21 2013 02:13 JarJarDrinks wrote: But that was the post you were analysing when making your "Rock the Boat" read. So if that one page of joke posting didn't give you a scum read, then what did? | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On November 21 2013 05:51 cDgCorazon wrote: But sheeping on arguments made 15 hours ago? That's not scummy? I dunno, does the argument somehow vanish if it gets "too old"? | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On November 21 2013 05:58 raynpelikoneet wrote: I dunno, does the argument somehow vanish if it gets "too old"? Well to me it looks like an attempt to make a case without doing the work. It also doesn't help when I've refuted all of the points and he still decides to make the case. It's scummy because it's fake scum-hunting. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 21 2013 05:56 cDgCorazon wrote: I have read your filter.JJD. I'm done with that. If you fail to read my filter then I don't feel obliged to answer the same questions over and over again. No need to answer it again it you did, just please link or quote a post where you explain the reason you had a scumread on sciberia @ that point in the game that isn't because of his first post. | ||
|
Rean
Netherlands808 Posts
On November 21 2013 05:20 raynpelikoneet wrote: Rean, since you apparently are not answering JarJar's case i would like you to explain the following things:
I did answer one point that I felt needed to be adressed, 'kinda forgot about the others. 1. I don't see what you mean with this. While some of my posts were short and to the point, I don't think it's a problem. I prefer not to write endless paragraphs if a short and simple answer suffices. And they definitely weren't spam/shitting up the thread. 2. On Cora: at the time cases on him seemed convincing and he felt off. But after rereading his filter I don't feel so strongly anymore, he's actively participating and his logic isn't too bad. On Scib: I don't like how he's constantly trying to follow others with posts like + Show Spoiler + On November 20 2013 12:49 sciberbia wrote: I didnt' 'piggyback' on your post. Our posts aren't saying at all the same thing. On November 20 2013 15:37 sciberbia wrote: @Mocsta You're wrong about me but I think you may very well be right about Cora. I resent that you stole my thunder though -- almost done a case on him. @thrawn I legitimately thought Cora was the scummiest person in the thread at the time (if by the tiniest of margins). My intention was mainly to get interesting discussion started. On November 20 2013 16:55 sciberbia wrote: EBWOP Oh yea one other I wanted to reply to was your criticism that I ignored Cora for a while. I stopped prodding Cora because other people were doing a fine job of it and I thought it'd be more productive for them to ask questions such as "explain why you think this about sciberbia" than me doing it. Also I was getting increasingly suspicious of him so I decided to just observe and include my comprehensive thoughts in a later case. I didn't want to miss the opportunity to question Rean who is probably my second strongest read right now. I find Aquanim's above post on him agreeable. Just feels to me like he's only going for people others are already going for, dodgy. But still waiting for him to explain his suspicion of me like I said before. 3. Again, I don't follow. I said the Cora/Scib part while also putting suspicion on Aqua because of his playstyle, trying to pressure him. And the way he responded to the pressure really gave me heavy scumvibes, enough to vote for him. 4. I already adressed a point I felt was him taking things wrongly. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On November 21 2013 06:00 cDgCorazon wrote: Well to me it looks like an attempt to make a case without doing the work. It also doesn't help when I've refuted all of the points and he still decides to make the case. It's scummy because it's fake scum-hunting. Well this answer is much better in case it's true. I didn't even read Onegu's post because i know 98% from it can't possibly make anyone scum. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On November 21 2013 06:02 JarJarDrinks wrote: I have read your filter. No need to answer it again it you did, just please link or quote a post where you explain the reason you had a scumread on sciberia @ that point in the game that isn't because of his first post. I've explained my thinking behind those posts already. So no. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On November 21 2013 06:03 Rean wrote: I did answer one point that I felt needed to be adressed, 'kinda forgot about the others. 1. I don't see what you mean with this. While some of my posts were short and to the point, I don't think it's a problem. I prefer not to write endless paragraphs if a short and simple answer suffices. And they definitely weren't spam/shitting up the thread. 2. On Cora: at the time cases on him seemed convincing and he felt off. But after rereading his filter I don't feel so strongly anymore, he's actively participating and his logic isn't too bad. On Scib: I don't like how he's constantly trying to follow others with posts like + Show Spoiler + On November 20 2013 12:49 sciberbia wrote: I didnt' 'piggyback' on your post. Our posts aren't saying at all the same thing. On November 20 2013 15:37 sciberbia wrote: @Mocsta You're wrong about me but I think you may very well be right about Cora. I resent that you stole my thunder though -- almost done a case on him. @thrawn I legitimately thought Cora was the scummiest person in the thread at the time (if by the tiniest of margins). My intention was mainly to get interesting discussion started. On November 20 2013 16:55 sciberbia wrote: EBWOP Oh yea one other I wanted to reply to was your criticism that I ignored Cora for a while. I stopped prodding Cora because other people were doing a fine job of it and I thought it'd be more productive for them to ask questions such as "explain why you think this about sciberbia" than me doing it. Also I was getting increasingly suspicious of him so I decided to just observe and include my comprehensive thoughts in a later case. I didn't want to miss the opportunity to question Rean who is probably my second strongest read right now. I find Aquanim's above post on him agreeable. Just feels to me like he's only going for people others are already going for, dodgy. But still waiting for him to explain his suspicion of me like I said before. 3. Again, I don't follow. I said the Cora/Scib part while also putting suspicion on Aqua because of his playstyle, trying to pressure him. And the way he responded to the pressure really gave me heavy scumvibes, enough to vote for him. 4. I already adressed a point I felt was him taking things wrongly. 1) You gave answers like "Mocsta said this and that" and "Mocsta could be town or he could be scum". How is that supposed to help people think what do you think about people when you are not giving straight answers? 2) So you felt Cora was scummy because of what other people said but then sciberbia was scummy because he seemed to be agreeing a lot with what other people said? Aren't you clearly contradicting yourself here? 3) I mean you liked thrawn's reasoning (also see (2), why is scib scummy then?). It was already in thread but at that time you still listed Cora/scib over Aquanim. Then you used completely different reasoning on Aquanim's post and later on "corrected" the reasoning into fitting what i said about that post. So, aren't you doing exactly the same things you think sciberbia is scum for? | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
| ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 21 2013 06:04 cDgCorazon wrote: I've explained my thinking behind those posts already. So no. Yes you explained your thinking behind those posts. ANd that thinking directly contradicts what you're saying in the post I quoted. Here's a post where you try to explain your thinking: On November 20 2013 13:43 cDgCorazon wrote: @Thrawn When I made that post, I was thinking along the lines of "I think sci's actions are looking pretty scummy." In my opinion, if he was trying to create a good town atmosphere in the start, he did a very poor job of doing so. That's why I was thinking (and still am) that sciberia is scum. Well if the page 1 posts are "mostly joke posting" then why would you think that his post is scummy for doing a poor job of creating a good town atmosphere ? You specifically say here that you would NOT have a scum read on him for his page 1 joke posting On November 21 2013 02:03 cDgCorazon wrote: Yes because I am going to have a scum read on sciberia after 1 page of mostly joke posting... So I ask again. Why did you think Sci was scummy? | ||
|
Rean
Netherlands808 Posts
On November 21 2013 06:10 raynpelikoneet wrote: 1) You gave answers like "Mocsta said this and that" and "Mocsta could be town or he could be scum". How is that supposed to help people think what do you think about people when you are not giving straight answers? 2) So you felt Cora was scummy because of what other people said but then sciberbia was scummy because he seemed to be agreeing a lot with what other people said? Aren't you clearly contradicting yourself here? 3) I mean you liked thrawn's reasoning (also see (2), why is scib scummy then?). It was already in thread but at that time you still listed Cora/scib over Aquanim. Then you used completely different reasoning on Aquanim's post and later on "corrected" the reasoning into fitting what i said about that post. So, aren't you doing exactly the same things you think sciberbia is scum for? 1. I said what I was thinking. If I thought they were leaning town or scum I'd say so but I didnt so. Perhaps not as decisive as others but I spoke my mind, can't ask for more? 2. There's a difference between agreeing with others and trying to find scum yourself aswell and just piggybacking of others 24/7, which I feel is what Scib is doing. 3. Can you quote the specific posts please? Having a hard time understanding what exactly you are on about | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On November 21 2013 06:22 JarJarDrinks wrote: Yes you explained your thinking behind those posts. ANd that thinking directly contradicts what you're saying in the post I quoted. Here's a post where you try to explain your thinking: Well if the page 1 posts are "mostly joke posting" then why would you think that his post is scummy for doing a poor job of creating a good town atmosphere ? You specifically say here that you would NOT have a scum read on him for his page 1 joke posting So I ask again. Why did you think Sci was scummy? Sorry when you said my filter I thought you meant that I read the whole filter. Read more plz | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
you meant that you read my whole filter | ||
| ||
