|
On May 06 2014 23:16 Steveling wrote: Poofter must be scumming again. Definitely possible, we should wait for him to post something before anyone makes up his mind about him. He said that he´ll be scumhunting later today/tomorrow (I am bad with American timezones).
|
On May 06 2014 22:42 mderg wrote:
My read on Oats didn´t change. He might be scum, he might not be scum. I doubt we can figure it out, if we just ride on that one case he made on you. Why arent you trying to figure it out?
|
On May 06 2014 23:52 Oatsmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 22:42 mderg wrote:
My read on Oats didn´t change. He might be scum, he might not be scum. I doubt we can figure it out, if we just ride on that one case he made on you. Why arent you trying to figure it out? That´s a bad question. I am trying to figure it out. It´s just that the whole back and forth with you and holy made it more difficult for me.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On May 07 2014 00:03 mderg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 23:52 Oatsmaster wrote:On May 06 2014 22:42 mderg wrote:
My read on Oats didn´t change. He might be scum, he might not be scum. I doubt we can figure it out, if we just ride on that one case he made on you. Why arent you trying to figure it out? That´s a bad question. I am trying to figure it out. It´s just that the whole back and forth with you and holy made it more difficult for me.
Wait what...? The only way to figure it out is WITH the back and forth. I asked you AFTER the back and forth what you thought of oats and you said no opinion. Then you changed it to he might be scummy but not just based off that one thing. Then you posted saying you were going to disagree with me that oats was scum but oats was making it hard to do that with his posts and now it's MORE difficult to figure anything out with the same information you had before?
|
On May 07 2014 00:03 mderg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 23:52 Oatsmaster wrote:On May 06 2014 22:42 mderg wrote:
My read on Oats didn´t change. He might be scum, he might not be scum. I doubt we can figure it out, if we just ride on that one case he made on you. Why arent you trying to figure it out? That´s a bad question. I am trying to figure it out. It´s just that the whole back and forth with you and holy made it more difficult for me. Its an excellent question. You havent asked me or holyflare anything to help you 'try and figure it out'. Why?
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On May 06 2014 18:09 thrawn2112 wrote: hey i'm back. what's going on?
baby come back
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
thrawn you gotta play bro otherwise i gotta call you scum and i don't want that and you don't want that so come cuddle and have a chat!
|
On May 07 2014 00:28 Holyflare wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2014 00:03 mderg wrote:On May 06 2014 23:52 Oatsmaster wrote:On May 06 2014 22:42 mderg wrote:
My read on Oats didn´t change. He might be scum, he might not be scum. I doubt we can figure it out, if we just ride on that one case he made on you. Why arent you trying to figure it out? That´s a bad question. I am trying to figure it out. It´s just that the whole back and forth with you and holy made it more difficult for me. Wait what...? The only way to figure it out is WITH the back and forth. I asked you AFTER the back and forth what you thought of oats and you said no opinion. Then you changed it to he might be scummy but not just based off that one thing. Then you posted saying you were going to disagree with me that oats was scum but oats was making it hard to do that with his posts and now it's MORE difficult to figure anything out with the same information you had before? The only way to figure out is not with THE back and forth. For me that was just throwing the same shit at each other multiple times. No opinion and he might be scum is the same for me! I said he might be scum, he might not be scum, how is that any different from saying that I don´t know his alignment, yet?. I was going to disagree with you that he is 100% scum and his post (Surprisingly one that wasn´t all about you) seemed slightly scummy to me. I didn´t say that it´s now harder to figure out his alignment, I said that the back and forth made it harder for me to figure out his alignment. It´s kinda pushing everything else that might be important out of vision.
So far you´ve succeeded at either misunderstanding everything I´ve said or twisting everything I´ve said to fit your agenda. I´m hoping for the first option.
|
arghh I keep flipping from scum to new town every post mderg makes.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
Well apparently I'm misunderstanding you and that is YOUR responsibility to clarify it to me, you don't need to get angry or pissed at me for that. I want you to explain what was going through your mind when you made these posts and lay it all out so I understand what you're actually getting at:
On May 06 2014 00:26 mderg wrote: I don´t understand your play right now, Oatsmaster. Why would you state something as fact, if you have no idea about it?
Here you realise Oats lied about meta, he later backs it up by saying he made it up to look convincing so other people would lynch me here:
On May 06 2014 00:34 Oatsmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 00:22 Holyflare wrote:On May 06 2014 00:19 Oatsmaster wrote: Do you know how to play this game Holyflare? Half of the battle comes when town decides that their ego is too large to sheep people without so called "good cases" So what, you make up points to try and get someone lynched when you don't know whether the points are actually accurate or not? Is that what you are seriously sticking to? I dont see what accuracy has to do with anything. Fact is, what convinces me is not what convinces other people and if I have to lie my ass off to get other people to listen, I dont see anything wrong with that.
This is directly after what you wrote so you should have seen it.
On May 06 2014 01:04 mderg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 00:34 Oatsmaster wrote:On May 06 2014 00:26 mderg wrote: I don´t understand your play right now, Oatsmaster. Why would you state something as fact, if you have no idea about it? This is a totally uninformed and useless comment that is taking what I said and twisting it to suit his purposes. I was not twisting anything to suit my purposes. I just think it´s stupid to state something as a fact, if you don´t know it for fact. I also don´t think it´s useless to point something out that I strongly disagree with. Even if Holy was scum, your case had absolutely nothing to back it up.
Here you ignored the fact that he said he outright said that he LIED to get me lynched, instead you make it out to be him making a mistake.
Quite some time later, you display no reason for any change of heart, any reasons to change your mind.
On May 06 2014 01:37 mderg wrote: I´m still here, I don´t have anything to add right now. You even state that you have no opinion.
So what changed between you thinking that he was scummy but maybe not because it's just one case to thinking he WASN'T scummy in this post:
On May 06 2014 09:12 mderg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 08:57 Oatsmaster wrote: booom boom boom.
Mderg is scum too ok for sure.
Vivax was metaing me and all that so Im meh. I dont think Im playing too different from my scum games though. Although he isnt saying that I wasnt lying, hes saying that I didnt explain myself in a 'townie' way.
Im just baffled at the amount of nonsense you say to the thread apparently believing in it.
lying to lynch someone is fine. I wouldnt lie as scum though, too easy to get caught out.
I was about to post that I don´t agree with holy on you being scum, you made a bad case but in no way did you lie "to get a towny lynched by any means possible". I´d just call it a bad case based on wrong meta. Incidentally Holy made a case on me in cell mini mafia, also backed up with bad meta reasoning. He was town btw. I don´t like this post, though. What´s with "Mderg is scum too ok for sure."? Some explanation would be good. Lying to lynch someone is imo only fine in very few cases. Not with a weak case like yours, though.
You even ignore the part where he said he lied on purpose, which led me to believe you actually HADN'T been reading. Then you got pissy at me for pointing it out.
Explain to me what gave you those reactions, what made you change your mind, lay it all out for me like i'm a 5 year old wanting to learn.
|
I am tired. I might be off for 12 hours.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On May 07 2014 00:54 Koshi wrote: I am tired. I might be off for 12 hours. ~_~
|
I didn´t fucking change my mind.
On May 06 2014 09:12 mderg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 08:57 Oatsmaster wrote: booom boom boom.
Mderg is scum too ok for sure.
Vivax was metaing me and all that so Im meh. I dont think Im playing too different from my scum games though. Although he isnt saying that I wasnt lying, hes saying that I didnt explain myself in a 'townie' way.
Im just baffled at the amount of nonsense you say to the thread apparently believing in it.
lying to lynch someone is fine. I wouldnt lie as scum though, too easy to get caught out.
I was about to post that I don´t agree with holy on you being certain scum, you made a bad case but in no way did you lie "to get a towny lynched by any means possible". I´d just call it a bad case based on wrong meta. Incidentally Holy made a case on me in cell mini mafia, also backed up with bad meta reasoning. He was town btw. I don´t like this post, though. What´s with "Mderg is scum too ok for sure."? Some explanation would be good. Lying to lynch someone is imo only fine in very few cases. Not with a weak case like yours, though. I guess I forgot a word there.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
So when I said you didn't read the thread properly that was in fact correct? You said oats :
you made a bad case but in no way did you lie "to get a towny lynched by any means possible".
when I just proved that wasn't the case
|
On May 07 2014 01:04 Holyflare wrote:So when I said you didn't read the thread properly that was in fact correct? You said oats : Show nested quote +you made a bad case but in no way did you lie "to get a towny lynched by any means possible". when I just proved that wasn't the case You said that I wasn´t reading the thread, nothing about "properly". That´s what pissed me off.
I think there´s a difference between lying to get someone lynched and to get a townie lynched by any means possible. He said that he thought something was off about your play and lied to convince others to get you lynched. That´s not using any means possible for a misslynch.
|
HF how are.your Vivax and Oats 100% scumreads doing?
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
Not reading properly is the same as not reading the thread. Arguably not reading properly is far worse because you start making up things you think to be true because you have a warped version compared to everyone else and then we reach this impass.
If you can't convince someone to be lynched through normal means, resorting to lying is "using any means possible" that's not really a far stretch. Which is why it's more odd that you compare lying to using bad meta instead because the 2 are not equivalent at all. Unless you are implying they are.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On May 07 2014 01:17 Koshi wrote: HF how are.your Vivax and Oats 100% scumreads doing?
Oats not so much anymore, vivax pretty stronk. He complains that he didn't want to argue with me to stop discussion being stifled yet ignored everything i was doing to discuss his point. He returns to the thread with the same points previously but - the oats part which me and oats already disproved and when discussion starts he leaves again. He's talking at us rather than with us.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
I would switch my vote to Vivax if it wasn't iml but infinite days op for discussion
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
You know.... If people would actually discuss things :p
|
|
|
|