|
On July 11 2014 21:34 HaruRH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 21:28 Palmar wrote:Actually, I'm going to do this: ##Unvote
##Vote Team WeDemandALawyerThe reasons: 1. They both seemed excited to play pre-game, but haven't posted anything of value. 2. This post On July 11 2014 11:47 GlowingBear wrote:
/confirm
Hello guys, it's my second game here.
It seems that there is a ruckus going on already. Can someone explain me what Is the Kenpachi rule?
Also, I'll be signing every post of mine with a bolded "-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear" so it gets easier to identify the team.
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear Specifically the bolded sentence feels like massively useless fluff observation. 3. This post On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear Talking about stuff that is really easy to talk about without giving any sort of an opinion on anyone in the game. I think it was sinani who pointed out that this post also came at a really awkward time, after people had mostly dropped the kenpachi thing. 3. This post On July 11 2014 19:59 HaruRH wrote:
/confirm
Robik is going to be afk? But exo is a d1 non-poster too...
Meh
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
I like the summary of his opinion on the issue. "Meh". 1) we were excited to play yes. But not terribly excited to talk about kenpachi rule for 10 pages. 2) this means we won't see robik/exo team for a whole of d1. Meh. 3) fluff = scum? UNICORNS AND DRAGONS WEEEEEE
Good defense.
I will now unvote you. Oh wait, I don't have anything better to vote for.
Do you think my case on you guys makes me mafia?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
yeah. Like I said, I think it's just because it supported her opinion.
If anyone not-bunnies had posted it, it would have been much weirder.
-M&M
|
On July 11 2014 21:34 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 21:28 Palmar wrote:Actually, I'm going to do this: ##Unvote
##Vote Team WeDemandALawyer3. This post On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear Talking about stuff that is really easy to talk about without giving any sort of an opinion on anyone in the game. I think it was sinani who pointed out that this post also came at a really awkward time, after people had mostly dropped the kenpachi thing. Yeah I don't mind this. I noted this too, and that I wasn't sure I believed the phone = behind excuse. Was also confused when bunnies said she liked this post, although I guess that was just because it was taking her side. - M&M
I don't get what you mean
If either me or glowingbear, who came in just a few pages after the kenpachi rule fiasco (that was 10+ pages long), we should definitely be saying something about it. Awkward time or not, we have to talk about it. That's it.
You don't have to believe the phone=behind excuse at all. After all, being behind or ahead will not change our answer.
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
|
On July 11 2014 21:37 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 21:34 HaruRH wrote:On July 11 2014 21:28 Palmar wrote:Actually, I'm going to do this: ##Unvote
##Vote Team WeDemandALawyerThe reasons: 1. They both seemed excited to play pre-game, but haven't posted anything of value. 2. This post On July 11 2014 11:47 GlowingBear wrote:
/confirm
Hello guys, it's my second game here.
It seems that there is a ruckus going on already. Can someone explain me what Is the Kenpachi rule?
Also, I'll be signing every post of mine with a bolded "-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear" so it gets easier to identify the team.
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear Specifically the bolded sentence feels like massively useless fluff observation. 3. This post On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear Talking about stuff that is really easy to talk about without giving any sort of an opinion on anyone in the game. I think it was sinani who pointed out that this post also came at a really awkward time, after people had mostly dropped the kenpachi thing. 3. This post On July 11 2014 19:59 HaruRH wrote:
/confirm
Robik is going to be afk? But exo is a d1 non-poster too...
Meh
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
I like the summary of his opinion on the issue. "Meh". 1) we were excited to play yes. But not terribly excited to talk about kenpachi rule for 10 pages. 2) this means we won't see robik/exo team for a whole of d1. Meh. 3) fluff = scum? UNICORNS AND DRAGONS WEEEEEE Good defense. I will now unvote you. Oh wait, I don't have anything better to vote for. Do you think my case on you guys makes me mafia?
I don't think making a case on anyone makes you scum. #freedomofspeech
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On July 11 2014 21:39 HaruRH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 21:34 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2014 21:28 Palmar wrote:Actually, I'm going to do this: ##Unvote
##Vote Team WeDemandALawyer3. This post On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear Talking about stuff that is really easy to talk about without giving any sort of an opinion on anyone in the game. I think it was sinani who pointed out that this post also came at a really awkward time, after people had mostly dropped the kenpachi thing. Yeah I don't mind this. I noted this too, and that I wasn't sure I believed the phone = behind excuse. Was also confused when bunnies said she liked this post, although I guess that was just because it was taking her side. - M&M I don't get what you mean If either me or glowingbear, who came in just a few pages after the kenpachi rule fiasco (that was 10+ pages long), we should definitely be saying something about it. Awkward time or not, we have to talk about it. That's it. You don't have to believe the phone=behind excuse at all. After all, being behind or ahead will not change our answer. -WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
Well, it's not necessarily so much that he talked about it at all, but:
On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear
So contextually it's beating a dead horse. There's little/no reason to say the bolded
-M&M
|
On July 11 2014 21:39 HaruRH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 21:34 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2014 21:28 Palmar wrote:Actually, I'm going to do this: ##Unvote
##Vote Team WeDemandALawyer3. This post On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear Talking about stuff that is really easy to talk about without giving any sort of an opinion on anyone in the game. I think it was sinani who pointed out that this post also came at a really awkward time, after people had mostly dropped the kenpachi thing. Yeah I don't mind this. I noted this too, and that I wasn't sure I believed the phone = behind excuse. Was also confused when bunnies said she liked this post, although I guess that was just because it was taking her side. - M&M I don't get what you mean If either me or glowingbear, who came in just a few pages after the kenpachi rule fiasco (that was 10+ pages long), we should definitely be saying something about it. Awkward time or not, we have to talk about it. That's it. You don't have to believe the phone=behind excuse at all. After all, being behind or ahead will not change our answer. -WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
That's completely incorrect and I'd actually shoot you guys right now if a) I had a gun, and b) you guys were the same person.
Because this idea that you have to talk about it, is super inconsistent with glowingbear's opinion that:
On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
So why is he wasting his breath?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
actually the point is a bit different but still possibly valid.
I'll let you off.
|
On July 11 2014 21:41 HaruRH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 21:37 Palmar wrote:On July 11 2014 21:34 HaruRH wrote:On July 11 2014 21:28 Palmar wrote:Actually, I'm going to do this: ##Unvote
##Vote Team WeDemandALawyerThe reasons: 1. They both seemed excited to play pre-game, but haven't posted anything of value. 2. This post On July 11 2014 11:47 GlowingBear wrote:
/confirm
Hello guys, it's my second game here.
It seems that there is a ruckus going on already. Can someone explain me what Is the Kenpachi rule?
Also, I'll be signing every post of mine with a bolded "-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear" so it gets easier to identify the team.
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear Specifically the bolded sentence feels like massively useless fluff observation. 3. This post On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear Talking about stuff that is really easy to talk about without giving any sort of an opinion on anyone in the game. I think it was sinani who pointed out that this post also came at a really awkward time, after people had mostly dropped the kenpachi thing. 3. This post On July 11 2014 19:59 HaruRH wrote:
/confirm
Robik is going to be afk? But exo is a d1 non-poster too...
Meh
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
I like the summary of his opinion on the issue. "Meh". 1) we were excited to play yes. But not terribly excited to talk about kenpachi rule for 10 pages. 2) this means we won't see robik/exo team for a whole of d1. Meh. 3) fluff = scum? UNICORNS AND DRAGONS WEEEEEE Good defense. I will now unvote you. Oh wait, I don't have anything better to vote for. Do you think my case on you guys makes me mafia? I don't think making a case on anyone makes you scum. #freedomofspeech -WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
Well if you are town, either I'm town, and I am mistaken accidentally, or I'm mafia, and I'm forcing a case by being maliciously ignorant.
|
On July 11 2014 21:43 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 21:39 HaruRH wrote:On July 11 2014 21:34 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2014 21:28 Palmar wrote:Actually, I'm going to do this: ##Unvote
##Vote Team WeDemandALawyer3. This post On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear Talking about stuff that is really easy to talk about without giving any sort of an opinion on anyone in the game. I think it was sinani who pointed out that this post also came at a really awkward time, after people had mostly dropped the kenpachi thing. Yeah I don't mind this. I noted this too, and that I wasn't sure I believed the phone = behind excuse. Was also confused when bunnies said she liked this post, although I guess that was just because it was taking her side. - M&M I don't get what you mean If either me or glowingbear, who came in just a few pages after the kenpachi rule fiasco (that was 10+ pages long), we should definitely be saying something about it. Awkward time or not, we have to talk about it. That's it. You don't have to believe the phone=behind excuse at all. After all, being behind or ahead will not change our answer. -WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear That's completely incorrect and I'd actually shoot you guys right now if a) I had a gun, and b) you guys were the same person. Because this idea that you have to talk about it, is super inconsistent with glowingbear's opinion that: Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
So why is he wasting his breath?
So I guess here is where the problem lies
I am not the same person as glowingbear and even though we are the same entity now, we are just a conjoined twin.
My stance is that if glowingbear did not talk about the kenpachi rule thing, I would have talked about it.
|
On July 11 2014 21:45 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 21:41 HaruRH wrote:On July 11 2014 21:37 Palmar wrote:On July 11 2014 21:34 HaruRH wrote:On July 11 2014 21:28 Palmar wrote:Actually, I'm going to do this: ##Unvote
##Vote Team WeDemandALawyerThe reasons: 1. They both seemed excited to play pre-game, but haven't posted anything of value. 2. This post On July 11 2014 11:47 GlowingBear wrote:
/confirm
Hello guys, it's my second game here.
It seems that there is a ruckus going on already. Can someone explain me what Is the Kenpachi rule?
Also, I'll be signing every post of mine with a bolded "-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear" so it gets easier to identify the team.
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear Specifically the bolded sentence feels like massively useless fluff observation. 3. This post On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear Talking about stuff that is really easy to talk about without giving any sort of an opinion on anyone in the game. I think it was sinani who pointed out that this post also came at a really awkward time, after people had mostly dropped the kenpachi thing. 3. This post On July 11 2014 19:59 HaruRH wrote:
/confirm
Robik is going to be afk? But exo is a d1 non-poster too...
Meh
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
I like the summary of his opinion on the issue. "Meh". 1) we were excited to play yes. But not terribly excited to talk about kenpachi rule for 10 pages. 2) this means we won't see robik/exo team for a whole of d1. Meh. 3) fluff = scum? UNICORNS AND DRAGONS WEEEEEE Good defense. I will now unvote you. Oh wait, I don't have anything better to vote for. Do you think my case on you guys makes me mafia? I don't think making a case on anyone makes you scum. #freedomofspeech -WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear Well if you are town, either I'm town, and I am mistaken accidentally, or I'm mafia, and I'm forcing a case by being maliciously ignorant.
I don't want to omgus so early :/
So you're mistaken accidentally.
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
so I should get my vote on you now while it's still early and get a townread?
|
On July 11 2014 21:47 HaruRH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 21:45 Palmar wrote:On July 11 2014 21:41 HaruRH wrote:On July 11 2014 21:37 Palmar wrote:On July 11 2014 21:34 HaruRH wrote:On July 11 2014 21:28 Palmar wrote:Actually, I'm going to do this: ##Unvote
##Vote Team WeDemandALawyerThe reasons: 1. They both seemed excited to play pre-game, but haven't posted anything of value. 2. This post On July 11 2014 11:47 GlowingBear wrote:
/confirm
Hello guys, it's my second game here.
It seems that there is a ruckus going on already. Can someone explain me what Is the Kenpachi rule?
Also, I'll be signing every post of mine with a bolded "-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear" so it gets easier to identify the team.
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear Specifically the bolded sentence feels like massively useless fluff observation. 3. This post On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear Talking about stuff that is really easy to talk about without giving any sort of an opinion on anyone in the game. I think it was sinani who pointed out that this post also came at a really awkward time, after people had mostly dropped the kenpachi thing. 3. This post On July 11 2014 19:59 HaruRH wrote:
/confirm
Robik is going to be afk? But exo is a d1 non-poster too...
Meh
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
I like the summary of his opinion on the issue. "Meh". 1) we were excited to play yes. But not terribly excited to talk about kenpachi rule for 10 pages. 2) this means we won't see robik/exo team for a whole of d1. Meh. 3) fluff = scum? UNICORNS AND DRAGONS WEEEEEE Good defense. I will now unvote you. Oh wait, I don't have anything better to vote for. Do you think my case on you guys makes me mafia? I don't think making a case on anyone makes you scum. #freedomofspeech -WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear Well if you are town, either I'm town, and I am mistaken accidentally, or I'm mafia, and I'm forcing a case by being maliciously ignorant. I don't want to omgus so early :/ So you're mistaken accidentally. -WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
Thanks. Now I'm confirmed town.
|
On July 11 2014 21:34 HaruRH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 21:28 Palmar wrote:Actually, I'm going to do this: ##Unvote
##Vote Team WeDemandALawyerThe reasons: 1. They both seemed excited to play pre-game, but haven't posted anything of value. 2. This post On July 11 2014 11:47 GlowingBear wrote:
/confirm
Hello guys, it's my second game here.
It seems that there is a ruckus going on already. Can someone explain me what Is the Kenpachi rule?
Also, I'll be signing every post of mine with a bolded "-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear" so it gets easier to identify the team.
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear Specifically the bolded sentence feels like massively useless fluff observation. 3. This post On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear Talking about stuff that is really easy to talk about without giving any sort of an opinion on anyone in the game. I think it was sinani who pointed out that this post also came at a really awkward time, after people had mostly dropped the kenpachi thing. 3. This post On July 11 2014 19:59 HaruRH wrote:
/confirm
Robik is going to be afk? But exo is a d1 non-poster too...
Meh
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
I like the summary of his opinion on the issue. "Meh". 1) we were excited to play yes. But not terribly excited to talk about kenpachi rule for 10 pages. 2) this means we won't see robik/exo team for a whole of d1. Meh. 3) fluff = scum? UNICORNS AND DRAGONS WEEEEEE
Haru, do you have a legitimate counter to Palmar's point other than a few one line answers? I'm interested to see it, because it kind of seems you don't have one, and you're trying to draw attention away from yourself.
Why is the absence of Robik/ExO "Meh" and not bad for town?
|
On July 11 2014 21:48 marvellosity wrote:
so I should get my vote on you now while it's still early and get a townread?
But remember to unvote, or else you will be confirm scum after flip
palmer is confirmed town for saying he is confirmed town
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
|
On July 11 2014 21:49 Stratiform wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 21:34 HaruRH wrote:On July 11 2014 21:28 Palmar wrote:Actually, I'm going to do this: ##Unvote
##Vote Team WeDemandALawyerThe reasons: 1. They both seemed excited to play pre-game, but haven't posted anything of value. 2. This post On July 11 2014 11:47 GlowingBear wrote:
/confirm
Hello guys, it's my second game here.
It seems that there is a ruckus going on already. Can someone explain me what Is the Kenpachi rule?
Also, I'll be signing every post of mine with a bolded "-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear" so it gets easier to identify the team.
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear Specifically the bolded sentence feels like massively useless fluff observation. 3. This post On July 11 2014 12:38 GlowingBear wrote:
Kenpachi rule doesn't sound as a winning plan to me. You may use it as a secondary argument but to get to the point you have a primary one there is so much game to be played. I think that if we keep discussing this topic it will just a waste of breath.
Why do I think it's secondary: a scum can fake claim vt just so he can get townie to accuse him and get mislynched. More than that, a vt can simply try to pressure someone who claimed vt. Why not?
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and Glowingbear Talking about stuff that is really easy to talk about without giving any sort of an opinion on anyone in the game. I think it was sinani who pointed out that this post also came at a really awkward time, after people had mostly dropped the kenpachi thing. 3. This post On July 11 2014 19:59 HaruRH wrote:
/confirm
Robik is going to be afk? But exo is a d1 non-poster too...
Meh
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
I like the summary of his opinion on the issue. "Meh". 1) we were excited to play yes. But not terribly excited to talk about kenpachi rule for 10 pages. 2) this means we won't see robik/exo team for a whole of d1. Meh. 3) fluff = scum? UNICORNS AND DRAGONS WEEEEEE Haru, do you have a legitimate counter to Palmar's point other than a few one line answers? I'm interested to see it, because it kind of seems you don't have one, and you're trying to draw attention away from yourself. Why is the absence of Robik/ExO "Meh" and not bad for town?
No I dont have a legit answer because only glowingbear can answer palmar for what he said. I dont know what glowingbear was thinking when he said it, so I am not supposed to give a legit answer in glowingbear's stead since it would be incorrect.
all I can do is to provide what I think.
And I'm not trying to draw any attention away. I am trying to reply IN HARU'S VIEW
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
|
Robik/exo absense for d1 will just be a calm d1, and when exo dumps reads, robik will aggressively push them on d2.
So, meh.
-WeDemandALawyer: Haru and GlowingBear
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
Just to clear something up, a team only has one vote, which is shared between the two players. If two players from the same team vote, the most recent vote will be counted. Future vote counts will be updated to reflect this.
|
|
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On July 11 2014 22:08 raynpelikoneet wrote:
##vote: WeDemandALawyer
What do you particularly agree with then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
