|
kitaman27
United States8592 Posts
On November 01 2018 06:59 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
5. Rels - Nein!
On November 03 2018 07:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
5. Rels - Nein!
On November 06 2018 10:32 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
5. Rels - has been warned for not voting
On November 09 2018 08:15 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
5. Rels - Nein!
People really need to pay more attention to this.
The single most important part of this game in regards to ones alignment is voting record and election actions.
RELS HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED TO A SINGLE LIBERAL POLICY BEING PASSED.
He failed the rayn/krogan vote.
He failed the grack/prpl vote.
He didn't vote for conversion and rayn.
He failed the kita/grack vote.
You know what his first YES vote is going to be?
WHEN HE'S PRESIDENT.
He's suddenly "motivated" to play the game. You know why? Because he finally has an opportunity to send a facist policy through. How convenient.
Can we please just pass this over to rayn? Someone explain to me why rayn as president and krogran/grack as chancellor doesn't make more sense? Those guys have proven they can send liberal policies through. Rels has done absolutely nothing but smear my name to suit his purposes.
|
On November 10 2018 02:09 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 10:32 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
5. Rels - has been warned for not voting People really need to pay more attention to this. The single most important part of this game in regards to ones alignment is voting record and election actions. RELS HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED TO A SINGLE LIBERAL POLICY BEING PASSED. He failed the rayn/krogan vote. He failed the grack/prpl vote. He didn't vote for conversion and rayn. He failed the kita/grack vote.
LOL. Since you believe at least one elected people is scum, one of these votes must be pretty good then 
On November 10 2018 02:09 kitaman27 wrote:
He's suddenly "motivated" to play the game. You know why? Because he finally has an opportunity to send a facist policy through. How convenient.
Anyone that has played with me these last year knows I get more motivated the more the game advances. So you're lying and you know you're lying. It's also easily checkable so it's a pretty bad lie.
|
On November 10 2018 02:04 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:08 Rels wrote:
Here, he's saying that a reason to scumread Grack is that he wants to elect two people that are scummy to "pass the blame". But this doesn't shouldn't make sense because in his point of view, Grack, Conversion and I are the 3 bottom people of his list. He tries to justify it with the last sentence, but that doesn't solve the chicken and egg problem; Grack is scummy because he wants to elect scummier people with him; but he's probably not scum with a dude he wants to elect; so he shoudln't have been that low on the list in the first place. I was suspicious of Grack because I didn't like his nomination choices. When he chose not to elect you or conversion I decided to vote for him through (I was the tiebreaker). As for the Conversion is Hitler thing, I would be pretty surprised if Hitler hadn't figured out who his buddies are by now. If I can figure out that you're mafia, it should be pretty obvious to Conversion too considering how much you've propped him up all game and you've never supported a liberal agenda.
You were suspicious of Grack because you didn't like his nomination choices. But you also thought his nomination choices were scum. But you also thought scum wouldn't elect scum with them. So your reason to scumread Grack shouldn't make Grack scum.
When Grack finally chose another dude that you were less suspicous about, that should have made your Grack / Conversion or Rels MORE likely to be true, not less.
|
and that doesn't answer the fact that you should these were 2 dudes from your middle tier list. You should have pushed for 2 NO votes and the accepted team being you president / one of your top tier
|
What is checkable? Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy? If we had all done like you, where would we have been, policy-wise? Are you proud that, by your own metric, at least one in four of your votes was good?
I sort of get how you don't play early game, I think you always do something like that, but painting yourself a hero because you do that makes no sense. And right now your cases seem to be just wild flailing, I don't really understand any of it.
|
On November 10 2018 02:31 prplhz wrote:
What is checkable? Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy? If we had all done like you, where would we have been, policy-wise? Are you proud that, by your own metric, at least one in four of your votes was good?
I sort of get how you don't play early game, I think you always do something like that, but painting yourself a hero because you do that makes no sense. And right now your cases seem to be just wild flailing, I don't really understand any of it.
I don't paint myself as a hero, wtf are you talking about ? kita is claiming my sudden motivation is due to my will to attack him and become president, when there is an occam razor's explanation.
Your last sentence prove what is checkable.
It's not "good" to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy, try a little bit to understand the context. Kita is pushing the idea that:
"Rels has downvoted every government that has passed a liberal policy!"
But he's also pushing the idea that:
"One of the elected people is scum!"
Do you get now what it is ridiculous about it ?
|
On November 10 2018 02:31 prplhz wrote:
Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy?
What would you have done if he had just voted yes to all and one had passed a fascist policy instead?
|
I have no idea why rayn didn't want Grack / Conversion D2. Conversion can be president even if he was chancellor D2.
|
kinda unrelated to what's happening right now but I just had that thought p:
|
On November 10 2018 02:31 prplhz wrote:
What is checkable? Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy? If we had all done like you, where would we have been, policy-wise? Are you proud that, by your own metric, at least one in four of your votes was good?
I sort of get how you don't play early game, I think you always do something like that, but painting yourself a hero because you do that makes no sense. And right now your cases seem to be just wild flailing, I don't really understand any of it.
The fact that you finally come out to say somthing meaningful after a long time of nonrelevant posts and it is to defend a guy which it is likely you are in a team with doesn't look good.
|
On November 10 2018 02:38 byj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:31 prplhz wrote:
Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy? What would you have done if he had just voted yes to all and one had passed a fascist policy instead?
I don't get this hypothetical, who would have passed a fascist policy and why? I don't get this at all.
|
On November 10 2018 02:41 happykrogan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:31 prplhz wrote:
What is checkable? Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy? If we had all done like you, where would we have been, policy-wise? Are you proud that, by your own metric, at least one in four of your votes was good?
I sort of get how you don't play early game, I think you always do something like that, but painting yourself a hero because you do that makes no sense. And right now your cases seem to be just wild flailing, I don't really understand any of it. The fact that you finally come out to say somthing meaningful after a long time of nonrelevant posts and it is to defend a guy which it is likely you are in a team with doesn't look good.
Hmm, that does look kind of suspicious.
|
kitaman27
United States8592 Posts
rayn, why did you sit around and do nothing all day if you wanted me to get elected?
Conversion and Krogan would have very easily switched their vote if you told them to, yet you didn't.
|
On November 10 2018 02:36 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:31 prplhz wrote:
What is checkable? Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy? If we had all done like you, where would we have been, policy-wise? Are you proud that, by your own metric, at least one in four of your votes was good?
I sort of get how you don't play early game, I think you always do something like that, but painting yourself a hero because you do that makes no sense. And right now your cases seem to be just wild flailing, I don't really understand any of it. I don't paint myself as a hero, wtf are you talking about ? kita is claiming my sudden motivation is due to my will to attack him and become president, when there is an occam razor's explanation. Your last sentence prove what is checkable. It's not "good" to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy, try a little bit to understand the context. Kita is pushing the idea that: "Rels has downvoted every government that has passed a liberal policy!" But he's also pushing the idea that: "One of the elected people is scum!" Do you get now what it is ridiculous about it ?
No. What is wrong with winning a game through scum passing 6 liberal policies in an effort to look good to town? And why is it better to vote no to three governments without scum that passes liberal policies than it is to vote yes to a government with scum that passes a liberal policy? I'm having a very hard time understanding this particular thing.
Why is it better to downvote a scum government that passes liberal than to upvote three town governments that passes liberal?
Anyway, scum will always want to pass some liberal policies in the beginning for town cred, so let them.
|
On November 10 2018 03:13 prplhz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:36 Rels wrote:On November 10 2018 02:31 prplhz wrote:
What is checkable? Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy? If we had all done like you, where would we have been, policy-wise? Are you proud that, by your own metric, at least one in four of your votes was good?
I sort of get how you don't play early game, I think you always do something like that, but painting yourself a hero because you do that makes no sense. And right now your cases seem to be just wild flailing, I don't really understand any of it. I don't paint myself as a hero, wtf are you talking about ? kita is claiming my sudden motivation is due to my will to attack him and become president, when there is an occam razor's explanation. Your last sentence prove what is checkable. It's not "good" to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy, try a little bit to understand the context. Kita is pushing the idea that: "Rels has downvoted every government that has passed a liberal policy!" But he's also pushing the idea that: "One of the elected people is scum!" Do you get now what it is ridiculous about it ? No. What is wrong with winning a game through scum passing 6 liberal policies in an effort to look good to town? And why is it better to vote no to three governments without scum that passes liberal policies than it is to vote yes to a government with scum that passes a liberal policy? I'm having a very hard time understanding this particular thing. Why is it better to downvote a scum government that passes liberal than to upvote three town governments that passes liberal? Anyway, scum will always want to pass some liberal policies in the beginning for town cred, so let them.
I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not claiming I'm town due to my voting pattern, I'm defending against kita's accusation that my votes make me scum.
|
kitaman27
United States8592 Posts
On November 10 2018 03:16 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 03:13 prplhz wrote:On November 10 2018 02:36 Rels wrote:On November 10 2018 02:31 prplhz wrote:
What is checkable? Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy? If we had all done like you, where would we have been, policy-wise? Are you proud that, by your own metric, at least one in four of your votes was good?
I sort of get how you don't play early game, I think you always do something like that, but painting yourself a hero because you do that makes no sense. And right now your cases seem to be just wild flailing, I don't really understand any of it. I don't paint myself as a hero, wtf are you talking about ? kita is claiming my sudden motivation is due to my will to attack him and become president, when there is an occam razor's explanation. Your last sentence prove what is checkable. It's not "good" to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy, try a little bit to understand the context. Kita is pushing the idea that: "Rels has downvoted every government that has passed a liberal policy!" But he's also pushing the idea that: "One of the elected people is scum!" Do you get now what it is ridiculous about it ? No. What is wrong with winning a game through scum passing 6 liberal policies in an effort to look good to town? And why is it better to vote no to three governments without scum that passes liberal policies than it is to vote yes to a government with scum that passes a liberal policy? I'm having a very hard time understanding this particular thing. Why is it better to downvote a scum government that passes liberal than to upvote three town governments that passes liberal? Anyway, scum will always want to pass some liberal policies in the beginning for town cred, so let them. I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not claiming I'm town due to my voting pattern, I'm defending against kita's accusation that my votes make me scum.
You're not defending it adequately though. Voting no to all four pairings and justifying it by saying one of those 6 players was mafia, doesn't make it okay.
|
On November 10 2018 03:32 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 03:16 Rels wrote:On November 10 2018 03:13 prplhz wrote:On November 10 2018 02:36 Rels wrote:On November 10 2018 02:31 prplhz wrote:
What is checkable? Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy? If we had all done like you, where would we have been, policy-wise? Are you proud that, by your own metric, at least one in four of your votes was good?
I sort of get how you don't play early game, I think you always do something like that, but painting yourself a hero because you do that makes no sense. And right now your cases seem to be just wild flailing, I don't really understand any of it. I don't paint myself as a hero, wtf are you talking about ? kita is claiming my sudden motivation is due to my will to attack him and become president, when there is an occam razor's explanation. Your last sentence prove what is checkable. It's not "good" to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy, try a little bit to understand the context. Kita is pushing the idea that: "Rels has downvoted every government that has passed a liberal policy!" But he's also pushing the idea that: "One of the elected people is scum!" Do you get now what it is ridiculous about it ? No. What is wrong with winning a game through scum passing 6 liberal policies in an effort to look good to town? And why is it better to vote no to three governments without scum that passes liberal policies than it is to vote yes to a government with scum that passes a liberal policy? I'm having a very hard time understanding this particular thing. Why is it better to downvote a scum government that passes liberal than to upvote three town governments that passes liberal? Anyway, scum will always want to pass some liberal policies in the beginning for town cred, so let them. I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not claiming I'm town due to my voting pattern, I'm defending against kita's accusation that my votes make me scum. You're not defending it adequately though. Voting no to all four pairings and justifying it by saying one of those 6 players was mafia, doesn't make it okay.
I'm attacking your reasonning. You think at least one dude elected is scum, yet you're attacking me saying "he voted NO to all the teams, therefore he's scum!" Well according to you, I voted NO to at least one scum, so your reasonning doesn't make sense.
|
kitaman27
United States8592 Posts
On November 10 2018 03:37 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 03:32 kitaman27 wrote:On November 10 2018 03:16 Rels wrote:On November 10 2018 03:13 prplhz wrote:On November 10 2018 02:36 Rels wrote:On November 10 2018 02:31 prplhz wrote:
What is checkable? Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy? If we had all done like you, where would we have been, policy-wise? Are you proud that, by your own metric, at least one in four of your votes was good?
I sort of get how you don't play early game, I think you always do something like that, but painting yourself a hero because you do that makes no sense. And right now your cases seem to be just wild flailing, I don't really understand any of it. I don't paint myself as a hero, wtf are you talking about ? kita is claiming my sudden motivation is due to my will to attack him and become president, when there is an occam razor's explanation. Your last sentence prove what is checkable. It's not "good" to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy, try a little bit to understand the context. Kita is pushing the idea that: "Rels has downvoted every government that has passed a liberal policy!" But he's also pushing the idea that: "One of the elected people is scum!" Do you get now what it is ridiculous about it ? No. What is wrong with winning a game through scum passing 6 liberal policies in an effort to look good to town? And why is it better to vote no to three governments without scum that passes liberal policies than it is to vote yes to a government with scum that passes a liberal policy? I'm having a very hard time understanding this particular thing. Why is it better to downvote a scum government that passes liberal than to upvote three town governments that passes liberal? Anyway, scum will always want to pass some liberal policies in the beginning for town cred, so let them. I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not claiming I'm town due to my voting pattern, I'm defending against kita's accusation that my votes make me scum. You're not defending it adequately though. Voting no to all four pairings and justifying it by saying one of those 6 players was mafia, doesn't make it okay. I'm attacking your reasonning. You think at least one dude elected is scum, yet you're attacking me saying "he voted NO to all the teams, therefore he's scum!" Well according to you, I voted NO to at least one scum, so your reasonning doesn't make sense.
My argument is that you haven't contributed to a single liberal policy being passed based on your voting record. There isn't any way to depute that, regardless of how you want to frame it.
|
On November 10 2018 03:40 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 03:37 Rels wrote:On November 10 2018 03:32 kitaman27 wrote:On November 10 2018 03:16 Rels wrote:On November 10 2018 03:13 prplhz wrote:On November 10 2018 02:36 Rels wrote:On November 10 2018 02:31 prplhz wrote:
What is checkable? Why is it good to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy? If we had all done like you, where would we have been, policy-wise? Are you proud that, by your own metric, at least one in four of your votes was good?
I sort of get how you don't play early game, I think you always do something like that, but painting yourself a hero because you do that makes no sense. And right now your cases seem to be just wild flailing, I don't really understand any of it. I don't paint myself as a hero, wtf are you talking about ? kita is claiming my sudden motivation is due to my will to attack him and become president, when there is an occam razor's explanation. Your last sentence prove what is checkable. It's not "good" to downvote a government that passes a liberal policy, try a little bit to understand the context. Kita is pushing the idea that: "Rels has downvoted every government that has passed a liberal policy!" But he's also pushing the idea that: "One of the elected people is scum!" Do you get now what it is ridiculous about it ? No. What is wrong with winning a game through scum passing 6 liberal policies in an effort to look good to town? And why is it better to vote no to three governments without scum that passes liberal policies than it is to vote yes to a government with scum that passes a liberal policy? I'm having a very hard time understanding this particular thing. Why is it better to downvote a scum government that passes liberal than to upvote three town governments that passes liberal? Anyway, scum will always want to pass some liberal policies in the beginning for town cred, so let them. I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not claiming I'm town due to my voting pattern, I'm defending against kita's accusation that my votes make me scum. You're not defending it adequately though. Voting no to all four pairings and justifying it by saying one of those 6 players was mafia, doesn't make it okay. I'm attacking your reasonning. You think at least one dude elected is scum, yet you're attacking me saying "he voted NO to all the teams, therefore he's scum!" Well according to you, I voted NO to at least one scum, so your reasonning doesn't make sense. My argument is that you haven't contributed to a single liberal policy being passed based on your voting record. There isn't any way to depute that, regardless of how you want to frame it.
and that doesn't make anyone scum. Especially since I voted against at least one scum in your view of the game.
|
The proposed government is: President Rels and Chancellor Grackaroni. You have to send Mocsta and me your votes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
