In post 246, Looker wrote:I watch you play in the living room every day.
Wait so
you're
the FBI.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In post 251, Isis wrote:Green Crayons why do you think it's "playing wrong" not to be on a leading wagon in the early game?
Wagons = information. I also liked to see votes on the top three players in the vc.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Also if you take my "playing wrong" comment more seriously than what I just explained, you're playing wrong.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In post 251, Isis wrote:Green Crayons why do you think it's "playing wrong" not to be on a leading wagon in the early game?
Also if you look at who wasn't voting for the top three players in the vc, you can read between the lines two different messages I was sending to two different groups of players!
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In post 181, Green Crayons wrote:Y'all are legally obligated to tell me your main if this is an alt, and if I have ever played with you. Otherwise the FBI will arrest you.
I'm not an alt, but I watch you play in the living room every day.
In post 227, Green Crayons wrote:Everyone who isn’t voting for one of the top three on the vc is playing wrong.
How insulting
@humaneatingmonkey: Hopefully you're still capable of playing while being "annoyed". Also, define "better place".
Also, also, we won't all see things as alignment-indicative through your perspective - especially when your perspective is self-centered
VOTE: Elements
Don't mkae me call you out as scum day one again Looker. It'll look bad for you.
I agree with everything Elements is posting - Papa Zito
It's scummy as fak tho - Gamma Emerald
Do you agree or disagree with human's reason for voting votato?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Also why wouldn't you want to consider a case against the person you want to vote, when your basis for voting is stale?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Well I guess that's not fair. You said you don't get much from it, not that you don't want to consider it.
But not getting much from it
sounds like
you don't want to actually consider it.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
"You are the Joker of mafia players" - Oversoul
"last time I was scum with Firebringer
his first post in the scum PT was "yes I rolled scum!"
I decided to post "haha just don't post that in the main thread", but to get up to date on the main thread first.
His first post in the main thread was "yes I rolled scum!" -popsofctown
I play a bit less on the weekends Albert.
I don't agree that forcing early consolidation is good mafia but I think I believe Green Crayons believes that.
In post 23, Isis wrote:The Players who got to Vote you will Factionalize against those who did not get to Vote you, from the rule against fully killing you. This will create Tensions. I will try to deliberately inflame the Tensions until a Player is likely to act angrily.
Doesn't sharing your plan kinda ruin any element of surprise you could possibly derive from it...?
In post 34, NorwegianboyEE wrote:It reads like you're trying to appear to be solving and putting out plans like you're having a townie mindset, but the actual plan described doesn't have much thought put behind it and thus i fail to see how it would be effective at containing scum.
This is a new open alt hopefully becomes my main. I got tired of letter soup.
Lightly townreading Norwee and scumreading monkey for their reactions so far.
Not sure how to read Elements. He is always an axolotl-tier read.
Why are my reactions scum and what is your response to our critique of your plan?
I'm amazed that neither Norwegian nor HEM realised Isis's obvious trollpost was an obvious trollpost.
In post 18, Isis wrote:To help I used Dice. I did not throw them and adjusted them with my fingers until they showed the Value I wanted. Here is a picture to prove that I adjusted them with my fingers until I got the Value I wanted:
I mean come on, this part had be me wheezing.
HEM is even like "what's your response to our critique" after Isis has already showed herself an alt. Which isn't scummy, just legendarily unobservant.
I scumread your reaction because kneejerking "this is town" then raising objectively meritous objections has this look to it like realizing a slot deserves to get townread but then pursuing a win condition where slots that deserve to get townread don't get townread. Norwee's response was more internally consistent.
What's with this assumption that the logic of an argument is intrinsically interrelated with the scumminess of the person making making it. I thought HEM was perfectly consistent by townreading Isis while disagreeing with her logic. It's not just that there's "lots of room for [it]" (48), it's the only sensical way of reading his posts. And I completely agree with HEM that if Isis's opening were coming from a genuine newbie, it would be really towny. I would just never buy it coming from a genuine newbie.
Norwegian seems a more calculating in personality than HEM, even just based on their academic tone in 34, so out of the two, the fact that Norwegian fails to recognize the obvious trollpost and makes it into some kind of "ah yes this is an intentional attempt to look like scumhunting without in fact progressing the game" looks far more disingenuous.
In post 23, Isis wrote:The Players who got to Vote you will Factionalize against those who did not get to Vote you, from the rule against fully killing you. This will create Tensions. I will try to deliberately inflame the Tensions until a Player is likely to act angrily.
Doesn't sharing your plan kinda ruin any element of surprise you could possibly derive from it...?
In post 34, NorwegianboyEE wrote:It reads like you're trying to appear to be solving and putting out plans like you're having a townie mindset, but the actual plan described doesn't have much thought put behind it and thus i fail to see how it would be effective at containing scum.
This is a new open alt hopefully becomes my main. I got tired of letter soup.
Lightly townreading Norwee and scumreading monkey for their reactions so far.
Not sure how to read Elements. He is always an axolotl-tier read.
Why are my reactions scum and what is your response to our critique of your plan?
I'm amazed that neither Norwegian nor HEM realised Isis's obvious trollpost was an obvious trollpost.
In post 18, Isis wrote:To help I used Dice. I did not throw them and adjusted them with my fingers until they showed the Value I wanted. Here is a picture to prove that I adjusted them with my fingers until I got the Value I wanted:
I mean come on, this part had be me wheezing.
HEM is even like "what's your response to our critique" after Isis has already showed herself an alt. Which isn't scummy, just legendarily unobservant.
I scumread your reaction because kneejerking "this is town" then raising objectively meritous objections has this look to it like realizing a slot deserves to get townread but then pursuing a win condition where slots that deserve to get townread don't get townread. Norwee's response was more internally consistent.
What's with this assumption that the logic of an argument is intrinsically interrelated with the scumminess of the person making making it. I thought HEM was perfectly consistent by townreading Isis while disagreeing with her logic. It's not just that there's "lots of room for [it]" (48), it's the only sensical way of reading his posts. And I completely agree with HEM that if Isis's opening were coming from a genuine newbie, it would be really towny. I would just never buy it coming from a genuine newbie.
Norwegian seems a more calculating in personality than HEM, even just based on their academic tone in 34, so out of the two, the fact that Norwegian fails to recognize the obvious trollpost and makes it into some kind of "ah yes this is an intentional attempt to look like scumhunting without in fact progressing the game" looks far more disingenuous.
No, I think h.e.m. was townreading me either way. I just think it's somewhat scum indicative that at that juncture he's more concerned with litigating an approach to RVS that's slightly worse than any other approach rather building an emergent townbloc in a nightless game. It's not about dissonance, it's about priorities.
Like when I was in Guns and Roses and someone with zero games replaced in with an obvtown post that only one other person wanted to townlock, I spent like my next umpteen posts saying "cyanjet is town, don't ever lynch it after I'm dead".
