AGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
YOUR LYNCH AGAINST CHARTER WAS UNCALLED FOR WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN INFORMATION.
I WILL LYNCH YOU BECAUSE HINDSIGHT DSFAFSDFSS
was i drunk lol usually i never make spelling errors.Alabaska J wrote:I really don' think we will be able to get much from the charter wagon. Hw looked so damn scummy…sigh. I can never read him.
charter wrote:[@Yawetage 25] Is that a serious vote yawetag?
yawetag wrote:Are all of the other votes serious? Right now, it will stay. There's been absolutely no game play yet, and until I see something to change my mind, I won't move it. That said, I'm almost positive *something* will change my mind.
charter wrote:That doesn't answer my question. Was there serious backing to that vote or was it a joke?
charter wrote:Yes or no.
Refusal to answer simply to a yes/no question. General stubbornness, meh. Far too serious at this point, imo.yawetag wrote:How about you answer MY question first (from post 9):It's amazing to me that you want a serious answer from me when none of you that bandwagoned Braeden answered mine.yawetag wrote:Wow. Why the bandwagon on Braeden?
Because not answering simple questions/beating around the bush isn't nearly as scummy as a random three/seven vote wagon on the first page.Yawetag in 34 wrote:I love it. Voting me because I won't answer a question, yet it's okay for THREE people to bandwagon without any hint of an answer.
Grimmy, are you proposing we name claim?Grimmy wrote: I tried to make a list of what roles could be assigned to certain properties in this game. I would also assume that this could be a breaker in the game if everyone name claimed.
whatJebus wrote:Post 43 - Random (?) vote on gamma, reason that 'yawetag is obv noobtown'
Post 53 - Defends his vote by saying noobs don't play solely in noob games. This is where 43 starts to look scummy.
Quite the opposite.Nightfall wrote:Grimmy, are you proposing we name claim?Grimmy wrote: I tried to make a list of what roles could be assigned to certain properties in this game. I would also assume that this could be a breaker in the game if everyone name claimed.
I'm getting deja vu here...
this whole game is about speculation. it support the "No Nameclaim" idea though, imho.Alabaska J wrote:also grimmy, the name thing does nothing to help the town. i refuse to turn this into "let's outguess the mod!"
and Jebus, I think you may be on to something with this Yawetog thing. Those things you quoted look pretty fishy. Still wanna hear from gamma first though.
speculation and outguessing the mod are two very different things. good to now that you are on the same page in regards to nameclaiming thoughGrimmy wrote:this whole game is about speculation. it support the "No Nameclaim" idea though, imho.
I'll (re)iterate why I didn't give my answer originally. I had previously asked charter (and the other two) why they bandwagoned on Braeden, and had received no answer. Why should I answer questions when mine have been ignored?Jebus in #215 wrote:Here's a read on Alabaska J and Yawetag. Will also read up on a few others later. For now,Vote: Yawetag
yawetag
Refusal to answer simply to a yes/no question. General stubbornness, meh. Far too serious at this point, imo.
Because not answering simple questions/beating around the bush isn't nearly as scummy as a random three/seven vote wagon on the first page.
Interesting.Jebus in #215 wrote:Post 111 - "Roleclaiming confuses general scumhunting, the kind of confusion scum would want". This came over as really scummy to me.
How did I seem aware of the mistake? I didn't mean to use the incorrect term, and corrected myself when I did.Jebus in #215 wrote:Post 148 - Apologizes for using roleclaim rather than nameclaim, but then again seemed to be aware of this mistake ahead of time. Still uses same logic against Charter.
Because the bandwagon was a random vote bandwagon. You were asked a simple yes/no question, sidestepped it a few times and didn't actually get around to answering it until someone voted you.yawetag wrote:Maybe I haven't had enough experience here, but I fail to see how not answering a yes/no question is more scummy than a bandwagon without cause.
Except not, because then we'd have some pretty damned obvious scum (although the most likely scenario would be that at least 2-3 voters unvoting before anything could happen).yawetag wrote:I understand it's only 3 of 7, but we don't even know how many scum are in this setup. If we bandwagon someone to L-[# of scum], it's a good chance they'll be lynched fairly quickly.
I don't see how three people voting the same person is "random." Especially when 1) NONE of them even hinted it was, and 2) This was done within a few posts.Spolium in 223 wrote:Because the bandwagon was a random vote bandwagon.yawetag wrote:Maybe I haven't had enough experience here, but I fail to see how not answering a yes/no question is more scummy than a bandwagon without cause.
No. I answered it when my question was answered.Spolium in 223 wrote:You were asked a simple yes/no question, sidestepped it a few times and didn't actually get around to answering it until someone voted you.
Let's say there's 3 of them. We vote a couple votes on someone, one of the scum attaches on. We vote another vote, another scum attaches. Then a townie hammers. I hardly see how you can sniff out the scum in that setup.Spolium in 223 wrote:Except not, because then we'd have some pretty damned obvious scum (although the most likely scenario would be that at least 2-3 voters unvoting before anything could happen).yawetag wrote:I understand it's only 3 of 7, but we don't even know how many scum are in this setup. If we bandwagon someone to L-[# of scum], it's a good chance they'll be lynched fairly quickly.