}|{opa wrote: i bolded the part of your post which is unnecessary and hurtful. i'm not sure why you are so riled up about this exchange, you don't even seem to entertain the idea that you could be wrong here. that kind of tunneling is anti-town.
You are fucking hypocrite. You first get tunneled on me, my first vote post was just a probe. It is your not very pro-town reaction which is keeping me to hold vote on you. And
I nicely asked you to call me Jora
, for I-don't-know-how-much-times in past! FUCK YOU!
i didn't "tunnel". i asked for an explanation of your "gambit" vote. you responded by now tunneling on me. what was not "pro-town" about my reaction? i asked you reasonable questions like "what was differnt about my reaction than the others reactions which made you vote me over them?" then you said "it wasn't your reaction, its your advocacy of passivcity". so why didn't you vote me when i allegedly "advocated passivity"? so sorry opa. fucking me is not an option.
opa wrote:your "gambit" failed to take into account two players, and was therefore incomplete in the information it returned.
I had commented this. I decided that it was pointless to wait for those 2 players, and I got all the information I needed.
ah yes. you do realize that by not waiting for those 2 players, you are in fact "advocating passivity"? by not leaving your unexplained vote in the air, you cheapen the results generated by your gambit. tbh, looking back, it seems that you were more afraid of being lynched, so instead of continuing with your lame bandwagon unreasoned vote, you decided to pretend it was a gambit. a townie shouldn't be so uncomfortable at L-1. but you were so uncomfortable tyhat you decided to cut your gambit short instead of waiting for two players who were standing on the sidelines being "passive".
opa wrote:your argument that "passivity" is scummy, but town loses because of it does not make sense. the idea that i somehow "advocated" passivity by being passive, makes no sense. if i was passive, then that should be a towntell according to your logic.
This is only your retarded misinterpretation. What's your problem? You stupid or what? Go, see any of newbie game threads. The passive play when it cames from expirienced players, especially taken with comments like "nah, there is nothing to comment, bye" is pro-scum, because it stimulates others to act in the same way.
this is not the newbie forum. if you want to use newbie strategy, go play with the fuckin newbs. i was passive for 3 or 4 pages. as soon as there was something worthwhile to comment on, i commented on it. keep flinging those insults, opa. they seem to be the backbone of your case.
opa wrote:by asking for those explanations, i was being proactive, not passive. so whatevz.
I commented on this too. Go read (Post #132) why it is not so much of a pro-active.
please explain this again. i can't find it in your previous post. as far as i can tell, your argument is "by asking those questions, dj is sitting on the sidelines until someone does something scummy." ok. even if we accept that theory of passivity being a scumtell, you employed the exact same strategy. you posted an unexplained bandwagon vote. then... you waited on the sidelines until someone did something. then you attacked that something. coincidentally, you attacked someone for putting you at L-1. by not waiting for 2 players to react to your vote "gambit" you not only shortchanged information you could have used to better scumhunt, you shortchanged the entire town from getting more info as to the alignments of the two inactive players. great job. you arte scummy by your own logic. the only difference between you and me from a logical standpoint is that "allegedly" laid out an unexplained bandwagon vote to "bait" someone so you could attack. imo, your behavior is way more in tune with scum behavior than mine as you describe it. if you are meaning something else, or if i am misunderstanding your 132, just let me know.
opa wrote:this excessive tunneling is ridiculous. your inability to look at this thread objectively only further convinces me that you are scum and that your attack on me was oppurtunistic.
I wait for [J] and GNR to comment on this situation. I do not get tunelled yet. You such a hypocrite! My excessive comments on the case is caused by you. You get tunneled on me, all we know this. Stop asking stupid questions and misreping my case. Give others a chance to ask if they want.
everyone else is free to do whatever they want. acting as though i am somehow suppressing others activity is misrep. i have done no such thing. blaming me for this war of words is also misrep. you are equally, if not more, culpable.
opa wrote:WHERE DAMN IT? You had voted me instantly. And after that, I answered all the crap you asked.
your very next post. you know the one:
i asked-
dj wrote:1) at the time of my initial post which sparked your vote on me, "can you also please advise me as to what other topics of discussion i could have touched on while waiting for yours and narwahl's explanations. was there anything else of particular interest that i should have noticed and/or commented on?(from post 88)"
2) "please qualify the differences between Adc's reaction to your vote, J's reaction to your vote, Riggs' reaction to your vote, and my reaction. you may want to include narwahl's as well."(from post 87)
which you ignored. then, when i restated them in the format you see above, your answers were:
opa wrote:1)
I have nothing to advise, think for yourself.
You should have been more active if you wanted to gain some trust. Don't tell me that it was hard. You were passive, and more so, you told others that it was an Ok thing. So, I voted you. I repeat, you have yourself to thank for that. You were scummy. And your OMGUSish reaction not helping at all.
2) Again. This is not related with my reasons for voting you. All I have to say is that you were wrong when you said about an equal reaction. I can tell the theory behind my hunting. By no means it is the only correct. It is just my belief. Here it is. The time for experiment was good: RVS stuck. Every one were looking for oportunities to say something. Of course, scums are less interested in that, but they should make new posts too. The only difference is the motivation. Scums already know who is who. Hence, if they find some noticeable thing, which can give them some townpoints, they hardly to ignore it. On the other hand, townie should interpret new phenomenon using his previously collected knowledge. So if he gained some strong tells before, or if he simply tunneled on someone, then he may just ignore new thing. This is to say, I have a townread on daftnarwhal. Now piss off, DJ.
the question (1) was me asking you to provide things you wanted me to comment on or things you think i should have commented on. you provided zero points of interest. you couldn't suggest a single thing for me to have commented on. in other words: you didn't answer the question. you avoided it by saying "i have nothing to advis, think for yourself." the only player you mention in these answers is narwahl who you claim a townread on.
the question (2) was me asking you to compare the reactions of the players to your gambit. instead of comparing the reactions, you stated that the reactions had nothing to do with your vote. which then begs the question: why did you vote? to which you provide the answer of "..."
in a later post , you then state that the reason for your vote on me was "advocating passivity". which then begs the question: "why didn't you vote me when i supposedly "advocated passivity"? the chain of events is misleading. here they are from what i can tell:
i post. (you claim this post is advocating passivity. but you don't say so in the thread. you do nothing.
you make an unreasoned bandwagon vote.
two players react. you get voted(most liekly pressure votes to encourage you to answer the question.)
i say(without voting you), i would like the two unexplained votes to be explained and then i will comment.
you vote me(after my question. you say this:
opa wrote:My unsubstantial vote was made for the sake of reaction hunting.
^^ this is the statement which have never qualified. in other words, would you have had a town read on me if i had posted:
hypothetical dj post wrote:vote: opa
for making an unreasoned bandwagon vote.
?? is that a townie post to make on page 3(4 or whatever it was)? i have asked you to produce something that i could have commented on at that point in the game. so far, i haven't seen an answer.
p-edit:
}|{opa wrote:your fear of quickhammer is unfounded. linking to games where it happened doesn't mean its going to happen here, and it also doesn't mean town is going to lose. thats fear mongering.
One can prove that lying as town would fine by using the same stupid argument, you dumpster.
i don't follow you. there are situations where a town lie is a good lie.
}|{opa wrote: ↑ don_johnson wrote:just noticed that's L-1. noone hammer please. if anyone wants to threaten and noone wants to get off, i would suggest a claim.
its early, but you're "A-ha!" gambit deserves it imo.
Here it is. You ask for a quickhammer! Scum. Now try and tell me how this was pro-town. And I get tunelled on you for no reason.
no. asking for a quickhammer would be saying "i don't care if someone hammers." saying "noone hammer please," is the opposite of asking for a quickhammer. maybe you need to learn english better?