↑ 4nxi3ty wrote:I've been mulling over this for some time:Immediately after this post LS decided to ISO some people and than later came up with a case on funky and alice, looks like he was worried he wasn't providing enough content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation
Yup, after Nacho voted me I did do some ISOs. But I was going to do those ISOs anyway because I wanted to get some solid reads on people. Sorry if that's scummy.
On one hand LS has been pressuring a lot of people to explain themselves but on the other he has been overstating the scumminess of others.
Once I realized my Alice case was bad I unvoted. If you wanna prove how I'm overstating scumminess on Funky, then I'll buy this point. But please do that first.
On one hand LS has been pressuring a lot of people to explain themselves but on the other he has been overstating the scumminess of others. It has gotten to the point where I feel he is just been trying to get a mislynch going on multiple people while masking his actions as pro-town by asking a lot of questions.
Summary: "My reads disagree with LS so he must be scum pushing for mislynches. He asks a lot of questions. That couldn't possibly be part of his playstyle; he must be scum."
Tell me I'm wrong.
Also, I have no idea how you could think that funky's thought process was logical. He referred to events that didn't happen. I.e, he said Nacho explained himself when he didn't. I don't know how a townie could look through Nacho's posts and see an explanation.
He said he didn't vote because he was waiting for Nacho to answer a question. The question, imo, doesn't seem like enough to hold off a vote for. I think he's lying.
But please tell me where you see the logic. I want to be enlightened.
↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:The hungry wolf comment was quoted as an example of one of the times you demanded more content. That would've been clear to you had you read my posting. As for "slight disappointment", it's more than that. I never suggested it wasn't.
Honest question: Do you really think I haven't been providing content since you've been gone? Your argument's irrelevant ATM.
(Also, don't even think about replying that your prodding made me provide content.)
And, didn't even acknowledge your "out of place complimenting" bit. Can we try again and answer people's suspicions against us seriously?
How am I supposed to reply to "This is not ok!!!" especially when I thought it was perfectly fine. How about you quit it with your lazy argument and vote someone else. You told me to shit or get off the pot. I did. How about you do the same?
Nacho wrote:You're looking at the arguments as opposed to the people themselves. This is scummy.
Uh huh. That's why at least three other people were saying it was a town/town argument, right? Were they all my scumbuddies?
Furthermore, how is it scummy. Shouldn't I be evaluating their arguments to see if they're town? You're not making any sense.
----
I want to see Theo reply to the flip flop on Alice, since I feel there is an explanation that town could make. If he explains well, my vote stays on Funk.
Game(s) where I have in fact been the last survivor, or been among the last survivors: 1