Well spotted.In post 177, Syryana wrote:Are you one of those people?In post 149, Katsuki wrote:Don't really care to state my thoughts on matt. Not to you at least.
Doesn't help that you're incredibly scummy.
Well spotted.In post 177, Syryana wrote:Are you one of those people?In post 149, Katsuki wrote:Don't really care to state my thoughts on matt. Not to you at least.
No, it is "I am lurking, but I'll read the thread eventually and maybe one day I'll even post"In post 222, Zdenek wrote:It looks like the opposite of promising to do more lurking.In post 220, Pjovek wrote:When he posted to let us know he'd actually play the game later.In post 218, Zdenek wrote:Where did sword promise to do more lurking?In post 217, Pjovek wrote:Because sword was a great day1 lynch (and still is)
In the meantime he has dodged replacement forcing with promises of more lurking, so yeah. A good lynch indeed.
Also should I share my super-secret way of reading ffery as town?
It'll cost you though.
Do you think that policy lynching in this game is appropriate? Would you be willing to risk outing the apocalypse role base on a policy?
hmmm?In post 226, Pjovek wrote:No, it is "I am lurking, but I'll read the thread eventually and maybe one day I'll even post"
In post 203, sword_of_omens wrote:hey all!!!
back from V/LA and glad to see this one up and running...
gonna read up this morning and get to posting today...9 pages shouldn't be too bad....
Policy lynches are already questionable because they don't take into account a persons alignment, couple that with the fact that there's a role that we should avoid lynching, and I'm pretty sure that policy lynching is a bad idea.In post 226, Pjovek wrote:If you don't lynch people because they could be apocalypse dude, you'll never get anywhere. Literally the same thing can be said of any wagon ever and it has no value at all.
Why are you trying to instill fear and paranoia about this particular wagon, with a meaningless non-argument like that?
No that's exactly what you're doing, and it's not even an argument either.In post 227, Zdenek wrote:hmmm?In post 226, Pjovek wrote:No, it is "I am lurking, but I'll read the thread eventually and maybe one day I'll even post"In post 203, sword_of_omens wrote:hey all!!!
back from V/LA and glad to see this one up and running...
gonna read up this morning and get to posting today...9 pages shouldn't be too bad....Policy lynches are already questionable because they don't take into account a persons alignment, couple that with the fact that there's a role that we should avoid lynching, and I'm pretty sure that policy lynching is a bad idea.In post 226, Pjovek wrote:If you don't lynch people because they could be apocalypse dude, you'll never get anywhere. Literally the same thing can be said of any wagon ever and it has no value at all.
Why are you trying to instill fear and paranoia about this particular wagon, with a meaningless non-argument like that?
I'm not trying to instill fear or paranoida in the Sword wagon. I think that your reasons for pushing it are false, since he promised to post today and we are just back from a weekend.
I would expect that someone who was going to be unable to post either for more than a weekend or regularly over the weekend would replace out.
I thought your theory is that I am scum and buddying pjovik up.In post 238, Zdenek wrote:Why pjovek is scum:
1. Anti-town proposal of the mass universe claim.
2. Vote on Sword of Omens looks more like trying to look like he's doing something than actually doing something.
3. He made up a false reason to be suspicious of Sword - that Sword promised to continue lurking. When I called him out on it he kept pushing it.
4. When I questioned him about what he thought of policy lynching in this game rather than just answering he attempts to cast suspicion on to me for trying to instill fear and paranoia about the wagon. Now he's asking me why I chose to appeal to emotion, which never happened, and he's refusing to point out what he's talking about, and deciding to accuse me of not reading.
That's the same one thing, bambi...In post 238, Zdenek wrote: 4. When I questioned him about what he thought of policy lynching in this game rather than just answering he attempts to cast suspicion on to me for trying to instill fear and paranoia about the wagon. Now he's asking me why I chose to appeal to emotion, which never happened, and he's refusing to point out what he's talking about, and deciding to accuse me of not reading.
It's possible that you are scum doing that, but it's also possible that you liked his play in that past game, so I don't know, and it's not such a big deal.In post 239, fferyllt wrote:I thought your theory is that I am scum and buddying pjovik up.In post 238, Zdenek wrote:Why pjovek is scum:
1. Anti-town proposal of the mass universe claim.
2. Vote on Sword of Omens looks more like trying to look like he's doing something than actually doing something.
3. He made up a false reason to be suspicious of Sword - that Sword promised to continue lurking. When I called him out on it he kept pushing it.
4. When I questioned him about what he thought of policy lynching in this game rather than just answering he attempts to cast suspicion on to me for trying to instill fear and paranoia about the wagon. Now he's asking me why I chose to appeal to emotion, which never happened, and he's refusing to point out what he's talking about, and deciding to accuse me of not reading.
Oh please, keep misrepresenting like all my posts while pushing me for misrepresenting posts.In post 242, Zdenek wrote:It's possible that you are scum doing that, but it's also possible that you liked his play in that past game, so I don't know, and it's not such a big deal.In post 239, fferyllt wrote:I thought your theory is that I am scum and buddying pjovik up.In post 238, Zdenek wrote:Why pjovek is scum:
1. Anti-town proposal of the mass universe claim.
2. Vote on Sword of Omens looks more like trying to look like he's doing something than actually doing something.
3. He made up a false reason to be suspicious of Sword - that Sword promised to continue lurking. When I called him out on it he kept pushing it.
4. When I questioned him about what he thought of policy lynching in this game rather than just answering he attempts to cast suspicion on to me for trying to instill fear and paranoia about the wagon. Now he's asking me why I chose to appeal to emotion, which never happened, and he's refusing to point out what he's talking about, and deciding to accuse me of not reading.
Pjo misrepresenting SoO's post and inventing reasons to attack me is much worse.
I asked you some questions to try figuring out what you were thinking, you could have just answered, but you decided to accuse me of fear mongering and AtE.In post 241, Pjovek wrote:But please point me to where you made a rational and logical argument instead of appealing to the inherent fear of lynching the apocalypse dude.
You may quote it.
What have I misreped?In post 243, Pjovek wrote:Oh please, keep misrepresenting like all my posts while pushing me for misrepresenting posts.
There is still no logic, and only emotionalities, when I ask you for logic instead of emotionalities.In post 244, Zdenek wrote:I asked you some questions to try figuring out what you were thinking, you could have just answered, but you decided to accuse me of fear mongering and AtE.In post 241, Pjovek wrote:But please point me to where you made a rational and logical argument instead of appealing to the inherent fear of lynching the apocalypse dude.
You may quote it.
Oh, just like half my filter. No big deal.In post 244, Zdenek wrote:What have I misreped?In post 243, Pjovek wrote:Oh please, keep misrepresenting like all my posts while pushing me for misrepresenting posts.