Marvel Avengers Alliance - Game over

Thor665 · Post Post #26 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:14 pm

In post 14, Porkens wrote:Duhhh, sure, although it's really obvious. You two are distancing.

Using the same logic you're distancing too.
So...basically 'blargh, wiki tell!' at work. Meh.

I like your current vote though, so there is that.

Zekrom25 · Post Post #27 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:16 pm

1) what is the purpose of these questions? to find information
2) Why didn't you answer me? i will as soon as RVS Ends
3) how are you going to get us out of RVS? do you want it to end ?

Bulbazak · Post Post #28 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:20 pm

In post 13, Porkens wrote: MMMMM and THAT is what you call a flinch.

A flinch? You got overzealous and set up a false dichotomy in RVS. You were essentially cheerleading my poking of Thor, and now you're saying that we're both distancing from each other after you've been called out? Learn to be more subtle in the future.

@Zekrom and Cxin: Why aren't you commenting on what's going on?

Zekrom25 · Post Post #29 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:40 pm

mostly because of RVS

Thor665 · Post Post #30 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:47 pm

In post 29, Zekrom25 wrote:mostly because of RVS

That actually isn't a valid answer, really. RVS is simply low information - thus it's pro town to provide information, ergo it's pro town to comment on stuff that happens in the RVS.

Yates · Post Post #31 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:55 pm

I don't know about the rest [or Porkens' motivation] but this...

In post 28, Bulbazak wrote:now you're saying that we're both distancing from each other

...was my gut read as well.

Yates · Post Post #32 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:56 pm

Okay. "Gut read" isn't really what I meant. Please replace "gut read" with "first impression upon initial read through."

Zekrom25 · Post Post #33 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:57 pm

In post 11, Thor665 wrote:
In post 9, Porkens wrote:Well, we are pretty much lynching one of Thor/Bulba. Probably both scum TBH.
Darn, you totally figured out my scum ploy. Can you explain it to everyone else, so they too can
marvel
(rimshot) at your brilliance?

interesting ^

In post 10, Bulbazak wrote:You can join me anytime you like, Thor.
Nah, I still think you're scum. Currently all I have on him is poor play. If it changes - you'll know.

details please & why do you think it's poor play ?

XScorpion · Post Post #34 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:03 pm

In post 27, Zekrom25 wrote:3) how are you going to get us out of RVS? do you want it to end ?

Don't answer my question with another question.
I think you are scum for avoiding commenting on what is happening and not actively seeking to end RVS.

Zekrom25 · Post Post #35 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:14 pm

we aren't in RVS anymore please re-read post # 33

Thor665 · Post Post #36 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:19 pm

In post 33, Zekrom25 wrote:
In post 11, Thor665 wrote:Nah, I still think you're scum. Currently all I have on him is poor play. If it changes - you'll know.
details please & why do you think it's poor play ?

I'm leaving the extra stuff quoted because...as far as I can tell you're asking the same question twice and acting like it's two. If I'm wrong you need to clarify, but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to give details about poor play *and* say why it's poor play - that's the same thing.

But, basically, anyone working on a "distancing" case on Page 1 is already pretty much admitting he's rectally extracting so deeply that he's fondling his own tonsils...but, in *addition* to that, for the reason of his vote on Bulbazak to make any sense then I also have to be scum with the exact same validity - and he chose to unvote an equal read to vote a different equal read. It' sjust all sloppy and badly done.

Never mind that Bulbazak's reaction to me in Post 7 was *way* more flinchy and also waaaay not a scum/scum interaction, and there you go.
I wouldn't cry if Porkens was lynched, but I don't currently see it as a case worth pushing on either. He's still just derping around in RVS while Bulbazak *has* committed an actual scum reaction - so therefore I'm not moving.

Now, what did *you* see in the posting on Page 1 thus far?

XScorpion · Post Post #37 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:21 pm

Zekrom25 wrote:we aren't in RVS anymore please re-read post # 33

In post 27, Zekrom25 wrote:2) Why didn't you answer me?
i will as soon as RVS Ends

Lynch all liars guys.

Thor665 · Post Post #38 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:22 pm

::double checks XScorp's join date...shakes head sadly...returns to game.::

XScorpion · Post Post #39 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:23 pm

In post 38, Thor665 wrote:::double checks XScorp's join date...shakes head sadly...returns to game.::

Vote Zekrom with me.

Thor665 · Post Post #40 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:26 pm

What's the Zekrom case? If it's better than my Bulba case, sure, but if it's just a random wagon for reactions I submit the Bulba one has both 1. A better case behind it and 2. More votes, so ergo more reaction pressure - making your offer a really weak one. Am I missing anything?

in other news - you could vote Bulba.

XScorpion · Post Post #41 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:32 pm

I think actively and openly desiring to prolong RVS is scummier than 'flinching'.

Zekrom25 · Post Post #42 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:35 pm

@XScorpion

Wouldn't you prefer to leave RVs now rather than later? i RVS was good to be in to get information
What do you think about post 9? i think it's not thought out

XScorpion · Post Post #43 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:36 pm

In post 42, Zekrom25 wrote:@XScorpion

Wouldn't you prefer to leave RVs now rather than later? i RVS was good to be in to get information
What do you think about post 9? i think it's not thought out

1) I couldn't disagree more.
2) Elaborate.

Smudger · Post Post #44 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:37 pm

VOTE: Zekrom

Did anyone else answer the questions?

why tunnel in on someone whose response basically says," I could not care less about your questions. "

Bulbazak · Post Post #45 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:38 pm

In post 36, Thor665 wrote: Never mind that Bulbazak's reaction to me in Post 7 was *way* more flinchy and also waaaay not a scum/scum interaction, and there you go.
I wouldn't cry if Porkens was lynched, but I don't currently see it as a case worth pushing on either. He's still just derping around in RVS while Bulbazak *has* committed an actual scum reaction - so therefore I'm not moving.

Your post was crap, and I pointed it out. Not to mention the fact that you've seen me handle larger wagons as scum, so the fact that you're trying to push something as ridiculous as "flinching" (What is that?) is laughable.

cxinlee · Post Post #46 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:51 pm

@Zekrom and Cxin: Why aren't you commenting on what's going on?

Because there is nothing I want to comment on.

XScorpion · Post Post #47 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:54 pm

In post 46, cxinlee wrote:
@Zekrom and Cxin: Why aren't you commenting on what's going on?
Because there is nothing I want to comment on.

What do you think of Zekrom?

cxinlee · Post Post #48 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:04 pm

I don't get any vibes from him

Porkens · Post Post #49 (ISO) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:11 pm

In post 28, Bulbazak wrote:
In post 13, Porkens wrote: MMMMM and THAT is what you call a flinch.
A flinch? You got overzealous and set up a false dichotomy in RVS. You were essentially cheerleading my poking of Thor, and now you're saying that we're both distancing from each other after you've been called out? Learn to be more subtle in the future.

@Zekrom and Cxin: Why aren't you commenting on what's going on?

how many more buzzwords could you have fit in there scum?