+2
0
0
+1
+1
0
+2
+1
+1
+1
+1
0
0
+3
With 13 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.
Deadline is in
Awaiting prod responses from:
My argument is that you didn't respond till people started pressuring and talking about you and you only come in to defend yourself and have not really commented about the game as a whole (though odds are this'll prompt you to do so regardless so i'll write that down so I can say I called it regardless if you do it or not)In post 373, Slandaar wrote:That is not what lurking is. Not that lurking is a good tell to begin with. Your whole argument you are making is 'you didn't post anything for 2 days' which is true but does not have any bearing on my alignment.In post 300, Naomi-Tan wrote:yeah but only 2 of your posts are not responding to people poking you and that is lurking.
In post 342, Manuel87 wrote:1) Him having a good case against you has nothing to do with what i didnt like about his approach.In post 338, Aristophanes wrote:2 things Manuel.In post 324, Manuel87 wrote:@Raskolnikov: In my opinion stalking ppl for activity and pointing it out as soon as you find someone that is active in other games is even more scummy.
1. Rask basically wrote my scum meta to a T there. I didn't realize it was what I was doing, but so be it. His scumread is perfectly legitimate and natural if you ask me.
2. I dislike the shade you're throwing his way in that post. You don't ask him questions, just lob things at him that he can't really defend against. Why is that your approach here??
2) Call it throwing shade if you want to i just stated my opinion. If you say he cant defend against that doesnt that mean you think that i am correct?
Also saying xyz is aktive in his other games could be considered as the same you are accusing me of (throwing shade you cant defend against)
Its my approach because i didnt like his approach as i stated in my post he should have contributed instead of stalikng inaktive players.
I voted infinity because i wanted to see how rb would react when Infinity got some votes on his head.In post 374, Naomi-Tan wrote:Ah I see what happened there, Yeah I saw you unvote and vote on the same page and thought your unvote was a vote, so it looked like you voted for infinity then when that trained stopped you jumped to me. but as it was an unvote not a vote and naomi is being silly. unless in 234... one sec... hmm there is sort of a pattern.
Rb started on infinity and there you joined in with a comment reinforcing what rb was saying but not adding anything. then again with my train, picking up the pressure while slandaar went back to lurking. its not a strong case and it was just a gut feeling but it does kinda pan out a little when you look into it. though its not as strong as the last thing I said.
As i said my question wasnt about him reading you town but his opinion on you so him posting that didnt change much for me thats why i went with the post anyway.In post 372, Naomi-Tan wrote: Ninja post by Manuel87; His opinion of me being town is an opinion if you want the reason he thinks that feel free to dig into the topic. Additionally, if he did post that while you was typing why didn't you read it? like it comes up and stops you posting you could of stopped and edited before posting just like im doing here. Regardless its still funny having those back to back.
I didn't post for a couple days. Nothing to do with anything else.In post 377, Naomi-Tan wrote:My argument is that you didn't respond till people started pressuring and talking about you
I don't see how my first posts are 'defending myself'. You can explain?In post 377, Naomi-Tan wrote: and you only come in to defend yourself
Do you also find that people who say that early game reads are weaker are more often scum?In post 319, Manuel87 wrote:Not really i just didnt like your response to his reasoning.In post 237, Infinity 324 wrote:Do you agree with what IPS was saying?
Sometimes, even RVS wagons make people scared of being lynched, or at least they know their actions are being scrutinized.I think i mentioned that before but why should i feel pressured by RVS votes? If i get killed by that i am happy to get into a new game.In post 291, Infinity 324 wrote:I wanted to stay on the manuel wagon for pressure
Well, okIn post 323, Aristophanes wrote:I defended Naomi stronger than I had expected because as I began explaining it my read got stronger. It happens.
And I was prodded, not Beetlejuiced. Believe what you like though.
Have you read naomi's scumgame?In post 324, Manuel87 wrote:VOTE: Naomi-Tan
Isoed her last game till Day1 ends and some posts into her 2nd last game. Her playstyle is totaly different in my opinion.
She already made an excuse for that but that excuse is invalid as she hasnt really been pressured since page 3 and still keeps up that silly i am so innocent and silly act.
She got really defensive when Slandaar asked her about that and still didnt answer his question but accused him of throwing shade at her instead.
I understand that you missed a bunch of things, but it rubs me the wrong way that almost everything you've done so far was based on you missing something.In post 340, LicketyQuickety wrote:I was under the impression that you were caught up based on this:In post 339, Aristophanes wrote:I had to Iso you to see that, as I have yet to read that portion on the game. I don't think I've been hiding that fact. How did you miss it?
Granted, I missed that you said you were behind in that same post.In post 337, Aristophanes wrote:Have to read from page 6, as I said.
Probably?In post 356, Manuel87 wrote:I probably had the same townread everyone else has.In post 348, JarJarDrinks wrote:Manuel Flipflopping his Naomi read cause of a meta ISO looks shitty to me.
I understand why you think the argument is weak, why does that make it scummy?In post 358, Manuel87 wrote:In my opinion activity stalking means you are looking for someone you can throw shade on.
Posting in other threads or being online doesnt necessarily mean you are lurking.
Take me for example yesterday i had the gamethread opened the whole day at work but i couldnt read anything because of meetings and other stuff.
Now take the same situation while you are active in 2 or 3 games. You want to read everything before you write a response to something at least i would want to.
That takes time now you have 3 games to catch up on and you may not manage all 3 games so instead of playing all of them halfassed you decide to concentrate on the ones further into the game.
True ppl could actually just be lurking but i like that players get replaced after their 3rd prod so i doubt ppl would deliberately get prodded just to lurk for a little longer.
Thats also why i only play one game at a time because there are days i cant manage to read at all.
Actually, this is quite a good point. Manuel, what do you think about the rest of rask's argument?In post 372, Naomi-Tan wrote:Guys Im really Convinced Manuel87 might be scum because of the huge miss rep in this post
I'm not talking about myself in this one I'm talking about Raskolnikov Because her argument found here;In post 324, Manuel87 wrote:@Raskolnikov: In my opinion stalking ppl for activity and pointing it out as soon as you find someone that is active in other games is even more scummy.
You had been scumread by some ppl and instead of addressing that you disappeared yourself and came back by throwing shade at ppl that also were inactive.
Though does mention his lurking is mostly focused on pointing out his meta and reasoning behind the vote and the lurking doesn't seem to be the major focus of their case. in fact when I looked over the main body of astro's section nothing was said about this, its like he read the first line and represented his entire cased based on that.. and he obviously finds meta a valid voting point because at the same time he was using it to pressure me. am I just seeing things guys? or is this just town paranoia? or am I onto something? Could do with some Assistance looking at this matter.In post 320, Raskolnikov wrote:snip
your first post came because 2 people voted for you after saying literally nothing.In post 381, Slandaar wrote:I didn't post for a couple days. Nothing to do with anything else.In post 377, Naomi-Tan wrote:My argument is that you didn't respond till people started pressuring and talking about youI don't see how my first posts are 'defending myself'. You can explain?In post 377, Naomi-Tan wrote: and you only come in to defend yourself
You are just creating a false narrative.
WTF?
How do you know me? Who are you, just so we're on equal footing.
based on your Raskol voteIn post 389, Naomi-Tan wrote:Hold it, I slightly misrepped you there; On your 5th post you give a hint of a larger post to come
I guess..? Zerk?In post 394, kraska77 wrote:Boy
What's with the overblown reaction?
Should be quite obvious what site when I said I know both you and rb offsite
Ninj'd me.In post 395, kraska77 wrote:It's zerkalo from intpf