I would like you to describe a case on someone w/o using the word "opportunistic." It seems to be your favorite argument/buzz word.Hiraki wrote:How is this supposed to make sense?ribwich wrote:I'm still pretty confident that Hiraki is scum, but there's much better odds in going after one of the non voters. I'm going to look at each one more closely first before putting in a vote.
Fuck Ribwich. You're bing opportunistic.
Yea, still failure to do anythign just coming in making short posts, and slinking back into the background.Hiraki wrote:How is this supposed to make sense?ribwich wrote:I'm still pretty confident that Hiraki is scum, but there's much better odds in going after one of the non voters. I'm going to look at each one more closely first before putting in a vote.
Fuck Ribwich. You're bing opportunistic.
Because I've made my case on him. Do you believe Tragedy is scum?Jason wrote:then fail to mention Gudierian again. Why?
But the point is that you found me to be town yesterday, except for a few facts, and now see me to be confirmed scum because I haven't added as much in comparison.jasonT1981 wrote:And I still find Tragedy to be scum.
Who are your scum suspects, Hiraki?
I totally agree. But that's not the first time Hiraki has used "opportunism" as an argument. Plus, I've seen it soooo many times lately, it's getting annoying.The Fonz wrote:Opportunism can be buzzwordy (since a lot of things can look oppo when in fact it's just town reconciling themselves to a non-ideal situation or having the same opinion on something as someone else) but it gets overused precisely because it's probably the one really good scumtell. Genuinely opportunistic behaviour, like, say, selecting an example at random when a player leaves a wagon on someone they've been calling scum all day and joins a wagon they have previously shown not too much interest in in order to force a claim, is still very scummy.
I can't see it because it's not there. Point me to a specific thing that is AtE. You're making it up to try to make mist look scummier and retrospectively justify the hammering of a claimed cop in plain sight, a ridiculously antitown action.DemonHybrid wrote:Fonz, I won't respond to every point and cause a wall. I will say this.
How you can not see the constant AtE in Mist's last posts is stunning to me, especially for someone with your experience.
Calling someone stupidI also don't appreciate the ad hom, but whatever, that's cool, because you're scum to me.
Never said otherwise. The 'she' and 'her' references in my post refer to mist.And I'm male for the love of god
Mist7676 wrote:You may lynch me now. Regret later.
Mist7676 wrote:I hope you guys take off your votes I wanna use my power.
Lets take a vote. Who here thinks that this is not AtE?Mist7676 wrote:So when do votes come off.
It may or may not be, but it didn't help her case. If ANYONE had claimed the way she did, I would support a hammer. Even if they were likeSensFan wrote:DH, I'm not sure I understand why you seem to be saying that a poorly-made claim by a newbie is scummier than if it had been made by an experienced player.
Fonz, you agree with the concept of Policy Lynches, right?
Loads of people seem to have been sayng this and it is true. However it would reveal another simpson (who may well be prs) and that power was claimed retrospectively ie after she had claimed cop. And that is an insanely strong role. There were reasons to doubt that claim.loads of people wrote:SHE CLAIMED A CONFIRMABLE ROLE!!!
You're going to lynch the claimed doctor? Yeah, you just jumped on my radar.boberz wrote:Loads has happened while i have been away.
Not buyng hibbert as a doc at all. And I can now talk coherently btw.
Loads of people seem to have been sayng this and it is true. However it would reveal another simpson (who may well be prs) and that power was claimed retrospectively ie after she had claimed cop. And that is an insanely strong role. There were reasons to doubt that claim.loads of people wrote:SHE CLAIMED A CONFIRMABLE ROLE!!!
---
Mod wifom. Sipsons charachters strong prs saving sprngfield (town) from some kind of threat (nuclear power plant). hibbert is town needing to be saved therefor no power therefor lying jason.
vote jason
Shame he is not in the 9, I will be reading the nine players to get a better understanding of them. BUt for now this will do.
Yes, let's, because it's clear to anyone with half a brain that is not AtE. 'So when do votes come off?' AtE? Seriously? My God. (And AtE itself is something of a meaningless buzzword, but that's beside the point).DemonHybrid wrote:Okay, lets show Fonz how much of an idiot he's being this game.
Mist7676 wrote:You may lynch me now. Regret later.Mist7676 wrote:I hope you guys take off your votes I wanna use my power.Lets take a vote. Who here thinks that this is not AtE?Mist7676 wrote:So when do votes come off.
Yes, in that when a player is making zero contribution of any value to a game, you need to have more than average reason to believe them town in order to justify not lynching them. However, it's worth noting that a cop claim on day one is an extremely good reason not to lynch them.SensFan wrote:DH, I'm not sure I understand why you seem to be saying that a poorly-made claim by a newbie is scummier than if it had been made by an experienced player.
Fonz, you agree with the concept of Policy Lynches, right?
And I can't begin to imagine why DH is consistently ignoring the very obvious point that scum has clear motive to hide behind this kind of thing in order to do something very very useful to them ie killing off a claimed cop. Not to mention the blatant exaggeration he is employing to try to make the claim look worse than it was.DemonHybrid wrote: I don't care if that person is Mist, shotty, mith, Vi, whoever. I would support a hammer on them in an instant. I'm just not understanding why, as part of the "uninformed majority" like Fonz says he is, he doesn't at least understand why rib, boberz and I would believe that way.
First, you've completely ignored my case on you. Second, I asked you to give cases on people w/o using the word "opportunistic." You've so far used it to explain your case on Guiderian; you've attacked me for "major vote hopping opportunities"; in ISO#30, you comment on scum "taking opportunity"; you accuse Diddin of being opportunistic; and just recently, Ribwich is opportunistic. I'd really like a case that isn't "Well, you were being opportunistic."Hiraki wrote:What question?