Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:21 am
I'm pretty lost on this as well, I would have thought sangres, or me, or something.In post 1218, Antihero wrote:tick tock, SMP
if you were who you say you are, the obvious choice would have been kdub
https://forum.mafiascum-staging.net/
I'm pretty lost on this as well, I would have thought sangres, or me, or something.In post 1218, Antihero wrote:tick tock, SMP
if you were who you say you are, the obvious choice would have been kdub
Actually I would have been the ideal targetIn post 1218, Antihero wrote:tick tock, SMP
if you were who you say you are, the obvious choice would have been kdub
Scar was a scumread early on and faded into the background towards the end of the day. Figured he stopped posting that much when the wagon turned on me/HS for a reason not completely related to him being V/LA for a little bit. Obviously I was wrong since he's vanilla.In post 1218, Antihero wrote:tick tock, SMP
if you were who you say you are, the obvious choice would have been kdub
Correct. All I got was that he's a vanilla who didn't do anything last night.In post 1229, Antihero wrote:jake actually would have been a better one
@mara: because kdub already claimed non-vanilla. but actually, now that jake mentions it, he would have been better; if SMP got a "non-vanilla, no action" result, that would have cleared jake.
p.edit: well, wait a second, doesn't your "result" just say that he's vanilla? according to that, he could still be a scum goon and just not have done the kill.
First of all, I don't agree and think you are nitpicking here. Secondly, even if that really were my intention, what are you trying to suggest about my motivation for doing so? If you think that's scummy, explain my scum motivation here.In post 1224, sangres wrote:Your post I was responding to made it sound like Antihero's soft claim led to your willlingness to see SMP lynched. That doesn't line up with your earlier post.In post 1223, Kdub wrote:Yes I did. I don't get the point of this comment.In post 1221, fferyllt wrote:You said you could accept an SMP lynch before Antihero claimed he's lying.
no, i don't do fake guiltiesIn post 1228, zMuffinMan wrote:fwiw i don't think anti actually has anything that conflicts with SMP's claim and is just doing a dumb gambit because he thinks SMP is scum
there are also only a few people i could see him being scum with if he's a scum rolecop coz lol who the fuck targets someone who just replaced in?
/still haven't read shit prior to p48 outside of mod ISO
because he's claiming "vanilla or non-vanilla" results. rolecops get roles. vanilla cops get "vanilla or non-vanilla".In post 1232, Hello Kitty Creampuff wrote:... no he didn't
and why do you think he's a vanilla cop, and not the rolecop he is claiming to be
It's an oblique edgewise stance you're taking, and that pings pretty damn hard.In post 1231, Kdub wrote:First of all, I don't agree and think you are nitpicking here. Secondly, even if that really were my intention, what are you trying to suggest about my motivation for doing so? If you think that's scummy, explain my scum motivation here.In post 1224, sangres wrote:Your post I was responding to made it sound like Antihero's soft claim led to your willlingness to see SMP lynched. That doesn't line up with your earlier post.In post 1223, Kdub wrote:Yes I did. I don't get the point of this comment.In post 1221, fferyllt wrote:You said you could accept an SMP lynch before Antihero claimed he's lying.
role cops get "vanilla" if they cop vt or goon.In post 1235, Antihero wrote:because he's claiming "vanilla or non-vanilla" results. rolecops get roles. vanilla cops get "vanilla or non-vanilla".In post 1232, Hello Kitty Creampuff wrote:... no he didn't
and why do you think he's a vanilla cop, and not the rolecop he is claiming to be
just be 100% clear here, thenantihero wrote:at least a blocking component of action
If your complaint is just about the strength of my words, fine. That's subjective and there isn't anything I can say other than "you're wrong". If your complaint is about my actual stance on SMP, then you still haven't addressed what my possible scum motivation would be.In post 1236, sangres wrote:It's an oblique edgewise stance you're taking, and that pings pretty damn hard.
I can see you posting this way as scum regardless of SMP's flip. by not coming out so strong that you'd have difficulty walking it back if the momentum shifts a little.
Who did you come into the game day wanting to push?In post 1245, Kdub wrote:If your complaint is just about the strength of my words, fine. That's subjective and there isn't anything I can say other than "you're wrong". If your complaint is about my actual stance on SMP, then you still haven't addressed what my possible scum motivation would be.In post 1236, sangres wrote:It's an oblique edgewise stance you're taking, and that pings pretty damn hard.
I can see you posting this way as scum regardless of SMP's flip. by not coming out so strong that you'd have difficulty walking it back if the momentum shifts a little.
In post 1184, Kdub wrote:I don't have strong feelings about SMP based on his play, but I can accept an SMP lynch based on him being a counterwagon to HS/me yesterday, plus just POE since I have a lot of town reads at the moment.
Aegor, why are you voting SMP?
Yes, I can. And that is actually exactly why I am voting SMP.In post 1219, Kdub wrote: That's right. Can you really say you have strong feelings about someone who has barely posted (unless you are basing it on meta)?
If you do not believe the claim, then anything anti says or does should still be irrelevant.In post 1202, Jake from State Farm wrote:i'm torn cause I don't believe the claimbut antihero can't be trusted either
Please give us your opinion of SMP at the beginning of the day in more detail than in your first post.In post 1231, Kdub wrote: First of all, I don't agree and think you are nitpicking here. Secondly, even if that really were my intention, what are you trying to suggest about my motivation for doing so? If you think that's scummy, explain my scum motivation here.