Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:40 pm
In post 170, Squirrel Girl wrote:I have Mir, Boo, and Red as moderate town reads of varying levels.
Page 8 of 55
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:56 pm
Thanks for confirming scum.In post 173, Salamence20 wrote: First of all, TN has the nerve to say I started this fight, and that he is the victim. Here is why that is not true.
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:24 pm
Jury's out on the newbie.
I like Salamence in a lot of ways.
I like Salamence in a lot of ways.
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:25 pm
173 isn't even a misrepresentation, it's an outright lie.
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:39 pm
First off, I didnt call anyone a retard, I quoted a movie using said quote to explain what I thought of your thoughts on my response to reds question. There is a difference. Not my problem if you dont see it.
Next, lets say I was actually soft claiming something. Why would anyone then try and lynch someone they thoughtwas soft claiming? Oh, scum would very much like that. Thus is reason why NVs hop onto me is scummy. Why SG is hopping on is yet to be seen but Im not too worried due to her taking over Jakes slot.
Next, lets say I was actually soft claiming something. Why would anyone then try and lynch someone they thoughtwas soft claiming? Oh, scum would very much like that. Thus is reason why NVs hop onto me is scummy. Why SG is hopping on is yet to be seen but Im not too worried due to her taking over Jakes slot.
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:12 pm
Those questions might have been answered, but not in a way that was evident to me. I'm not familiar with millers, so it wouldn't make sense for me to start analyzing this without clarification first. You said in 53 that it was accepted for millers to claim on day one and Jake wanted to lynch millers without looking any other way.In post 169, Haschel Cedricson wrote:Two of the questions are already answered in the thread, the other two aren't particularly hard-hitting, and there is no attempt at analyzing anything in the game at all. This is Peak Lack-of-Effort right here.In post 89, tysker wrote:Hi guys.
Don't know what to think of the drama between sal, tn and mirhawk.
@sal
Why did you claim miller and then took it back afterwards?
@mirhawk
What's so scummy about claiming miller day one?
@bookitty
When did tn softdefend Mirhawk?
@Natirasha
Why are you voting for yourself?
I read TN's ISO before asking bookitty about his softdefending. I didn't see anything, and I still don't. Maybe a new concept like invisible defending should be developed for this site?
Salamence explained his vote on Mirhawk in 173. The majority of your posts has been you *knowing* why Salamence voted Mirhawk. Was the reasoning behind the vote what you thought it was?
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:25 pm
It was a good quote from a great movie. Made me laugh. But in essence it was an ad hominem argument. You didn't address generics argument at all.In post 179, Kthxbye wrote:First off, I didnt call anyone a retard, I quoted a movie using said quote to explain what I thought of your thoughts on my response to reds question. There is a difference. Not my problem if you dont see it.
Next, lets say I was actually soft claiming something. Why would anyone then try and lynch someone they thoughtwas soft claiming? Oh, scum would very much like that. Thus is reason why NVs hop onto me is scummy. Why SG is hopping on is yet to be seen but Im not too worried due to her taking over Jakes slot.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:17 am
No, instead he/she is now attempting to deflect back suspicion on me.
My vote is in the right place. So far he/she has attempted to handwave me away, belittle my arguement without ever actually addressing the argument itself, insult me, and now attempt a deflection.
The fact that the post in question reads like someone hinting at an important role but never actually having to declare what (avoiding a counter) nor expressly saying they are actually a pr (allowing for a vanilla claim later if needed).
But that wifom shit tossed about by him/her isn't the main issue for me. It was the need to over explain something with every eventuality covered when put under pressure with a question. And the subsequent reaction to my vote and suspicion on them has been pathetic.
My vote is in the right place. So far he/she has attempted to handwave me away, belittle my arguement without ever actually addressing the argument itself, insult me, and now attempt a deflection.
The fact that the post in question reads like someone hinting at an important role but never actually having to declare what (avoiding a counter) nor expressly saying they are actually a pr (allowing for a vanilla claim later if needed).
But that wifom shit tossed about by him/her isn't the main issue for me. It was the need to over explain something with every eventuality covered when put under pressure with a question. And the subsequent reaction to my vote and suspicion on them has been pathetic.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:08 am
Man, you reeealy want a claim outa me dont ya
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:50 am
Absolutely. I came to the same conclusion and voted accordingly.In post 180, tysker wrote: Salamence explained his vote on Mirhawk in 173. The majority of your posts has been you *knowing* why Salamence voted Mirhawk. Was the reasoning behind the vote what you thought it was?
Phone posting on my break; be back around lunch.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:10 am
Feel free to identify where I wanted that.In post 183, Kthxbye wrote:Man, you reeealy want a claim outa me dont ya
I don't need one, you are still trying to build straw men, you are scum.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:05 am
It's more of a matter of opinion, really. It is hardly unreasonable for Sal to suggest that Jake started the fight - quite frankly, this is I think the...third time, I've been or seen a replace centered around Jake and his willingness to get into knock down drag out verbal brawls in thread. I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest he had a fair share of the blame in this situation. I'll happily agree that Sal did too - I think it's silly of him to suggest he didn't, and, quite frankly, a couple of other players happily added to the fire. But to say Sal is lying for claiming Jake "started" it?In post 178, tn5421 wrote:173 isn't even a misrepresentation, it's an outright lie.
I don't even see why, if he was scum, he'd choose to lie about that - what's it even matter? Was his master plot to force a ragequit or something?I'm hopping on you due to your Sal vote. I find it scummy and opportunistic.In post 179, Kthxbye wrote:FWhy SG is hopping on is yet to be seen but Im not too worried due to her taking over Jakes slot.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:00 am
I quoted the lie in 176. I think that Sal knew it would really piss off Jake, but perhaps not to that extent.In post 186, Squirrel Girl wrote:It's more of a matter of opinion, really. It is hardly unreasonable for Sal to suggest that Jake started the fight - quite frankly, this is I think the...third time, I've been or seen a replace centered around Jake and his willingness to get into knock down drag out verbal brawls in thread. I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest he had a fair share of the blame in this situation. I'll happily agree that Sal did too - I think it's silly of him to suggest he didn't, and, quite frankly, a couple of other players happily added to the fire. But to say Sal is lying for claiming Jake "started" it?In post 178, tn5421 wrote:173 isn't even a misrepresentation, it's an outright lie.
I'm hopping on you due to your Sal vote. I find it scummy and opportunistic.In post 179, Kthxbye wrote:FWhy SG is hopping on is yet to be seen but Im not too worried due to her taking over Jakes slot.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:19 am
TN, do you generally subscribe to "Lynch all Liars" as a policy, or is it applied on a case-by-case basis for you?
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:27 am
VOTE: TN
Why I am scum according to TN:
No sir no sir I am scum.
50% Policy because only scum do personal attacks.
Also, by saying that, you must believe this was faked.
Why I am scum according to TN:
This seems to be a new trend of people claiming 'serious votes' or 'rvs is over' on page one.I'm inclined to take this player seriously based on previous experience with him.
From what I've seen of Salamence, he doesn't really care how scummy he looks.
My only experience with him is in an ongoing game.
Anyone see the common theme of these four posts, let's keep going.I have a somewhat negative opinion of sal based on a current game.
Bah Bah Black Sheep, are you a townie?In post 152, tn5421 wrote:I happen to agree.In post 99, Jake from State Farm wrote:How about lynch all liars. That's a great one and applies here.
VOTE: Salamence20
No sir no sir I am scum.
50% Policy on the fact I lied in RVSIt is 50% Lynch All Liars, 50% "Personal Attacks Aren't Okay".
50% Policy because only scum do personal attacks.
Also, by saying that, you must believe this was faked.
It's not.In post 115, Salamence20 wrote:JAKE IF I REPLACED OUT WOULD MY REPLACEMENT BE SCUM TOO?
NO BECAUSE HE IS NOT ME?
JESUS CHRIST PLAY THE FUCKING GAME AND GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS. EVEN WITH A SCUMREAD ON ME THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO DO THAN "OH SAL IS SCUM SCUM SCUM AND I REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL HE IS LOLLYNCHED BECAUSE HE IS LYING AND SCUMMING AND MILLER"
SHUT THE FUCK UP
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:33 am
But you should have a problem with this, because as you see by your last post, you were perfectly fine sheeping Jake. But now Jake is gone and his replacement performed a 180 and voted you.In post 179, Kthxbye wrote:Thus is reason why NVs hop onto me is scummy. Why SG is hopping on is yet to be seen but Im not too worried due to her taking over Jakes slot.
You should be worried now because you can't sheep your "One Scumread". You should... idk... read the game and provide some info instead of breadcrumbing/softclaiming and calling people retards.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:34 am
I apologize for not seeing Mir in this group.In post 175, Squirrel Girl wrote:In post 170, Squirrel Girl wrote:I have Mir, Boo, and Red as moderate town reads of varying levels.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:04 am
Any lies within the context of the game that are not rvs is a policy 'lynch all liars' vote from me.In post 188, Bookitty wrote:TN, do you generally subscribe to "Lynch all Liars" as a policy, or is it applied on a case-by-case basis for you?
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:16 pm
Unvote; Vote: tn5421
.Ironically, your last post is a lie.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:18 pm
Why, immediately after saying this, did you unvote and not vote him?Mirhawk 165 wrote:I don't particularly feel good about not voting. He took a fairly safe position and followed it up by telling most most of the active posters he found them town.
---
lolwuttn 168 wrote:It is 50% Lynch All Liars, 50% "Personal Attacks Aren't Okay".
---
I don't like it. It feels like strongarm tactics. I also don't like how you specifically told him you wanted to think over a point, which implies that he should take the time to consider and formulate a response, and then hit him over not rushing to answer without thinking.HC 169 wrote:the accusation of question-dodging forced a quick response, and a quick response is always better than one that has a lot of time to be written.
Unrelatedly, I do like your point against tysker.
---
I appreciate this thoughtful response. I'll take your opinion into consideration as I continue to read the game.SG 170 wrote:I mean, I don't think he expected that alone to get a lynch, at best it was an excuse to get on, and I don't think he needed to lie, at that stage of the game, to get on a wagon or pressure someone. Not calling HC town - but unsold by the case.
---
Generic?Nat 177 wrote:Jury's out on the newbie.
---
Since when does trying to provoke someone make you scum? I find it to be a very effective scumhunting tactic if used properly.tn 187 wrote:I think that Sal knew it would really piss off Jake, but perhaps not to that extent.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:31 pm
It's absolutely strongarm tactics. I'm a big fan.In post 194, RedCoyote wrote:I don't like it. It feels like strongarm tactics. I also don't like how you specifically told him you wanted to think over a point, which implies that he should take the time to consider and formulate a response, and then hit him over not rushing to answer without thinking.HC 169 wrote:the accusation of question-dodging forced a quick response, and a quick response is always better than one that has a lot of time to be written.
And yeah, I wanted him to think about it, but I wanted him to think about it RIGHT NOW*. I don't like giving scum time to rehearse their story.
*RIGHT THEN
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:18 pm
I'd rather hear his response first.In post 194, RedCoyote wrote: Why, immediately after saying this, did you unvote and not vote him?
---
Lynch all liars is rather bad to hold as a hard rule. It doesn't allow for gambits and often leads to lynching town (because lets face it, townies lie too). Not to mention the lie in question is subjective in that it can be seen different ways by different people.
---
@Tsyker
Do you feel that Generics argument has merit?
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:34 pm
To argue TN's side - if that's what Sal was about, now that the player in question has *been replaced* he ought to be honest about it, so in that case it would be a lie. And, also, in that case, it would be a lie I'd be willing to lynch Sal over.In post 194, RedCoyote wrote:Since when does trying to provoke someone make you scum? I find it to be a very effective scumhunting tactic if used properly.
Also, could you explain TN's lie? I'm missing it - do you know something I don't about his policy on liars?
I think Sal and Jake have issue with each other because they're so similar. I wish Sal would stop making everything an attack on him and pop a few peanuts and chill so I could get a read I was happy with. I'm even voting people based off their move onto him, and I'm almost tempted to vote him just to poke the bear some more.
@Sal - what is your read on Bookitty? I'd love to get a read from you hat didn't involve a player that was directly interacting/attacking you already. You feel a little too tunnely for this stage of the game. Let's save the tunnels for the second half of Day 1, or for Day 3 when they're at least funny.
I am not opposed to the move onto TN. I'm just having a hard time reading the slot. I think I would prefer some more votes on Kthnxbye though, he's been decently objectiely scummy, so I'm not sure why more people aren't willing to pressure him.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:44 pm
Salamence claimed miller, which, by his own admission, was intended to start a fight with Jake. Later on he makes 173 trying to say that he wasn't the person that started the fight.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:49 pm
So? That's not really indicative of anything aside from him being a bit of a douche.