In post 1713, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:Rereading iks claim in post 1682 makes me think it is not the right conclusion. Who puts abilities out to night 8? That is a really long time. VOTE: iks
Walter kinda had at least a decent out but instead chose to vote IKS for about the reasons I did (claim felt like a bid for time)
In post 1735, Bambi Jay wrote:I'd honestly prefer if we start on the people leading the counterwagon instead. Considering someone like Goofball called for a Vig shot on people voting IKS, it felt more like there was a chainsaw defense and less bussing.
If there's anyone who looks like a chainsaw it's chk with the generic we're not eliminating this troll message.
I doubt it was that, because it's chk's nature to rage against policy, but I'm definitely keeping it in mind.
The part where I call bs if it is chk nature against policy then why npom in the end.
This isn’t really part of this, but can I take the opportunity to point out that chk trying to act like he’s not against policy does just make his IKS defense look way more like a chainsaw? Like, either he argued against a policy there while being in favor of policy in most other instances, or he had been consistent in that stance and he defended scum for no good reason. Either way, chk’s IKS defense is awful.
Anyway, the other thing I feel like demonstrates Walter’s towny solving drive is his attempts to analyze some of the IKS voter’s vote movements, but those posts are walls so I’ll spare the quoting of them, and if you can’t bother to find them yourself Ill just link the posts.
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:18 pm
by PookyTheMagicalBear
In post 3374, Gamma Emerald wrote:This appeal to Lavender feels super-partnery and I’ve been calling Lavender and chk scum for a good while, so I think it’s high time I get listened to
In post 3374, Gamma Emerald wrote:This appeal to Lavender feels super-partnery and I’ve been calling Lavender and chk scum for a good while, so I think it’s high time I get listened to
In post 3374, Gamma Emerald wrote:This appeal to Lavender feels super-partnery and I’ve been calling Lavender and chk scum for a good while, so I think it’s high time I get listened to
is this serious?
Very. He's pandered around it for several phases now.
Because clicking her name, reading her scum game, and recognizing this isn't it? Oh man we must be partners.
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:38 pm
by PookyTheMagicalBear
ok but why would chkflip!scum be appealing to lav!scum to move her vote in the thread when he could just talk to her in the scum PT?
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:41 pm
by chkflip
Because we're both total fucking morons, apparently.
In post 3374, Gamma Emerald wrote:This post essentially boils down to describing the IKS wagon as personality based in a way that parr’s down to a policy elim (the policy that trolling should be limmed). So uh, thanks for the Ace Attorney moment, pal.
No, it doesn't.
As evidenced by my desire to absolve the thread of Looker as *checks notes*
you
just fucking pointed out.
*jerk off hand motion*
My thinking that Siteflake's wagon, whether it was or wasn't (it didn't end up being so IIRC I was mistaken) personality driven, still =/= I'm against lynching on policy.
Again
As evidenced
And supported by you
On D2
That I didn't give a fuck
And eventually added policy to my albeit incorrect read of Looker
That I don't mind policy
But gooooo oooooooon mate
You're doing so well.
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:46 pm
by chkflip
Gamma acts like he's never had a wrong read in his whole mafia career.
Fuh
King
LAUGHABLE.
I'm surprised you're still here, dude. Stop acting like you're better than me. You look like a fucking idiot and it's incredibly unbecoming.
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:02 pm
by Gamma Emerald
So far my read rate’s been a lot better than yours. Tell me who’s a “fucking idiot” again? I also accepted I could be wrong about Looker D2, when my read was right in the end, but you’ve never bothered to accept the fact you could be or were wrong. I don’t think you have ANY ground to stand on with your last post. Keep firing away mate, because as it is your pathetic attempts don’t even scratch me.
Spoiler:
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:11 pm
by davesaz
In post 3228, chkflip wrote:Hey, remember when Death scum slipped on D1 and then y'all forgot about it?
Yeah I just revisited that. That's cool.
In post 3230, chkflip wrote:I was looking through Siteflakes ISO and saw a Death vote. Lead me to the slip. Not sure I agree with it, just bringing it up. Seems noteworthy.
I don't really get this, someone want to help it make sense?
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:12 pm
by davesaz
I made references to policy vs. not policy earlier and nobody went apeshit. Why is this time different?
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:15 pm
by davesaz
I am not inspired by Iecerint's later game posting. I see some questions being asked but I don't see the reason for them.
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:54 pm
by BrightEyedFish
In post 3378, Gamma Emerald wrote:
Anyway, the other thing I feel like demonstrates Walter’s towny solving drive is his attempts to analyze some of the IKS voter’s vote movements, but those posts are walls so I’ll spare the quoting of them, and if you can’t bother to find them yourself Ill just link the posts.
This was after I did the VCA that pointed to Walter and he was scrambling to dilute the water.
In post 3378, Gamma Emerald wrote:
Anyway, the other thing I feel like demonstrates Walter’s towny solving drive is his attempts to analyze some of the IKS voter’s vote movements, but those posts are walls so I’ll spare the quoting of them, and if you can’t bother to find them yourself Ill just link the posts.
This was after I did the VCA that pointed to Walter and he was scrambling to dilute the water.
In post 3378, Gamma Emerald wrote:
Anyway, the other thing I feel like demonstrates Walter’s towny solving drive is his attempts to analyze some of the IKS voter’s vote movements, but those posts are walls so I’ll spare the quoting of them, and if you can’t bother to find them yourself Ill just link the posts.
This was after I did the VCA that pointed to Walter and he was scrambling to dilute the water.
For posterity. Gonna take a look at these and more in-depth later. Bit difficult with only three flips but I'll see if there isn't something to be made here.
Not on IKS (scum flip): Iecerint, Lavender, Galron, DrippingGoofball, chkflip, Doctor Drew, PookyTheMagicalBear, a2rudeboy, Almost50
Not on Looker (town flip): BrightEyedFish, a2rudeboy, pisskop, Iecerint, TiphaineDeath, DrippingGoofball, NoPowerOverMe, Walt!slot
On neither: Iecerint, DrippingGoofball, a2rudeboy
Only not on scum: Lavender, Glaron, chkflip, Doctor Drew, Almost50 (look at all the people you're better than, Gamma! Wow!)
Only not on town: BrightEyedFish, pisskop, TiphaineDeath, Walt!slot (it was empty tho)
Fascinating.
This mean anything to anybody? I'll wait before commenting.
It must gave immediately obvious, and perhaps even alarming, to scum that IKS had outed the scum team flavor.
It may not have been so cut and dry from a townie perspective. Each townie sees only their own flavor, and has to clear sense of the overall flavor of the town.
The "developer" could have been town.
The scum could have been drummers, roadies, fans...
Scum on that wagon would be VERY SURE that IKS' flavor did not fit, and probably bus'ed hard after the claim.
