AcRv wrote:
You tell me where the heck I specified that it was defending oneself. Nobody else get in the way here, I want mcqueen to acknowledge that he's making crap. The word "defend" means the same damned thing no matter who's on what end. It is still repelling and attacker.
You are a complete fucking idiot. Just shut the fuck up, will you?
And, @Phillammon - I don't know how Lastsurvivor will run this game, but it's not exactly MyLo. If we lynch wrong, and scum kill an armed person, then it's (Town:Scum) (X+1):X, essentially LyLo, possible MyLo, as if we no-lynch, and scum kill an armed person, it's still (X+1):X. It's confusing.
I was trying to post this earlier, but the dumb security thing my mom put on here kept blocking the preview post screen, and the submit post button crap.
It's all like this -
MyLo (No) and LyLo (No) - No-lynch today. Essentially becomes either possible MyLo (if scum no kill; if scum kill an armed person) or certain LyLo (if scum kill an unarmed person) on Day 4.
MyLo (No) and LyLo (No) - Town lynches wrong, scum kill an armed person. Essentially becomes certain LyLo on Day 4.
MyLo (Yes) and LyLo (No) - Town lynches wrong, scum kills an unarmed person. Essentially ends the game in a scum win.
AcRv wrote:
You tell me where the heck I specified that it was defending oneself. Nobody else get in the way here, I want mcqueen to acknowledge that he's making crap. The word "defend" means the same damned thing no matter who's on what end. It is still repelling and attacker.
You are a complete fucking idiot. Just shut the fuck up, will you?
You can't back up your claim so you mindlessly abuse the person asking you to do so. Seems legit. I LIEKD U BT3R WHEN U W3RA TOKNG LIEK THIS!!!11 WTF LOL
↑andrew94 wrote:i think scum would just send their scummiest guy to kill.
As I've said before. "Fall guy"
... where did you say "Fall guy"?
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:27 pm
by drmyshotgun
↑drmyshotgun wrote:I think SV might be the fall-guy for the Scum team.
Do all the dirty works with an as-a-matter-fact tone.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:25 pm
by mcqueen
AcRv wrote:You can't back up your claim so you mindlessly abuse the person asking you to do so. Seems legit. I LIEKD U BT3R WHEN U W3RA TOKNG LIEK THIS!!!11 WTF LOL
Wrong. I do it because I'm not going to argue with a complete fucking idiot that doesn't understand a simple explanation from me.
I'm liking AcRv just due to how much of an idiot he is. Scum tend to crack down and become idiots under pressure, but since AcRv is worse, he doesn't need the pressure to crack down.
VOTE: AcRv
(Disclaimer - I do not mean you are a fucking idiot, I actually casually use bad words, more for emphasis than for insult. People constantly mistake the meaning of the words when I use them. Although it can be said as rude, that is how I emphasize my posts a lot of times. Sorry if anything feels insulting.)
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:28 pm
by Om of the Nom
Alright, calling it now. Gunny/SV/Mcqueen scumteam.
That was seriously one of the worst reasons for justifying your vote that I have ever seen. AcRv is in no way a policy lynch, and your assertion that scum become idiots under pressure is stupid and has no base or evidence to back it up.
Mcqueen wagon go. VOTE: mcqueen
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:29 pm
by drmyshotgun
No Om. You scum bro.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:31 pm
by Om of the Nom
I'm still not seeing any reason other than "You are sucm because you voted me."
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:32 pm
by mcqueen
↑Om of the Nom wrote:Alright, calling it now. Gunny/SV/Mcqueen scumteam.
That was seriously one of the worst reasons for justifying your vote that I have ever seen. AcRv is in no way a policy lynch, and your assertion that scum become idiots under pressure is stupid and has no base or evidence to back it up.
Mcqueen wagon go. VOTE: mcqueen
I have the strongest temptation to troll about this, then go masturbate on my couch. Please do not tempt me.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:33 pm
by drmyshotgun
True. :/
P-Edit: Plz don't. X.X
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:20 pm
by Lastsurvivor
One minute, the sun is shining over Fenway park. Then, the claps of thunder echo over the radio. The townsfolk hear screams as helicopters crash onto the field and they rush out of the stands. The commentator shouts, "We've been locked in! No one can get out of Fenway!"
Then the first guns are fired.
Some good Red Sox player is dead on the ground (screw me if I'm gonna do research for flavor). The townsfolk hear laughter over the radio as the commentator is shot too. "The New York Yankees," some good Yankees player says, "are sick and tired of the goddamn Boston Red Sox. You guys suck! So we're gonna kill ya! Unless you can find us first..."
Baseball mafia has begun.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:43 pm
by mcqueen
Um, nice flavor? lol...
You really think so?
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:39 pm
by AcRv
Don't worry mcqueen, I learned to ignore most insults during the first thirteen years of my life. Now I just make mockeries of them. Although in this case I don't see where you're coming from in that, as I said, my definition never specified that it had to be defending yourself... and that you claim it did repeatedly and try to say I'm stupid for not agreeing with your blatant lie.
↑mcqueen wrote:I have so much temptation to yell at you how stupid this is, but there is no time for that, and it would be pointless. You explained defending as protecting yourself from an attack (well, I used a different wording, but you get the point). If someone else is getting attacked, and you defend [them], you are defending
yourself
, using your definition. Defending someone else is
protecting them
from an attack, not protecting yourself, then saying it's defending someone else. I know my wording is bad in a lot of this post, but I'm trying to make it quick, but you are naive not to see the flaw in your usage of your definition.
↑AcRv wrote:Defend: n. To ward off, repel (an attack or attacker)
... I see that you see defending as "Protecting someone", but to protect someone you must stop the attacker(s) from getting to them. And guess what other terms for that are? Repelling them, or warding them off. Like my definition. They are literally the same, but you claimed that my definition only was for oneself here.
↑drmyshotgun wrote:I think SV might be the fall-guy for the Scum team.
Do all the dirty works with an as-a-matter-fact tone.
Sorry, missed that.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:03 am
by mcqueen
↑AcRv wrote:Don't worry mcqueen, I learned to ignore most insults during the first thirteen years of my life. Now I just make mockeries of them. Although in this case I don't see where you're coming from in that, as I said, my definition never specified that it had to be defending yourself... and that you claim it did repeatedly and try to say I'm stupid for not agreeing with your blatant lie.
↑mcqueen wrote:I have so much temptation to yell at you how stupid this is, but there is no time for that, and it would be pointless. You explained defending as protecting yourself from an attack (well, I used a different wording, but you get the point). If someone else is getting attacked, and you defend [them], you are defending
yourself
, using your definition. Defending someone else is
protecting them
from an attack, not protecting yourself, then saying it's defending someone else. I know my wording is bad in a lot of this post, but I'm trying to make it quick, but you are naive not to see the flaw in your usage of your definition.
↑AcRv wrote:Defend: n. To ward off, repel (an attack or attacker)
... I see that you see defending as "Protecting someone", but to protect someone you must stop the attacker(s) from getting to them. And guess what other terms for that are? Repelling them, or warding them off. Like my definition. They are literally the same, but you claimed that my definition only was for oneself here.
↑drmyshotgun wrote:I think SV might be the fall-guy for the Scum team.
Do all the dirty works with an as-a-matter-fact tone.
Sorry, missed that.
The definition you gave is on the fine line between defending yourself and someone else. Can we honestly just drop this argument, as it's not helping us get any closer to winning?
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:24 am
by mcqueen
Alright. Let's get down to business.
UNVOTE:
@Lastsurvivor - It's... just what it is. It's funny how you have no clue of a baseball player from the Boston Red Sox or New York Yankees, so you just put some good player.
@Om of the Nom - Your play here really agitates me. You say you are always obviously town, and you are trying to be here, but it does not seem one bit genuine. That is where the problem lies. You seem to be faking obviously town, manipulating us with your meta.
VOTE: Om of the Nom
The funny part is that I live 45 minutes from Boston. - LS
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:49 am
by brundibar
Don't have time for a full post, will have something tonight.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:13 pm
by drmyshotgun
I think we lost this no matter what, but yeah, let's lynch Om.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:26 pm
by Shattered Viewpoint
↑Phillammon wrote:VOTE: No Lynch for obvious reasons.
Who are those two you are talking about SV?
And you saying quick hammering two Town players in two Days was a good thing?
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:29 pm
by mcqueen
@Lastsurvivor - [0_-].
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:00 pm
by Shattered Viewpoint
Gunny, I meant you and OmNom. I apparently missed this page prior to posting.
Baseball wtf?
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:03 pm
by Om of the Nom
Lol mcqueen. How am I faking town? I'm just falling into my lazy town meta right now :V
That was a seriously bad reason for an OMGUS vote.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:07 pm
by mcqueen
↑Om of the Nom wrote:Lol mcqueen. How am I faking town? I'm just falling into my lazy town meta right now :V
That was a seriously bad reason for an OMGUS vote.
Yea. More meta manipulation. Get your ass up and scumhunt before we lynch you, scum.
- LS