So what you are saying is you have no reason.Glados wrote:If I had wanted to give my reason right now, I would have done so while voting.
If someone hasn't posted yet I doubt you saying anything will make them. But sure, why not...Phily wrote:You're right, I'd prefer pointing at them so they actually post though. No harm in it right? Its been Monday + St Pats day is tomorrow so it aint too serious about people not posting yet, just something to throw into the mix.
Hey, that's a great way of putting words in someone else's mouth. Why exactly are you misrepresenting what another player said?Korlash wrote:So what you are saying is you have no reason.
You don't think putting a spotlight on lurkers usually de-lurkerfies said problem players?Korlash wrote:If someone hasn't posted yet I doubt you saying anything will make them. But sure, why not...
Ha ha ha. Actually it's a good way to get someone to say something they previously refused to. And I'm not misrepresenting anyone. Glad voted someone and failed to give any reasons for it, so as far as I or you or anyone else in this game knows, she has none to give. now if she would like to change my mind on it, she's welcome to it.Green wrote:Hey, that's a great way of putting words in someone else's mouth. Why exactly are you misrepresenting what another player said?
If this was page 20 I might half agree with pointing out lurkers. At least then you are able to get the active lurkers to post a little more. However at page 2 anyone not posting most likely hasn't even seen or began to read the thread and so talkign about them or two them does nothing as they aren't even here to read what you are saying. And of course anyone who is lurking while reading the thread this early in the game... well... odds are they aren't going to answer your calls anyway.Green wrote:You don't think putting a spotlight on lurkers usually de-lurkerfies said problem players?
Not yet, I will if I vote though, otherwise I'd be behaving unfairly. Seems it would only lead the town if I explained why the FoS, its their duty to pick up on what you've done till things get more serious. Tis too early to build up a case ;]Green Crayons wrote:Phily: Care to point out what specifically we should be paying attention to regarding my behavior towards Giuseppe?
Yes, until she shows she has reasons there is no proof she actually does. And so I have to assume she has none until she comes forward and corrects me. The way I see it there is hardly ever a time (especially this early) to vote someone and withhold the reasons so I am pessing her to give those reasons. If you can show me a fact that she does in fact have a reason right now then you may hav a case against me for Misrepresenting the facts. But you can't, so ha ha.Green wrote:Korlash: She said that she didn't want to reveal her reasoning at that time. You said that this shows that she has no reasoning. You're seriously maintaining that your charge (she has no reasoning) is not misrepresenting the facts (she declares that there are reasons, of which she does not want to reveal at this time)? Really?
What is with you people. "You would only lead the town by explaining the FoS?" No... You would help the town by not distracting us with worthless baseless FoSs and playing this stupid mindgame of Maybe I do/maybe I don't. As far as what he has actualy done if there is something worth a vote you better point it out, otherwise you better stop this shadow game or it will damage your point when you actually share it.Phily wrote:Not yet, I will if I vote though, otherwise I'd be behaving unfairly. Seems it would only lead the town if I explained why the FoS, its their duty to pick up on what you've done till things get more serious. Tis too early to build up a case ;]
(that sounds more correct to me)Korlash wrote:You would help the town by not distracting us with worthless baselessvotesand playing this stupid mindgame of Maybe I do/maybe I don't.
You mis-rep my point, try upgrading data analysis~PhilyEc wrote:Its nothing worth a vote, its worth paying attention to.
PhilyEc wrote:<snip>Im asking town to check out what happened andthink up whatever they think is appropriate</snip>
That feels off, and weird. And suspicious. I don't see anything really wrong with GC right now. You can't lynch him if you don't have support. Explain your viewpoint.PhillyEC wrote:I think I know why you're voting for Green Crayons, Glados. And IF its for the same reason(s) as to why I'm suspicious of him then you're pretty quick to notice. The fact that you dont want to reveal your reasons yet further makes me think we're on the same line of thinking here.
Thats far more appropriate. In that case I'll just post what I've written about him so far (two A4 sheet summary of game made earlier). I guess I dont have to fear scum eating this up as me trying to mislead the town either since I now have to explain.Glados wrote:Your post encourages others to list various reasons to suspect or vote Green Crayons. This allows you to later choose any of them and say "Yes, this is what I was thinking.
You're arguing the literal wording of specific insults now? Be my guest. Well you call me stupid or say I sound stupid it all means the same thing in the long run.Glad wrote:Korlash, sounding stupid is not the same as being stupid. But please, continue to read things into my posts which are not there.
You have pointed out nothing. we cannot note the event unless you tell us what event it is. The way you are speaking you seem to be fishing for everyone else to say omething before you get your own opinions on the books. YOU pointed out something and so YOU have to be the first to mention it. So tell us what event it is you sw so we can carry on and have it noted.Phily wrote:Call it shadowy if you must but its me pointing out hes done something to earn him scum points. Rather than state what I think and get launched into some sort of redundant and stagnating debate over the event Im asking town to check out what happened and think up whatever they think is appropriate. Thus we can carry on and have that event noted.
... You can't just say someone's behavior stands out and not tell us where or how. It obviously isn't "standing out" if you don't even find it worth pointing out specifically. It almost sounds like you are trying to make the rest of us see something so you can take credit for it later. If you see something, pont it out. If you don't, stop wasting our time.Phily wrote:Its nothing worth a vote, its worth paying attention to. At the moment I'm writing up about the game itself, drafting out what each posts means, is it townie, is it scummy and I'm thinking his behaviour stood out the most so far, nothing more.
Exactly my point. I say what I say in the phrasing I say it in order to get results and answer unanswered questions. Some people might not like it but boohoo, it's a game of mafia deal with it.Giusepee wrote:On the topic of Korlash, I feel he has been doing a bit of word-twisting, and that in order to prove he's been twisting the words, GLaD AND Phil should explain why they don't like GC.
I do not like this. I cannot explain why in a manner I find satisfactory.Green Crayons, Post 26 wrote:Second, do you plan on actually launching future discussion about item X or do you plan on just talking about launching future discussion about item X?
At the time Giuseppe made his vote, randomnessGreen Crayons, Post 39 wrote:<snip>randomness is not all we have for our use in determining who to vote</snip>
I disapprove of this characterization. It tries to lead readers into thinking there is a greater discongruity in Giuseppe's posts than there actually was. Giuseppe's vote was random in that it was not based off suspicion in the game.Green Crayons, Post 39 wrote:"I'm randomly voting Player Y because of these reasons, but this vote is still random and you can't blame me because all we can do is randomly vote at this time!" ...Uh, what?
