Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 74

Author Topic: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Game Over, nobody wins >:I  (Read 174478 times)

Mr.Person

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #555 on: March 22, 2011, 05:05:11 pm »

First, I never said it was a "scumwagon," mostly because I don't think that the people of the wagon are all that scummy. Ottofar was near the top of my list, but his recent posts have allayed a lot of my suspicions, and Jim/Jack weren't all that high on my list to begin with. Jack has moved higher, but again, I don't think he's scum just yet.

So there's no point at all, then. If you're not willing to scumhunt them, why should anybody else? This is just pure laziness and passiveness, not good qualities for a townie. Specifically, you're trying to get others to do your scumhunting for you, a major scum tell.

Think of it this way. If your goal is to get everyone to notice that the wagon is happening, wouldn't it make sense to also question the people involved? Now not only are you keeping potentially scummy (but not actually scummy, according to you) behavior in the spotlight, you're also determining if it's actually scummy or not. But no, it clearly makes more sense to just point out potentially scummy behavior and do nothing. Don't determine if it's actually scummy or not. Don't determine if it's a scumwagon or not. Just point it out and lurk away! That's a great way for the scum to win. Not sure how that would help a townie catch the scum, though. So either you're the worst townie ever or a fairly clever scum. Since I know you, I'm gonna go with the scum.

And then you fly to defend yourself when I point out your absence. Two whole paragraphs, ending in a vote, just because I pointed out the fact that you were gone when people were attacking you, but not when they're looking at someone else? Really? I wasn't even attacking you, just pointing out an observation. That's pretty suspicious. In addition, you haven't even said a single word to me all game, and then somehow, despite the arguments you've already made and the suspicions you've already said you have, you think I'm scummy enough to vote, as soon as you realize that your vote on Jim was garbage that no one believed? I find that pretty interesting, given that you said yourself that a townie should "use the tools the town has to stop scum," which means that either your suspicions were garbage and you don't believe them to be true, or you're just attacking me in a terribly-thought-out OMGUS.

I actually specifically did not defend myself, I attacked you for the bullshit WAY you attacked me. Your actual argument is fair. I was in fact gone Saturday, most of Sunday, and I think most of Friday. If you'd like to question me about that, feel free, but your case seems to be that I was gone so therefore I'm scum. Or perhaps you're disregarding how passive you're being, I dunno. But then you'd just be delusional.

And the first paragraph is about you, not me. I know you're not stupid enough to misread me that badly, so you're intentionally trying to deflect away from yourself onto something that seems scummy. Too bad for you OMGUS isn't a scumtell or even really applicable here since you didn't vote me until later.

So what would you have done, Person? Given the same situation as me, would you have voted someone you didn't think was scummy, just because? Or would you join the wagon? Or what? I'm curious to know, because you seem to know exactly how a good Townie would act. And don't go screaming OMGUS, because at least I have reasons behind my vote.

I would vote the player I thought the most scummy. That sounds absurdly obvious when I say it, doesn't it? If I didn't think anybody was scummy enough to vote but I saw the wagon, I'd scumhunt somebody in the wagon. The reason you're scum is that you chose not to do that and instead tried to get others to see the wagon as scummy without saying you thought they were. Passive, passive, passive.

And now, Mr. Person.

I must wonder how pointing out how the town seems to be overly willing to make and change bandwagons isn't, in a way, discouraging them.

I must also wonder why, with stronger evidence against Jokerman than you had against SirBayer, your attack on Jokerman is so much lighter than your attack was on SirBayer.

Mr. Person, I didn't like your D1 attacks on SirBayer and piggybacking off of Zrk2, I didn't like your dislike of attempting to figure out what the laws are and whether anything related to Org was true today when you were arguing against Jimbook Groovethras, but I'm not ready to vote in this conflict yet, seeing how Jokerman also feels scummy to me.  Need more information.

I haven't said anything about the willingness of others to bandwagon AFAIK. Changing votes often is fine as long as they're justified.

What specifically did you not like about my SirBayer attack? I also did not piggyback off Zrk2. I don't even know when he voted or what his argument was. I do remember making the SirBayer case and that one was definetely not influenced by other people.

I note that you need more information but don't actually throw any questions towards me. Why might that be?

It's like a catfight just erupted in here.

Mr.Person, what's your opinion of Zrk2?

I don't have one. At all. Nothing he's said has rung alarm bells. That doesn't mean anything, I'm just not looking for scum that hard anymore.

Although looking at it now, he does seem to be changing votes with shitty reasons a lot. Definetely moving into the next player I'll question when I need new scumpicks.

Unvote, vote Mr. Person. I explained about his tunneling on Jim in a previous post and his recent throwing out accusations without arguments is horrible. Examples in the morning.

Since it seems to have come up, how about you guys tell me what my meta is, I'd like to know as I'm not self-aware enough to pick it up myself.

The only people who should care about their own meta are scum. Townies have more important things to do like catch scum. So why do you care about your own meta so much?

Um, wow.

Mr. Person: Why did you suddenly forget about Jim?

Who said I did? He's still scum, Jokerman just jumped ahead as the scummiest. Admittably I have a problem with changing my vote around a bit too much, but this case I think it's justified. I'm more sure of Jokerman than I am of Jim. Another reason I must admit to be true is that Jim had no votes coming in from anyone else and obviously wasn't being lynched. Now I could make a case on him and try to sway votes, but Jim's been very reasonable and hasn't been as passive as Book was. I also can't really question Jim about things Book did since they're different people. So Jim's not looking likely to get lynched, even if I did make a giant push against him. Jokerman might get the support if my attack is good, so I don't have any reason to stay on Jim. But Jokerman might actually get lynched, which would be good. I'd say it's a good idea to swap my vote over. And if Jim does something scummy or whatever, yeah, I'd gladly change my vote back over. While it is an either-or situation, that's only because I can only vote one at a time. But there's nothing saying only one of them can be scum, so there's no harm from switching over since I'm pretty sure about both of them. I'm just ever so slightly more sure about Jokerman, and Jokerman will be a much easier sell to the rest of the town.

Dude, are you fucking retarded? I am voting for him, and have been for several posts. How about you read the thread?

And yes, I suppose that's what that is. Now tell me, what exactly is suspicious about asking someone to explain why they're voting you? In fact, why are you voting for me? You come out of nowhere to unvote while claiming that you don't really support his plan so that you can throw a vote on me, with absolutely no reasoning at all, in what seems like an afterthought? No, fuck that noise. Unvote Mr.Person, vote Darvi. Mr.P, you're still near the top of my list, but holy shit does this guy take the cake.

Votecount would be nice too.

Once again you get violently angry about getting voted. I can actually see the Darvi case here, it's not a bad one. Problem is, this is like the third time you've voted a player who voted you. It's looking like you're just reactive and defensive. You must admit, all this attacking of the people attacking you can be construed as defensive, correct?

@Zrk2: I'm not quoting that post with all the spoilers. Way too much work to strip that down to something manageable considering you dumped a bunch of unrelated quotes in there from a post of another bunch of unrelated quotes dumped together for no reason. Good work on constructing the worst post I've ever seen. Please improve ASAP. These are all in order with a few of your comments skipped. If you want me to quote your posts, clean them up first.

I do try to get people to stop talking if that talking is bad for them. And this shit was since it's pure Grade A WIFOM caused by talking with Org. It's completely preventable by not talking to Org. It's completely useless since Org has nothing to offer the town. It's completely stupid since Org is confirmed Jester. So I'm trying to figure out why anybody would spread WIFOM like that. Worst part is, Book and Jim were questioning Org at the expense of scumhunting anybody else. Now, why would a townie use ALL their time scumhunting a player whose alignment is already known? That makes no sense. Feel free to figure out the laws, just not from Org. Everything Org says is a lie or a calculated truth designed to look like a lie.

You don't see a problem with scumhunting a player whose alignment is already known? Are you a complete idiot or just not thinking this through?

Some scum are active, yes, but no townies are passive.

Nothing's preventing Org from being helpful besides his role? What? It's too bad that he has NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO HELP THE TOWN since we have NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO HELP HIM! Why should Org help us since we're going to backstab him first chance we get. And in any case, are you willing to risk that a known non-town aligned player is telling the truth "just because"? His role may not make him lie, but it doesn't make him tell the truth. That's enough to make him untrustworthy.

I have looked at other people, I just don't see anything in any of them. I may be doing that, yes, but that's how I scumhunt. That's my style. That's not Jim's style. That's definetely not Book's style. I hold two different standards because we're two different people who act differently and do things differently. And besides, I'm not voting myself and certainly not dropping a valid attack just because it can also apply to me if somebody so chooses since then I'm not using every resource available to lynch scum. And I know I'm not scum, so I'm sure as hell not voting myself. I don't get the point here.

Let me rephrase that statement for you since I can see now how it could be confusing: "You're trying to acquire dubious information at the expense of scumhunting (which would) get accurate, always useful information."

Asking Jokerman what he was gonna do about it was actually my way of getting him to continue talking and START a conversation. Your claim I was stifling discussion is ridiculous.

Reread, voting.

Unvote, vote Mr. Person.  His attacks on SirBayer were overenthusiastic, horribly flawed, and he basically piggybacked off of Zrk2's arguments. His attacks on Jimbook were conversation-stifling ones that showed a strong dislike of searching for information on the laws (only the scum would benefit from knowing how laws effected scumhunting, apparently.  We townies don't need to know how laws effect scumhunting...*grumbles*). His current attacks on Jokerman feel too light for the evidence compared to his earlier attacks.

Jokerman, with his current nervous-looking, angry behaviour and rather passive previous behaviour, is a close second.  If Mr. Person turns out to be town, and Ottofar's power works, you'll most likely be the first person I'll vote for tomorrow.

"Overenthusiastic"? What, do you want me to not vote for scum? I did not piggyback off Zrk2, his arguments held no sway over my vote of SirBayer. In fact, Zrk2's argrument was that defending Org is incorrect because Org was being scummy while my argument was that defending Org is incorrect because Org has only spouted nulltells and you have no reason to defend someone spouting nulltells. Those are different. Similar, but different.

The laws probably don't have an impact on scumhunting or voting, but feel free to figure out what they are. I will caution you that if anybody DOES know, they either don't want to tell or know something the scum REALLY shouldn't know. So if anybody does know, they obviously don't want to talk, and it's possible that silent person is a townie. And that's assuming somebody does know. I find it entirely possible that nobody gets told the exact rules of certain laws. I find law-hunting to be a total waste of time. But again, if you want to search for the laws, go ahead, just don't do it at the expense of scumhunting like Book did.

I love how you also immediately set up a chain-lynch on me then Jokerman and only look at the most immediate targets available to you. Your top scumpicks are two people you don't think are on a team together. So then why would you attack BOTH of us? Yeah, vote me or whatever, that's fine. But you can't then turn around and also claim Jokerman is likely scum. It doesn't work that way. We can't both be scum, so pick the one of us that's scummier. That other player is your read of a townie. Unless you think we're on a scumteam together, of course, but based on what you've said I don't think you think that's the case.

Long story short, grow a pair and focus on the scummiest player the most. Don't set up chainlynches, it's only correct to do so if it's role-related reasons. Don't try to pass suspicion on a player you think is more likely to be townie than scum. These things are all bad play. Now, are they mistakes or malicious scummy actions?

Irony:

1. If scum were involved in the bandwagon, then I didn't want them to think it was unnoticed. If they weren't, I didn't want them thinking they could slip in on it. If it was only town and they didn't realize, then I wanted to point it out. I still don't see how that's actually scummy at all, so if you could explain that I would be grateful.

Pointing out a nulltell and doing nothing about it is practically speaking the same thing as going unnoticed. And if you thought somebody WAS trying to vote unnoticed, why, that would be a major scumtell. So again, what you're saying is that you thought a scumwagon might be forming and A)did nothing to make sure it was or was not a scumwagon and B)did nothing to stop the scum involved on the wagon or get them lynched. It seems like you were more interested in just stopping the votes than finding out if the votes came from scum or not. Would you say that's reasonable to say?

Jim, why are you throwing your vote around with only the weakest of pretexts, this carelessness with your vote says that you do not care about it, indicating that you are scum.

That's a fair reason for Jim to change a vote around since I certainly would rather get lynched than have no lynch at all.
Logged
Youtube video of the year, all years.
Hmm...I've never been a big fan of CCGs - I mean, I did and still do collect Pokemon cards, but I never got heavily into the battling and trading thing.

By definition that makes you a fan since you still buy them.

Org

  • Bay Watcher
  • Daring Hero
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #556 on: March 22, 2011, 05:10:43 pm »

GUYS GUYS I AM THE SCUM IT IS ME.
Logged

IronyOwl

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nope~
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #557 on: March 22, 2011, 05:49:53 pm »

Everything he's said I pretty much agree with.
I see. Could you please explain why you agree with each of the following?

Spoiler: Ye List (click to show/hide)



GUYS GUYS I AM THE SCUM IT IS ME.
No Org, you are the townies.
Logged
Quote from: Radio Controlled (Discord)
A hand, a hand, my kingdom for a hot hand!
The kitchenette mold free, you move on to the pantry. it's nasty in there. The bacon is grazing on the lettuce. The ham is having an illicit affair with the prime rib, The potatoes see all, know all. A rat in boxer shorts smoking a foul smelling cigar is banging on a cabinet shouting about rent money.

Zrk2

  • Bay Watcher
  • Emperor of the Damned
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #558 on: March 22, 2011, 06:25:39 pm »

Mr. Person could you link me to a typical game where you are town? where you are scum? possibly where you are a third party?
Logged
He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.

Mr.Person

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #559 on: March 22, 2011, 06:38:24 pm »

Frankly, I haven't played an applicable game of either of the first two in quite awhile. I'd have to go look, hold on.
Logged
Youtube video of the year, all years.
Hmm...I've never been a big fan of CCGs - I mean, I did and still do collect Pokemon cards, but I never got heavily into the battling and trading thing.

By definition that makes you a fan since you still buy them.

Jack A T

  • Bay Watcher
  • Mafia is What Players Make of It
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #560 on: March 22, 2011, 06:39:24 pm »

I haven't said anything about the willingness of others to bandwagon AFAIK. Changing votes often is fine as long as they're justified.

What specifically did you not like about my SirBayer attack? I also did not piggyback off Zrk2. I don't even know when he voted or what his argument was. I do remember making the SirBayer case and that one was definetely not influenced by other people.

I note that you need more information but don't actually throw any questions towards me. Why might that be?
Willingness of others to bandwagon: I was referring to your having said that Jokerman was in no way discouraging the bandwagoning.  Then things got tangled up in PPEs.

Lack of questions towards you: The person I really needed information on was Jokerman.  His behaviour was stupid, as you know, and quite scummy, as you know.  However, I hadn't seen much of him at all.

"I don't even know when he voted or what his argument was.": BULLSHIT.

You might as well not even talk to me anymore SirBayer, I have never been more convinced of anyone's scuminess. The only reasons you have to defend another player right now have been stated quite well by Zrk2. You're scum defending scum or scum buddying a non-scum. There are no other options. If you were a townie, you wouldn't have anything to make you so sure of Org's towniness because all he's dropped are nulltells and scumtells.

You were completely aware of Zrk2's arguments.  Completely aware.


"Overenthusiastic"? What, do you want me to not vote for scum?
...That is not what I meant by "overenthusiastic".  I meant how you were somehow convinced, without a doubt, that there was no way that SirBayer could be town, and that there was essentially nothing he could say to convince you that he was town, because...he defended Org and Zrk2 said something about that meaning he was scum no matter what.

I want you to vote for scum.  I don't want you to vote for townies based on evidence that even the person whose argument you were explicitly copying eventually had to admit was stupid and horribly flawed, and I definitely don't want you to do that and be impossible to get off of the townies.

I did not piggyback off Zrk2, his arguments held no sway over my vote of SirBayer. In fact, Zrk2's argrument was that defending Org is incorrect because Org was being scummy while my argument was that defending Org is incorrect because Org has only spouted nulltells and you have no reason to defend someone spouting nulltells. Those are different. Similar, but different.

Let me summarize both Zrk2's arguments and your arguments against SirBayer:

*Zrk2: There is no possible way that Org could be anything but town or scum. Org's being extremely useless, and SirBayer is defending Org.  Therefore, SirBayer must be scum defending town or scum defending scum (to Zrk2's credit, he later gave up on this stupid argument).  Thus, SirBayer is scum.
*Mr. Person: There is no possible way that Org could be anything but town or scum. Org's being extremely useless, and SirBayer is defending Org.  Therefore, based on what Zrk2 said, SirBayer is scum without a doubt.  So much so that he shouldn't even bother arguing.  Oh, and he didn't deny one of my assumptions on his thoughts about Org, and therefore is scum.  Oh, and he was confused by a line from the start of your first points against SirBayer, and thus must be scum.

The laws probably don't have an impact on scumhunting or voting, but feel free to figure out what they are. I will caution you that if anybody DOES know, they either don't want to tell or know something the scum REALLY shouldn't know. So if anybody does know, they obviously don't want to talk, and it's possible that silent person is a townie. And that's assuming somebody does know. I find it entirely possible that nobody gets told the exact rules of certain laws. I find law-hunting to be a total waste of time. But again, if you want to search for the laws, go ahead, just don't do it at the expense of scumhunting like Book did.

I must say, I hugely prefer this position on laws to your earlier "nobody but scum could find knowledge of laws useful" position, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that you had the weird "nobody but scum could find knowledge of laws useful" position earlier.

I love how you also immediately set up a chain-lynch on me then Jokerman and only look at the most immediate targets available to you. Your top scumpicks are two people you don't think are on a team together. So then why would you attack BOTH of us? Yeah, vote me or whatever, that's fine. But you can't then turn around and also claim Jokerman is likely scum. It doesn't work that way. We can't both be scum, so pick the one of us that's scummier. That other player is your read of a townie. Unless you think we're on a scumteam together, of course, but based on what you've said I don't think you think that's the case.

I'm in an odd situation.  The two players acting the scummiest at the moment, in my eyes, are not likely to be partners.  There is the possibility of bussing, but I doubt it.  I find it hard to see what's wrong with attacking both of you when both of you are being quite scummy, but oh well.  I'm a townie.  My job is to attack those who are scummy.  And how can't you both be scum?  Ever heard of bussing?  You're not likely to both be scum, but you could be.  All in all, I'll attack those who I see as scummy.  Why?  Because I should.

Long story short, grow a pair and focus on the scummiest player the most. Don't set up chainlynches, it's only correct to do so if it's role-related reasons. Don't try to pass suspicion on a player you think is more likely to be townie than scum. These things are all bad play. Now, are they mistakes or malicious scummy actions?
Chainlynches: I have role-related reasons. 
Passing suspicion on Jokerman: He's the person I see as being second most likely as scum.  When making scumpicks, I base my picks on the information I have at the time of the picking, and leave the information that I would gain from my picks actually being scum for when they're lynched.
Logged
Quote from: Pandarsenic, BYOR 6.3 deadchat
FUCK YOU JACK
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris, Witches' Coven 2 Elfchat
YOU TRAITOROUS SWINE.
Screw you, Jack.

Mr.Person

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #562 on: March 22, 2011, 07:04:14 pm »

@Jack AT: I'll go line by line at some point, but you've completely killed the worries I had about you.
Logged
Youtube video of the year, all years.
Hmm...I've never been a big fan of CCGs - I mean, I did and still do collect Pokemon cards, but I never got heavily into the battling and trading thing.

By definition that makes you a fan since you still buy them.

Org

  • Bay Watcher
  • Daring Hero
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #563 on: March 22, 2011, 07:08:23 pm »

Oh yeah guys.

I am Bi-Winning, and I have Tiger Blood.
Logged

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #564 on: March 22, 2011, 07:09:37 pm »

Jim, why are you throwing your vote around with only the weakest of pretexts, this carelessness with your vote says that you do not care about it, indicating that you are scum.
He voted to avoid a No Lynch.  He then reverted that vote after an extension made it clear there wouldn't be a no lynch in the immediate future.  Much like with the rest of the bullshit you're throwing out, I don't see your case.

I'd like you to explain why the quotes you used in your earlier posts are anything other than random bullshit, please.
Logged

Zrk2

  • Bay Watcher
  • Emperor of the Damned
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #565 on: March 22, 2011, 07:36:53 pm »

Boy, it sure is quick-wagon-and-switch in here...

So what are you gonna do about it?
His language is aggressive and speaks in a way that says that what he is saying is not worth saying.

I can't really think straight since it's hot. I'd ask some questions at Zrk, but I'm not in the mood right now. Ugh. I see passiveness and laziness in certain people (which includes me, by the way) and I'm not liking where this takes the game in the long term. First question, Ottofar, are you there? Second question, Zrk, why did it take this long for you to vote someone? Third, can we get a votecount, please?
Yet he acts passive here out of sheer laziness, which he just denounced!

Or would you rather I say that again? I really don't know what else you want, I have made my case, and no matter how much I try and explain it you say it isn't good enough.
Logged
He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.

IronyOwl

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nope~
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #566 on: March 22, 2011, 08:44:33 pm »

Zrk2:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Jokerman points out that a bandwagon is forming and Mr. Person tries to get him to drop it by essentially asking 'So what?' and treating it like it isn't worth being addressed. Everything is worth addressing, trying to get events to be ignored can only help the scum.[/quote]
Or he was pointing out some of that passiveness you seem to care about. What makes you say he wasn't asking what he was going to do about it in the literal sense?

As well he can be passive about actually scumhunting:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
He calls out people for being 'passive' without giving any specific examples, and then proceeds to ask two questions with almost no contribution to the discussion.
He did give a specific example: You. He asked why it took you so long to vote someone.

And here:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This also is an example of his passivity, he addresses the claim of a bandwagon, yet doesn't do anything about it despite the fact (implied by his tone) that he thinks pointing it out is scummy.
Quit changing your story. Was he trying to dismiss the conversation or call Joker out as scum for it? Was he trying to get Joker to drop it or not doing anything about it?

You also seem to be admitting that your previous walls of text were absolutely worthless, and haven't addressed your peculiar attempts at Ottofar.
[/quote][/spoiler]

You still haven't addressed this.
Logged
Quote from: Radio Controlled (Discord)
A hand, a hand, my kingdom for a hot hand!
The kitchenette mold free, you move on to the pantry. it's nasty in there. The bacon is grazing on the lettuce. The ham is having an illicit affair with the prime rib, The potatoes see all, know all. A rat in boxer shorts smoking a foul smelling cigar is banging on a cabinet shouting about rent money.

Jim Groovester

  • Bay Watcher
  • 1P
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #567 on: March 22, 2011, 09:05:06 pm »

Jim, why are you throwing your vote around with only the weakest of pretexts, this carelessness with your vote says that you do not care about it, indicating that you are scum.

Mr.Person and Leafsnail beat me to it. I explained what I was doing in the exact same fucking post of mine you quoted.

Care to read the thread, scumfucker?

I see. Could you please explain why you agree with each of the following?

This is completely pointless.

Spoiler: Ye List (click to show/hide)

I have no idea what point you were trying to make.

His list of scum targets and mine coincide on a lot of points, which is why I said I agree with most of everything he said. Did you think I was talking about the way he made his accusations? That's pretty much what you quoted in your post.
Logged
I understood nothing, contributed nothing, but still got to win, so good game everybody else.

Zrk2

  • Bay Watcher
  • Emperor of the Damned
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #568 on: March 22, 2011, 09:11:34 pm »

Jim, angry much? You provided one or two sentences in explanation, not exactly what usually qualifies as a reason, especially when one is "I think x is more scummy then y."

Irony: I don't see how those quotes indicate that I am claiming my 'walls of text' are worthless, please elaborate. As to dealing with Ottofar, I noted that he was lurking, then he provided a series of short posts, each of which revealed something new, and I reacted each time because I had plenty of time on my hands that day. Had I been more busy I would have only had one or two posts in reaction to this, but all the revelations left my reacting quickly without fully considering implications.

I suggest people look through the thread and pay attention to Mr. Person, does he usually play in this manner as town? It is a very distinctive style.
Logged
He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.

Jim Groovester

  • Bay Watcher
  • 1P
    • View Profile
Re: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Day 2, 13/15, 1 replace?
« Reply #569 on: March 22, 2011, 09:14:10 pm »

One or two sentences was all that was required.

What part of I changed my vote to avoid a no-lynch is mysterious to you?
Logged
I understood nothing, contributed nothing, but still got to win, so good game everybody else.
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 74