Grum wrote:Sorry about that I did overreact there I think progresive observation and logical claims is the correct way to win not just pointing fingers at people because their confused...
I'm not going to apologize for pointing fingers at people. No one here is scum-hunting and that's a problem. The issue isn't me being too aggressive, it's you being too passive.
Grum wrote:Any how I'll try not to leave words uncapitalized. So whos been absent from the forums it seems like( aside from those on vacation like cat killa) people are lurking around here. lets assume that we have a doc and a cop, and then we can progress.
I agree there is a lot of inactivity here. But you can't complain about it when you do nothing to stop it. Lead by example and post questions/ suspicions. The more you post and the more questions you direct at people, the less people can lurk and get away with it.
@ Grum: Why would you assume we have a doctor and a cop?
@ everyone: In order to promote discussion I think we should all post the most suspicious people on our lists and the reasons for them.
I'll start. Everyone on MM's bandwagon should be under scrutiny, including me. Chances are at least one of them are scum. The problem I find is that lynching MM seemed so justifiable. Most of the votes seem to have been made in earnest because of MM's frustrating playstyle. The only outliers I see are:
1. Abstract Actuary: Wasn't actually on MM's bandwagon but was in my eyes, pro-lynch. His summary of MM's actions gives license to #1noob to hammer.
2. #1noob: Did not object to MM's playstyle at all prior to the hammer and hammered MM very quickly thereby not allowing for a roleclaim. His only defense? "o, sry"
These two are the most suspicious in my eyes. Looking forward to seeing everyone else's
)
Never try to infer from a Mod's flavor text something about the game mechanics, it always winds up bad - Vel
