Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!JDodge wrote:I've answered your question multiple times. You only showed suspicion after the fact, AND only showed enough suspicion to hammer onceSensFan wrote:Now see, that's complete bullshit. Do I need to point out the (now 4) times I've said I found him scummy?JDodge wrote:You're scummy for hammering someone on a case you didn't believe in on the basis of pandering to the majority.
More to the point, stop avoiding the question. Why am I scummy for doing something you would have done, but waiting to make sure at least 1 other Town person agrees?you precieved that it was safe to do so, because a majority makeup of the town tomorrow agreed with you..
Open 97 - Lovers Mafia (Over in 3 days!) before 703
-
-
SensFan Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Posts: 7760
- Joined: November 11, 2007
- Location: Hamilton, Ontario
(11:04:10 PM) senspizzaline: That's actually my bold prediction for the year
(11:04:19 PM) senspizzaline: Miami finishes 2nd in the AFCE.
(11:05:35 PM) jhawk01b: my bold prediction for the year is that whoever wins the NFC West will have a winning record-
-
Lord Gurgi Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: March 26, 2004
Answer the question.JDodge wrote:
I've answered your question multiple times. You only showed suspicion after the fact, AND only showed enough suspicion to hammer onceSensFan wrote:
Now see, that's complete bullshit. Do I need to point out the (now 4) times I've said I found him scummy?JDodge wrote:You're scummy for hammering someone on a case you didn't believe in on the basis of pandering to the majority.
More to the point, stop avoiding the question. Why am I scummy for doing something you would have done, but waiting to make sure at least 1 other Town person agrees?you precieved that it was safe to do so, because a majority makeup of the town tomorrow agreed with you..(11:26:07 PM) thesheamuffin: I'm counting gurgi because I would probably make out with him if I were drunk enough-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
I HAVE ANSWERED THE GODDAMN FUCKING QUESTION AT LEAST 5 FUCKING TIMES BY NOW. LEARN HOW TO READ OR CEASE TO PLAY THE GAME. THANKS.Lord Gurgi wrote:
Answer the question.JDodge wrote:
I've answered your question multiple times. You only showed suspicion after the fact, AND only showed enough suspicion to hammer onceSensFan wrote:
Now see, that's complete bullshit. Do I need to point out the (now 4) times I've said I found him scummy?JDodge wrote:You're scummy for hammering someone on a case you didn't believe in on the basis of pandering to the majority.
More to the point, stop avoiding the question. Why am I scummy for doing something you would have done, but waiting to make sure at least 1 other Town person agrees?you precieved that it was safe to do so, because a majority makeup of the town tomorrow agreed with you..
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.SensFan wrote:Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!-
-
SensFan Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Posts: 7760
- Joined: November 11, 2007
- Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...JDodge wrote:
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.SensFan wrote:Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!(11:04:10 PM) senspizzaline: That's actually my bold prediction for the year
(11:04:19 PM) senspizzaline: Miami finishes 2nd in the AFCE.
(11:05:35 PM) jhawk01b: my bold prediction for the year is that whoever wins the NFC West will have a winning record-
-
Lord Gurgi Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: March 26, 2004
No. You have made a statement that is a sad attempt to weasel out of self-incrimination.JDodge wrote:I HAVE ANSWERED THE GODDAMN FUCKING QUESTION AT LEAST 5 FUCKING TIMES BY NOW. LEARN HOW TO READ OR CEASE TO PLAY THE GAME. THANKS.(11:26:07 PM) thesheamuffin: I'm counting gurgi because I would probably make out with him if I were drunk enough-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.SensFan wrote:
Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...JDodge wrote:
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.SensFan wrote:Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!
YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for3 peopleto call for the hammer.
This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion becausethey asked for it. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
No. I've answered the question.Lord Gurgi wrote:
No. You have made a statement that is a sad attempt to weasel out of self-incrimination.JDodge wrote:I HAVE ANSWERED THE GODDAMN FUCKING QUESTION AT LEAST 5 FUCKING TIMES BY NOW. LEARN HOW TO READ OR CEASE TO PLAY THE GAME. THANKS.
Isn't this fun? It's like a long and more wordy version of the classic "NO YOU NO YOU NO YOU" exchange.-
-
SensFan Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Posts: 7760
- Joined: November 11, 2007
- Location: Hamilton, Ontario
I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.JDodge wrote:
You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.SensFan wrote:
Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...JDodge wrote:
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.SensFan wrote:Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!
YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for3 peopleto call for the hammer.
This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion becausethey asked for it. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.(11:04:10 PM) senspizzaline: That's actually my bold prediction for the year
(11:04:19 PM) senspizzaline: Miami finishes 2nd in the AFCE.
(11:05:35 PM) jhawk01b: my bold prediction for the year is that whoever wins the NFC West will have a winning record-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination youSensFan wrote:
I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.JDodge wrote:
You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.SensFan wrote:
Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...JDodge wrote:
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.SensFan wrote:Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!
YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for3 peopleto call for the hammer.
This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion becausethey asked for it. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.aretown, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.-
-
Lord Gurgi Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: March 26, 2004
-
-
SensFan Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Posts: 7760
- Joined: November 11, 2007
- Location: Hamilton, Ontario
I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?JDodge wrote:
Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination youSensFan wrote:
I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.JDodge wrote:
You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.SensFan wrote:
Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...JDodge wrote:
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.SensFan wrote:Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!
YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for3 peopleto call for the hammer.
This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion becausethey asked for it. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.aretown, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.(11:04:10 PM) senspizzaline: That's actually my bold prediction for the year
(11:04:19 PM) senspizzaline: Miami finishes 2nd in the AFCE.
(11:05:35 PM) jhawk01b: my bold prediction for the year is that whoever wins the NFC West will have a winning record-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
If he had just hammered (with an actual reason), then he could deliver a logical explanation and thus not come under suspicion. There is no logical reason beyond self-preservation to wait until he saw people wanted a hammer and then do so.Lord Gurgi wrote:JDodge, explain why what you are arguing is not a situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."-
-
Lord Gurgi Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: March 26, 2004
What would your reasons to hammer be?JDodge wrote:
If he had just hammered (with an actual reason), then he could deliver a logical explanation and thus not come under suspicion. There is no logical reason beyond self-preservation to wait until he saw people wanted a hammer and then do so.Lord Gurgi wrote:JDodge, explain why what you are arguing is not a situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."(11:26:07 PM) thesheamuffin: I'm counting gurgi because I would probably make out with him if I were drunk enough-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.SensFan wrote:
I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?JDodge wrote:
Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination youSensFan wrote:
I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.JDodge wrote:
You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.SensFan wrote:
Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...JDodge wrote:
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.SensFan wrote:Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!
YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for3 peopleto call for the hammer.
This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion becausethey asked for it. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.aretown, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.
However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
I saw the clear percieved link between Guardian and Batt. I was certain from Guardian's reaction he was scum. That would've been my reason. Again, human, fallible, wrong, mistakes, etc.Lord Gurgi wrote:
What would your reasons to hammer be?JDodge wrote:
If he had just hammered (with an actual reason), then he could deliver a logical explanation and thus not come under suspicion. There is no logical reason beyond self-preservation to wait until he saw people wanted a hammer and then do so.Lord Gurgi wrote:JDodge, explain why what you are arguing is not a situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."-
-
SensFan Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Posts: 7760
- Joined: November 11, 2007
- Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?JDodge wrote:
If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.SensFan wrote:
I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?JDodge wrote:
Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination youSensFan wrote:
I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.JDodge wrote:
You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.SensFan wrote:
Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...JDodge wrote:
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.SensFan wrote:Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!
YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for3 peopleto call for the hammer.
This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion becausethey asked for it. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.aretown, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.
However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.(11:04:10 PM) senspizzaline: That's actually my bold prediction for the year
(11:04:19 PM) senspizzaline: Miami finishes 2nd in the AFCE.
(11:05:35 PM) jhawk01b: my bold prediction for the year is that whoever wins the NFC West will have a winning record-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
You're ignoring my point and arguing the basis surrounding the point.SensFan wrote:
Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?JDodge wrote:
If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.SensFan wrote:
I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?JDodge wrote:
Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination youSensFan wrote:
I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.JDodge wrote:
You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.SensFan wrote:
Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...JDodge wrote:
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.SensFan wrote:Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!
YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for3 peopleto call for the hammer.
This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion becausethey asked for it. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.aretown, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.
However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.
I am not saying that I am unaccountable. I am not saying that any of us who called for the hammer are any less accountable than you are. I am saying that your waiting until you had that safety net of 3 other people having as much accountability as you is suspicious.-
-
Lord Gurgi Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: March 26, 2004
Excusing yourself from a lynch, etc.JDodge wrote:
I saw the clear percieved link between Guardian and Batt. I was certain from Guardian's reaction he was scum. That would've been my reason. Again, human, fallible, wrong, mistakes, etc.Lord Gurgi wrote:
What would your reasons to hammer be?JDodge wrote:
If he had just hammered (with an actual reason), then he could deliver a logical explanation and thus not come under suspicion. There is no logical reason beyond self-preservation to wait until he saw people wanted a hammer and then do so.Lord Gurgi wrote:JDodge, explain why what you are arguing is not a situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."(11:26:07 PM) thesheamuffin: I'm counting gurgi because I would probably make out with him if I were drunk enough-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
YES BECAUSE I AM NEVER WRONGLord Gurgi wrote:
Excusing yourself from a lynch, etc.JDodge wrote:
I saw the clear percieved link between Guardian and Batt. I was certain from Guardian's reaction he was scum. That would've been my reason. Again, human, fallible, wrong, mistakes, etc.Lord Gurgi wrote:
What would your reasons to hammer be?JDodge wrote:
If he had just hammered (with an actual reason), then he could deliver a logical explanation and thus not come under suspicion. There is no logical reason beyond self-preservation to wait until he saw people wanted a hammer and then do so.Lord Gurgi wrote:JDodge, explain why what you are arguing is not a situation of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."
Get over your selective perception, Flimsy.-
-
Lord Gurgi Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: March 26, 2004
-
-
SensFan Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Fortuna Ex Deus
- Posts: 7760
- Joined: November 11, 2007
- Location: Hamilton, Ontario
I don't hammer if a majority don't support it, extenuating circumstances aside. Why should my opinion be more important than the majority's?JDodge wrote:
You're ignoring my point and arguing the basis surrounding the point.SensFan wrote:
Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?JDodge wrote:
If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.SensFan wrote:
I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?JDodge wrote:
Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination youSensFan wrote:
I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.JDodge wrote:
You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.SensFan wrote:
Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...JDodge wrote:
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.SensFan wrote:Yeah, I only hammered after 3 other people voted for him. Real good scumtell there!
YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for3 peopleto call for the hammer.
This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion becausethey asked for it. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.aretown, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.
However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.
I am not saying that I am unaccountable. I am not saying that any of us who called for the hammer are any less accountable than you are. I am saying that your waiting until you had that safety net of 3 other people having as much accountability as you is suspicious.(11:04:10 PM) senspizzaline: That's actually my bold prediction for the year
(11:04:19 PM) senspizzaline: Miami finishes 2nd in the AFCE.
(11:05:35 PM) jhawk01b: my bold prediction for the year is that whoever wins the NFC West will have a winning record-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
My, your little psyche is full of cognitive biases, isn't it?Lord Gurgi wrote:
This would appear to be the basis of your mafia play.JDodge wrote:YES BECAUSE I AM NEVER WRONG
Get over your selective perception, Flimsy.-
-
Lord Gurgi Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: March 26, 2004
I'm seeing a pattern of a question not being answered.SensFan wrote:JDodge wrote:
You're ignoring my point and arguing the basis surrounding the point.SensFan wrote:
Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?JDodge wrote:
If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.SensFan wrote:JDodge wrote:
Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination youSensFan wrote:JDodge wrote:
You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.SensFan wrote:
Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...JDodge wrote:
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.
YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for3 peopleto call for the hammer.
This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion becausethey asked for it. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.aretown, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?
However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.
I am not saying that I am unaccountable. I am not saying that any of us who called for the hammer are any less accountable than you are. I am saying that your waiting until you had that safety net of 3 other people having as much accountability as you is suspicious.I don't hammer if a majority don't support it, extenuating circumstances aside. Why should my opinion be more important than the majority's?(11:26:07 PM) thesheamuffin: I'm counting gurgi because I would probably make out with him if I were drunk enough-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Never said that. Said that you shouldn't hold back on acting on your opinion for fear of being shunned by the majority.SensFan wrote:
I don't hammer if a majority don't support it, extenuating circumstances aside. Why should my opinion be more important than the majority's?JDodge wrote:
You're ignoring my point and arguing the basis surrounding the point.SensFan wrote:
Why should the person who happens to not be voting someone be more accountable than the 3 people who are calling for a hammer, but happen to be voting that person?JDodge wrote:
If you have a good reason to hammer, then hammer already; you can justify it later. You are human. You are fallible. You are likely to be wrong. That should not stop you in the least.SensFan wrote:
I have been Town before, you realize? And why should anyone end the day without a majority agreeing for a lynch? Why should my opinion override that of the majority?JDodge wrote:
Then again, if by some obscene stretch of the imagination youSensFan wrote:
I would never hammer anyone without 50% of the Town supporting it.JDodge wrote:
You're not at all paying attention to what I am saying.SensFan wrote:
Right. But you are saying that I'm Scum for hammering only with support of 50%+ of the Town. Surely that is the case for any hammer...JDodge wrote:
Vote =/= call for the hammer; you yourself said that page 1 votes were pretty much meaningless.
YOU YOURSELF have said, multiple times, that you waited on the hammer until you had (and I paraphrase a bit here) "at least 1 town" calling for it. Hence, you waited for3 peopleto call for the hammer.
This allows you to weasel yourself out of suspicion becausethey asked for it. Sans this confirmation, people would have basis to say "but we were just pressuring him, why the hell did you hammer on page 2", which would thus be bad for you. You saw the opportunity to hammer a townsperson with minimal suspicion being inflicted upon you, and you took it.aretown, you are henceforth urged to grow a pair.
However, when you try to remove self-accountability, that in and of itself is suspicious.
I am not saying that I am unaccountable. I am not saying that any of us who called for the hammer are any less accountable than you are. I am saying that your waiting until you had that safety net of 3 other people having as much accountability as you is suspicious.-
-
Lord Gurgi Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Mostly Harmless
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: March 26, 2004
Ad hominem, I can't tell if that's a step up or a step down from the norm.JDodge wrote:
My, your little psyche is full of cognitive biases, isn't it?Lord Gurgi wrote:
This would appear to be the basis of your mafia play.JDodge wrote:YES BECAUSE I AM NEVER WRONG
Get over your selective perception, Flimsy.(11:26:07 PM) thesheamuffin: I'm counting gurgi because I would probably make out with him if I were drunk enough
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.