Do me and everyone else a favor, take your personal crap and remove it from the game.Brandi wrote:They aren't "excuses", they are valid reasons. I'm sure everyone else has also been busy this weekend. I'm sorry if you don't celebrate holidays but other people in this world do.
And my "big long post" took no effort or thinking, I just had to read you in iso (and CTRL+F "prod") and quote a few things. Talking about my weekend isn't the same as putting effort into a game.
That post took me 5 minutes. When I actually want to work on CONTRIBUTING to a game I can take upwards of 4 or more hours of my time. I don't like responding to things when I know I don't have time for it or just don't feel like it yet.
I'm sorry princess, but my life doesn't revolve around your schedule or priorities. I'm going to take a shower now, and then probably eat dinner, Oh god I hope that's okay with you!
Bigger fish to fry is why I personally stopped pursuing it, and right now Starbucks vs. Brandi reeks to me of a... what's a clean way to put it? Basically, I'm getting nothing useful out of it--they might as well be arguing with each other for the sake of arguing with each other.Crazy wrote:Brandi, who are you suspicious of?
SC/Gorrad/anyone else on the Starbuck wagon - What happened to me and Starbuck obviously being scum together? Obviously I never approved of the wagon, but I'm curious to why it dissipated.
I was on the Starbuck wagon, and I still find her scummy, personally. I did not, however, think that you were scum with her for the so called "fakeclaim slip" as I said at the time, as I do not think that you would make that kind of a slip and you had previously posted something to the effect of, "If that's a fakeclaim, it's the most brilliant fakeclaim ever" (paraphrasing from memory without looking it up) so I could see how you could accidentally say "fakeclaim" in place of "claim" in your subsequent post in the circumstances.Crazy wrote:SC/Gorrad/anyone else on the Starbuck wagon - What happened to me and Starbuck obviously being scum together? Obviously I never approved of the wagon, but I'm curious to why it dissipated.
Emphasis on the word "could". But I doubt it.Starbuck wrote:But I could still very well be a Vanilla role.
*Jaw drops* You were instrumental in getting Monkey lynched.Starbuck wrote:Also, let's not forget that I was not part of that crew that helped get Monkey lynched.
No, you didn't. You unvoted him after he claimed (after a few others did so), you subsequently revoted him, and still later you unvoted him again, but you continued to pound at him relentlessly even when you didn't have your vote on him, right up to his lynching.Starbuck wrote:I definitely saw where his flavor made sense and immediately backed off.
That is why I think Starbuck is town.Jazz wrote:Crazy, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that your only reason for thinking Starbuck is town is that she claimed Buzz Lightyear as her role. Have you thought about that further since Neopi flipped scum with the role of Lady from Lady & the Tramp? I mean, it seems to me that you're basing your entire read on Starbuck on the fact that she claimed Buzz Lightyear, but by that reasoning, Lady from Lady & the Tramp should also have been a vanilla role, and we now know that it was not.
She then quotes where I asked for a prod and when she received it. Most mods are pretty good at making sure everyone stays active. I try and do my part that if I notice someone has gone about 72 hours without a post, I ask for a prod on that person. Obviously, the mod either saw my post or was already planning on prodding you. I'm not in his head, so I don't know. All I know is that most mods, when they see a request for a prod on someone, normally honor it, since we as players cannot prod each other because that would be breaking the rules.Brandi wrote:The first time you asked for me to be prodded, I was prodded. It wasn't because of your post, it was because I received a PM.
I can see this, but with only like 7 or 8 posts in the game prior to his first post, short-sightedness was not the case here.Brandi wrote:I could relate to Monkey with what he was saying because I don't always read everything before I make posts either. I see it as a short-sighted thing to do, but not a scummy thing.
Brandi wrote:I said it was odd as in, not normal. I'm not used to people not voting in mafia games, I'm not of the knowledge as to how it could be scummy. I actually tried looking up some info on it in the wiki and didn't find much. There's nothing wrong with asking for a reason.Starbuck wrote:She also sees Gorrad's not voting as odd and is fencesitting on whether or not she thinks it's scummy. She wants him to give a reason for his non-vote.
Starbuck wrote:In Post 39, she doesn't see the logic in Gorrad voting for her. She doesn't see how it's odd that she agreed with KMD and really didn't come up with her own opinion. She, then, seems to get a bit overdefensive:
Brandi wrote:KMD said it was scummy, I said it was odd. It IS Odd, because of the fact that MOST PLAYERS random vote. ODD = not normal/weird.
You quoting me there invalidates your statement, thank you. Like I said, I never agreed with KMD. If I had agreed with him, I would have said it was scummy. He asked for opinions, and I gave them.
Way to cut off my statement right in the middle to make it look better for yourself. Also, I didn't invalidate myself. You did agree with KMD. All anyone has to do is go back and read the first 2 pages. Anyways, my point here was that you were overdefensive in the part that I quoted.
The only reason why you even used the phrase "hissy fit" was because SC did in Post 42. You say in Post 44 that it LOOKS like we were equally doing so, not that we were. If you felt that way, why didn't you cite any of mine or Monkey's posts?Brandi wrote:You were. You were both throwing hissy fits. Me stating that is irrelevant to the actual game play and a subjective observation. I don't need to "BACK UP" my opinion, thank you.
So the only time that you viewed Monkey as scummy was when he gave up? Nothing else that he did struck a chord? I find that really hard to believe.Brandi wrote:-This is a red herring. I was pointing out at that time, that if ANYTHING that monkey was doing was scummy, it was NOT what most people were pointing out was such. It's like this:Starbuck wrote:In Post 66,
Instead of saying that Monkey's giving up IS scummy, she skirts around it by saying that it FEELS scummy.Brandi wrote:About Monkey: The fact that he just "gave up" literally to say "I'm going to wait until I'm no longer under fire" feels more scummy to me than his actual argument with Starbuck.
Also, Crazy's first point against Monkey makes no sense whatsoever. I can't fathom what he's trying to say with that sentence.
I'd like to hear some of Crazy's thoughts on other players.
Person A: "This dinner is delicious, the potatoes are the best part!"
Person B: "This dinner isn't really delicious, but if anything is, it's not the potatoes, it's the carrots."
"I'm getting nothing from your argument with Brandi" =/= "Your case on Brandi does not exist." It simply hasn't sunken in to me yet.Starbuck wrote:I actually made a case on Brandi, and the fact that you didn't see this rather irks me.
This does not make sense to me. You seem to be basing your entire read on Starbuck solely on the fact that she claimed vanilla Buzz Lightyear because Buzz Lightyear is an obvious (to you) vanilla role. But Lady from Lady & the Tramp is an equally "obvious" vanilla role. I mean, come on, cute little dog with zero connotations that I can think of that could be viewed as potentially evil.Crazy wrote:That is why I think Starbuck is town.
If Neopi had claimed vanilla, I probably wouldn't have lynched him but I would have thought the claim was merely "okay." However, a Buzz-vanilla-claim is exceptional.
You unvoted Starbuck with no revote.StrangerCoug wrote:Bigger fish to fry is why I personally stopped pursuing it, and right now Starbucks vs. Brandi reeks to me of a... what's a clean way to put it? Basically, I'm getting nothing useful out of it--they might as well be arguing with each other for the sake of arguing with each other.Crazy wrote:Brandi, who are you suspicious of?
SC/Gorrad/anyone else on the Starbuck wagon - What happened to me and Starbuck obviously being scum together? Obviously I never approved of the wagon, but I'm curious to why it dissipated.
It has to do with the role, not with alignment. I agree that flavor cannot be used to discern alignment.Jazz wrote:This does not make sense to me. You seem to be basing your entire read on Starbuck solely on the fact that she claimed vanilla Buzz Lightyear because Buzz Lightyear is an obvious (to you) vanilla role. But Lady from Lady & the Tramp is an equally "obvious" vanilla role. I mean, come on, cute little dog with zero connotations that I can think of that could be viewed as potentially evil.
And yet, Lady was scum.
So, I am not following your train of thought here, and I do not understand why you think that claiming vanilla Buzz Lightyear is a "brilliant" claim, and I do not understand why you accept it at face value.
Regards,
Jazz
Neopi was starting to be scummier than Starbuck and I felt he was a little more deserving of my attention. The unvote of Starbuck you speak of also contains a warning toward Neopi and an accusation of the newbie card.Crazy wrote:You unvoted Starbuck with no revote.StrangerCoug wrote:Bigger fish to fry is why I personally stopped pursuing it, and right now Starbucks vs. Brandi reeks to me of a... what's a clean way to put it? Basically, I'm getting nothing useful out of it--they might as well be arguing with each other for the sake of arguing with each other.Crazy wrote:Brandi, who are you suspicious of?
SC/Gorrad/anyone else on the Starbuck wagon - What happened to me and Starbuck obviously being scum together? Obviously I never approved of the wagon, but I'm curious to why it dissipated.
You voted for Neopi about a day after that for his alleged lurking.
If you had "bigger fish to fry," why was your unvote off the Starbuck wagon not accompanied by a revote?
I think this is scummy because it's like you go out of your way to make that known in Post 99:Brandi wrote:My vote for Gorrad had nothing to do with his initial vote on me. Otherwise I would have voted him right away.
It definitely seems to me that you wanted to put your vote on him back when he voted you, but you waited so it wouldn't look like OMGUS.Brandi - from Post 99 wrote:I feel my reasoning goes beyond just his vote on me
I didn't misrepresent anything. You stated that he was non-committal. Non-committal to the game in general would mean that he still wouldn't be voting for anyone. He voted for you in his second post, so I would say that would be him committing himself to the game.Brandi wrote:Nice misrepresentation of my words. I meant non-committal to the game in general. Note I said "the only thing he's done."
Yes, he did and yes, it does prove otherwise.Brandi wrote:Also I hardly see that as an "explanation" That is a STATEMENT, not an explanation. He never said WHY. He never gave REASONS. So no, it doesn't "prove" otherwise.
Whether or not you like his answer, he answered the question and gave a reason.Gorrad wrote:Vote: Brandi
I didn't random vote because I didn't see a need to. KMD pointing it out as scummy is utterly ridiculous, but Brandi's agreeing that it's odd is indeed scummy.
I know the post that I linked was a response to someone else. The "@SC" part at the beginning gives that all away.Brandi wrote:More misrep once again. The post you linked to was a response to someone else. In that post, I was reiterating something that Gorrad had already previously said. That post was not even an attack against him. Once again, I never "parroted" off of KMD. I was responding to a QUESTION that KMD had made.Starbuck wrote:In Post 116, she goes back to tunneling on how Gorrad didn't random vote. The funny part of this whole thing was that he really didn't say anything during RVS and then he voted for Brandi for parroting off KMD. It was after this that she decided to go on the rampage about him not random voting.
How do you know what his intentions were?Brandi wrote:Regardless of what resulted from his non-vote, he did not have any specific intentions.
Did I say anything about Monkey here? Where did you get that from? Did you not read any of my statement?Brandi wrote:Distancing from what? who? Monkey? He was town.Starbuck wrote:It is rather redundant. Scum already know who the non-scum are. How is it a pro-town question, especially when asked to a player that's recently been under a lot of fire? She then says what I just said here:
Brandi wrote:Um. Scum knows who the town is... they don't need to *guess* to hit town. And how exactly does your opinion on who is town make them "confirmed" ?
I seriously doubt any scum in ANY game would ever use other players opinions of who's townie or not to direct their kills. That is just senseless.
I don't like how she insinuates here that scum wouldn't take everything going on into account before making their kill here. It sounds like definite distancing.
You just point blank stated that opinions and info help the Town, which is true and I'm not saying your wrong.Brandi wrote:Opinions and information DO help the town. Whether they help anyone else is irrelevant to the point I was making.Starbuck wrote:This is not necessarily true. We could inadvertently reveal a PR like we did yesterday with Monkey. We had the info, and 4 people decided to keep their vote on Monkey.Brandi wrote:Opinions and information help the TOWN.
It's still a fact. If we never gave opinions or had any information, the game would never go anywhere.
Note that the power role that was revealed wasn't even NK'd, he was LYNCHED.
How is WIFOM always a null tell? WIFOM, or any form of it, is a definite scum tell.Brandi wrote:WIFOM = null tell, always. It makes sense though.
If someone claims Doctor, and the doctor doesn't die at night, the doctor would be more suspect the next day.
I hadn't thought Neopi was scum until day 2, in fact I was against lynching him initially.
Looks like you need to re-read on scum tells. Finding MafiaBrandi wrote:Scumtells are scumtells regardless of it's just what a player "does."
And I will quote this again...Brandi wrote:Neopi, you do realize I did not vote Gorrad for not random voting? It was because of his later (and continued) scummy behavior?
It looks like you haven't even TRIED to read any this game and just skimmed through.
Your actions so far have been incredibly scummy and if you are lynched and end up being town... actually regardless of what you end up being, you might want to try some newbie games.
You felt least likely that I was scum, which means that you felt in some way that Neopi was scum (especially with the quote above this one).Brandi wrote:Out of the three people with a wagon on them, I feel that Starbuck is the least likely to be scum, and I'd be least happy with her being lynched.
Why did they dissipate? You were going after Gorrad very hard on Day 1, what changed your mind?Brandi wrote:I will say that my suspicions on have Gorrad have dissipated (so far), but it wasn't a "sudden" occurrence as you make it out to be.
This bit alone proves to me that you were active lurking at the end of the day, and didn't want to hammer your scum buddy.Brandi wrote:I didn't want to vote for Neopi until he gave more input, I was still stuck in the mindset that his incredible newbiness (which is a valid reason btw) could be the reason for how he was playing. I didn't feel we got enough out of him before the end of the day, and wouldn't have felt comfortable hammering him. I mean he did claim a power-role... that even though didn't make SENSE, it didn't make sense he'd just make it up all on his own either. Especially with how newbish he was. I mean I had never even HEARD of watchers and trackers before I joined this game.
Here you go again assuming that I didn't go back and read where your posts came from and how things worked around it. Assuming something like this in a mafia game is not a good thing.Brandi wrote:I think that the fact that you read me in iso without reading how things worked around me has caused you to misunderstand quite a lot of my points on things. My shitty activity is the only point of yours I agree with, and I know it's something I need to work on improving... (in all of my games really)
It has now.StrangerCoug wrote:"I'm getting nothing from your argument with Brandi" =/= "Your case on Brandi does not exist." It simply hasn't sunken in to me yet.Starbuck wrote:I actually made a case on Brandi, and the fact that you didn't see this rather irks me.
