charlatan wrote: see this is as a nulltell, since I don't know how it would be helpful Sando-town, either.
I didn't say it was pro-town either. What I said is that I don't find it very scummy.
Anyways, right now I'm going to sleep (it's 3 a.m over here), which means that barring the possible nightly excursion to the bathroom with a glance at the comp I won't be around from this moment to the deadline.
Thus,
Zorblag wrote:Waiting till the last minute to take a stand on an issue like this be off. Based on the information we have about who you think be scummy it should be clear where your vote would go. If your suspicions have changed then getting them out sooner rather than later would be more helpful for the town.
Nice twist but no, it no be off. It's that I'm not particularly enthused with either wagon and I'm hoping for a last-second miracle.
Zorblag wrote:NO U
Really? At what point did I become the measuring stick for your play?
Your lack of scumhunting is scummy. Simply letting the game flow around you is scummy. Not taking a real stand on anything is scummy. Your earlier deflection and your "I'm rubber you're glue" defense is scummy. When I came to these realizations is immaterial.
Zorblag wrote:What would Papa Zito's scum list be?
This is getting ridiculously tight timewise. It's 2 hours to the deadline, I don't know how last minute you're hoping the remaining 6 votes on someone will come PZ.
That's it. I'm switching, we need a lynch and I don't have a townread on Sando.
unvote; vote Sando
(L-1)
Here's hoping claiming will still be possible.
SerialClergyman wrote:Go on, all the cool kids are doing it!
But more seriously - why set up a gambit then ignore the results?
Oh sorry, I forgot to answer this. The problem is that I didn't see it through, so I didn't really get any results. Normally I'd push that wagon along but I was away. :/
Essentially, you just said you opened the game with an accusation based on nothing and then flaked on that plan so any redeeming information that we would have recieved in exchange for you muddying the waters with rubbish is now forfeit.
That is epically frustrating, to be honest.
Anyway, I think we're at the end of the conversatio, so hammer away.
No, that's not what I said at all. The accusation had a basis, and I've stated it several times. The plan failed because I have a life outside of MafiaScum at times.
Shocking, I know.
Where's Troll? heh
Fun fact: I'd have to check but I think this is my first hammer.
All you've done is deliberately create a situation where information and motivation has been muddied and faked and you're rejecting any information that came out of that scenario. That's out and out anti-town.
I don't even like the plan when it DOES bring results because I think townies have a fundamental responsibility to be honest and upfront that pushing a wagon you don't believe in violates.
But when you not only violate that responsibility but ALSO dismiss any worthwhile results from the gambit, you've been literally worse than useless.
What a load of absolute, total bullshit. You're trying to push playstyle and V/LA = scummy? You're
still
trying to insinuate ("deliberately create a situation") that I did it for some antitown purpose?
I'm
really
hoping that you just wet your panties when I came out on you early and are still miffed about it, otherwise this has turned scummy and I'll have to take another look at you tomorrow.
@Papa Zito, Troll be back for deadline like Troll said Troll would be. It seems that Troll no needs to move Troll's vote to make a lynch happen though so that be nice.
We might have some issues to talk about tomorrow based on what you seem to think Troll has said but them will keep till then.
Your play this day, whether town or scum has been BAD FOR TOWN.
You have created a situation where you have, if not out and out lied, deliberately created misinformation with the stated intention of examining the reactions of those who joined the wagon.
I already don't like this playstyle - not in terms of you being more or less likely to be scum, but because I think anything that throws false information or opinions around is going to confuse rather than help.
But I could live with that if you then were able to use the confusion to come up with a good suspect, or some other form of information which would benefit the town. You are now saying that you have nothing in this regard at all.
So I don't care what your motivations were, I don't know if it makes you more or less likely to be scum, I don't even care that you were V/LA, frankly.
I care about the fact that you deliberately created a situation which confuses the town and the town's ability to read each other and then dismissed any information that could have come out of the situation. That is out and out anti-town. Whether it was deliberate because you're scum or accidental because you are town, it's out and out anti-town.
Now - what about this opinion makes you think that I'm likely to be reacting to a wagon you started on me weeks ago? What about this opinion makes you think I'm more likely to be scum?
@OJ: I believe you asked the question posed to me at the end of 349 (at least I remember writing a response); but I like to get a feel for competency judged from my perspective, what they pick up on so I know to focus on something else if I get a town read on them as they're better in a certain area of scumhunting than I am.
@Char: WRT ODDin pro-town; if you go through his ISO; other than the town tells, most of 6 I agree with. Questions bad reasoning, sticks to his convictions about an early vote. 8 was pretty good too, with the TT fallacy question, he looks like he's legitimately trying to figure out what another person is saying rather than assuming, attacking him for it, etc. like I would expecting scum to do. Generally his defense of his actions looks like town.
@ODDin: The "townlist" from Sando became null after I got confirmation from SC that they know each other pretty well, and only if they're scum together would they have to lie about what Sando would or would not do.
@Sando: {Passive} The problem is that you're really only responding/interacting with me and SC. You're not questioning others when I pointed it out in one of my last posts. Attacking one person does not indicate proactivity, it's mostly just tunneled. You can attack somebody, but you still need to think about the overall picture.
@SC: I disagree almost completely with all of your 371. Everyone has to take responsibility for their own vote. Each are weighed identically; as without one or the other, a lynch never happens. It's pro-town to admit to responsibility for (often) the only ability that you have.
@Char: I suppose it does presuppose that town-SC wouldn't explain it, but if you plan on explaining it, why would you have to preface yourself by saying you're going to be asking for massclaims earlier than "normal" on D1? If you already plan on explaining it when you feel it's necessary, that's all that you really need to do IMO.
*caught up*
@SC: I'm confused, are you calling PZ anti-town or scummy? You say you don't confuse the two; but you seem to be implying both.
I'm going on a crusade to put more thought into my posts.
