VP Baltar wrote:ABR wrote:If we don't discriminate in our actions, we are acting no better than at random.Lynch this scum now please.ABR wrote:My personal policy is that any bandwagon is a good one.
Any bandwagon will lead to pro-town contentVi wrote:IsAlbert B. Rampage 163 wrote:My personal policy is that any bandwagon is a good one.everybandwagon a good one?
QFTSerialClergyman wrote:See, it's rubbish comments like that one from VP that I don't like. He's not bitching about a lack of content, he's making a specific accusation against you. His argument said you are hypocritical for attacking someone for only having a gut reason when you yourself have used mostly gut so far to come to your reads. This is scumhunting, or what passes for it early on D1.
You also invoked lynch all liars for what barely passed for a 'lie', you were surprised Albert was touchy when being accused of scum, alluded to meta reasons for suspecting Albert but produced none when asked, Didn't join the Albert wagon until there was someone else on it.
So yep, you're the scummiest person around at the moment, just on the usual D1 straws.
QFTOjanen wrote:I have a random based vote on Vi. No ping has felt significant enough to change and improve the accuracy.SerialClergyman wrote:Ojanen - no votes yet?
VP, my problem with you is that at first you implied meta from ABR that was contradictory to what I (and several others seem to) have; when asked to provide this you said it was more becausewhich picked my bs-rhetorics-o-meter. What does the "standard of play" actually mean, seems empty. Makes me think of "deviant=scummy" (don't like).VP wrote:Everyone plays differently, of course, but there is a certain standard of play I expect from people who I respect as players and are experienced. If I see variances from that, expect me to call him/her on it.
Again, QFTScien wrote:VP wrote:I don't believe I've seen ABR so touchy before.Shenanigans. You are claiming that you can take an abstract of how a good player should act and use that as a standard about how you have 'seen player X act in the past'? You most definitelyVP wrote:That comment does not speak to something that would be meta exclusive to ABR, nor was it drawn from a specific point in any single game.wereimplying meta specific to ABR there.
And QFT as well.Sando wrote:Wow VPB, you're so delusional, it's almost comical. I don't expect you to agree with me though, as you're personally invested.
The LAL thing made me laugh though, good to see VPB has decided to ignore that.
The following players have enough experience with me to have a solid meta:
Zorblag
Ojanen
Players who have had extensive contact with me but in less than 3 games:
Charlatan
SerialClergyman
Players who really have no idea what my meta is:
Sando
VP Baltar
Scien
Amished
PorkchopExpress
Debonair Danny DiPietro
Vi
Look at the beginning of my post to see what I mean. Also, I find VPB's bulldog attacks very scummy indeed. Not only does he pull nonsense out of his ass, he actually tries to defend them as valid arguments.charlatan wrote:That's not what I implied at all. If anything,Albert B. Rampage wrote:FOSCharlie for implying that we should all just bandwagon the first person that gets some votes. If we did that, the mafia would have total control of the game.yousuggested that with the assertion that all bandwagons are good ones. If you actually just wanted to run up a bandwagon on someone and it didn't matter who it was, you would have contributed to the already existing bandwagon. Obviously, we do not play in a vacuum. Obviously, you had a reason for wanting a new bandwagon on VP. Obviously, you should be able to provide that reasoning. For whatever reason, you still do not, which is a problem.