Would you like to catch-up post now, or would you rather just vote Katsuki and move on with life?drmyshottyizsik wrote:^^ 100% of games we've been in together
Either way, you should vote Katsuki.
I would buy that a little bit more, if it were not for the fact that you have been interested in what I thought about your vote since there was only 2 votes on him at that point, and both of them seemed more like random votes than anything else.Calcifer wrote:Well, when you vote someone else other than the person most under scrutiny right now without even commenting on his wagon, I assume that you disapprove of the vote/are avoiding commenting on it.Framm wrote:I would still like to you to point out where you are getting that idea, I have never indicated one way or another on that vote. I won't vote for him right now, so there is no "oops, I didn't know he was at L-1." votes.
Now you are being really pushy and threatening me. If he flips town your ass is deadCalcifer wrote:We're pushy because we've found scum and are ready to lynch him. Join the wagon Shotty. You're the #2 wagon anyway, because people want to policy lynch you for being you. That's unfair.
I'm not threatening you. I'm stating the facts. Multiple players entered the game with a RVS vote on you or intent to vote you.drmyshottyizsik wrote:Now you are being really pushy and threatening me. If he flips town your ass is deadCalcifer wrote:We're pushy because we've found scum and are ready to lynch him. Join the wagon Shotty. You're the #2 wagon anyway, because people want to policy lynch you for being you. That's unfair.
unvote
vote: kat
And here you go, saying things like this. But I'm not in any other games with you. Hell, those games don't even exist to me. So, my original attack is legitimate. It may be a weak attack, but it's still legitimate. The important part was your reaction to it all- flailing, flailing, and more flailing. So. If you want to try to refute my ENTIRE case against you by picking on the RVS attack that started it all, go ahead. It won't work though, and this is because it's a transparent scum tactic- nitpick against the weakest part of the case, and ignore the rest of it. And because it is such, I will ignore any more attempts at this for the rest of the game. Now, if you want our vote off you, try actually defending yourself. Show us where we went wrong, and stop with the fluffposting/deflection bullshit, okay? Okay.Katsuki wrote:By that logic, gandalf would be scum too, as he policy votes shotty too.Calcifer wrote:How is it irrelevant? Policy lynches are EXTREMELY easy for scum to hid behind and consistantly hurt the town. That's not WIFOM, that's not a null-tell.Kat wrote:If around the same time = span over a month, then sure. I have been making policy votes on shotty for a month now. You are trying to turn an irrelevant thing into a scum tell, when it would be a WIFOM or a null-tell AT BEST.
Your original argument was that I never policy-voted. Now you change direction and are trying to turn a GENERAL thing I do at the beginning of every game (with shotty) into a GAME-SPECIFIC scum-tell (in this case, for this game). Going along with the scum philosophy you have for policy votes, then it would mean that I am scum in every game I play. Unless you argue that in every game I policy-vote shotty I'm scum, then your argument of me being scum for policy-voting in THIS game is irrelevant and proves nothing.