Glass wrote:he was being an opportunistic scum
Lol. VOTE: krazyKrazy wrote: Why can't it be all of the above?
This is very much on par with something I've said as scum before, in an old game that I just looked at the other day.Krazy wrote:You're welcome to look at Open 289 for a game where I get emotional and advocate a policy lynch in my first post. Unfortunately I haven't flipped yet in that game, but it's hardly new behavior for me
You think that SSS is town? Care to explain why?llama wrote:Havent done an indepth read, but just a skim shows Quar is probably town (along with Crazy and SSB).
So..... How is it scummy?SSS wrote: i could see people referring back to something that may have been looked over earlier, but adds to a case later. People go back and say "oh, hey, this looked innocent at the time, but now that x has flipped scum/town it might make a connection. I don't believe anyone would make a case solely on that sort of thing
Fair enough.SSS wrote: no. people come back when they're ready, not when someone votes them. he was already under suspicion, and throwing on another vote wouldn't change that. If he was scum worried about clearing his name, he wouldn't have left when there was attention on him, so I don't think the vote would have helped.
chkflip wrote:I word things the way I do to get rouses out of people. Use big words and people really start to goapeshit, don't they? I didn't find it noteworthy, so I said it was dismissible. It worked with Quaroath too, it seems, as I hardly even noted about him and he feels I'm giving him some sort of grilling. Sorry about my slight absence, I had some hefty college exams. That doesn't happen often.
But... I wasn't actually... oh nevermind.smashbro_of_the_SSS wrote:true, but not a good reason for lynching at all
smashbro_of_the_SSS wrote:so? You do seem to be spending a lot of time only saying "lurkers shouldn't lurk
basically the top part of this is null anyway, cause the lurking thing was just a joke, but I still don't like how you have spent the last couple posts talking about lurkers rather than convincing people of the wagon you support.[/spoiler]smashbro_of_the_SSS wrote:yeah, because voting chk wouldn't get a reaction. voting you would. helps me decide if you're mafia.
Also he pushed on the fact that the wizrak is "not serious", which if what he is TRYING to say is active lurking, that applies to a majority of the game, including park, who said nothing until the post he voted wiz in. From there on out he just ignores what wiz is saying about reaction testing.Doesn't seem like a serious player, he is by far the scummiest yet. He still has to answer what kind of "reaction" he was looking for with his stupid vote on Post 70.
So he does realize that what he is attacking is a pressure/reaction vote, but calls it scummy as opposed to anything else. After that he turns around wiz getting aggressive and frustrated to being a scumtell, which in this case is a towntell, wiz is one of my townish reads for how she handled the whole situation.I merely asked for some explanation since it was at the point that we get serious.
You are seriously getting on my nerves. Solidifying my vote here.
LlamaFluff wrote: He does nothing for quite a while, just fuels the banter that made this game take so long to actually get moving. This swarm of nothingness extends past the RQS answers (RQS is scummy on its own, and I like the wagon on Krazy simply for starting it).
Glass wrote: Number 2 seems the most likely to me considering his postings about lynching-all-lurkers, is it poor play? Yes, but poor play does not equate to scummy play. I honestly do not see how krazy was trying to push a lynch by saying wizrak was thin-skinned, he was not marketing that to anyone, just saying that it makes him feel better.
Dude, walking into the Walk-in fridge at my restaurant makes me start singing “Ice Ice Baby" acapella. What can I say it's a rare talent. I love music, and almost anything that touches on a random song gets the song running through my head word for word. It's actually really frustrating (It's actually crippling in school/etc..chkflip wrote:Quaroath: I didn't say answering questions is scummy. I'm also not trying to take the non-stance on a situation that doesn't even exist. I'll go ahead and reiterate. It's expected to have questions answered because it's just rude not to answer them. It's not that you answered, it was how meaningless your original statement was. It made you think of a song; that's awesome, lots of things make me think of songs, too, but I don't often think to mention that in the duration of a mafia game. That's what I found to be a little interesting. Not particularly scummy, but definitely reassures me that you're a bit defensive by the way you've reacted.
No but I do support wagons based on players throwing out posts that will lead to large quanities of WIFOM and wagons based soley on differences of theory.Krazy wrote:LlamaFluff wrote: He does nothing for quite a while, just fuels the banter that made this game take so long to actually get moving. This swarm of nothingness extends past the RQS answers (RQS is scummy on its own, and I like the wagon on Krazy simply for starting it).
So you support policy lynches based on theory.
Crazy wrote:Chk, you definitely have a way with stuffing a lot of words in your posts yet still saying nothing at all.1So you're basically denying ever having a stance on anything?2
I don't care what you find "interesting" or what "strikes" you. Tell me what you find scummy!3
What I find scummy is when someone tries to pass off the notion that calling something "dismissible" was part of an elaborate ploy to start discussion.4
SeeJerbs wrote:So you purposely used the word "dissmissable" to get peoples interest on you? And if it wasn't noteworthy, why even bring it up in the first place?