Omg. he was a prick.As tempted as I am to vote Faraday for his questionable choices in trouser-wearing, someone else has caught my eye.
I think Quilford is very scummy.
Not sure why it's weird either, just seems like a very unnecessary thing to tell us.Juls wrote: Not sure why it is weird. I skimmed, saw some stuff on the most recent page from Sloth and wrote a post. I had read page 1-2 yesterday morning but didn't have time to post, so I re-read everything to see if there was anything else I wanted to comment on.
He says:Sloth wrote:Quilford, same question to you. What are your thoughts on RVS wagons?
You reply:Quilford wrote:They're fine, but I don't like people jumping onto them without offering at least a semblance of a reason.
He says:Sloth wrote:What do you think of the two wagons we have going right now? Did you purposefully refrain from joining one?
You don't let him off the hook:Quilford wrote:What wagons? I suppose I should clarify; I don't like it when people jump onto wagons without saying anything else in their post.
But that's where it ends. The bolded part never got a response from him, and you just seemed to drop it.Sloth wrote:There were two votes each on Vi and Empking.
I do that to everyone; no offense is meant. You should be worried when I STOP doing that.Neuky 71 wrote:Name calling from Vi? - I'm a bit disappointed if indeed that's what it is. (We could all do that, but it'd end up a bit of a barney..)
You're overstating it quite a bit.Neuky 71 wrote:Anyway, as you are also online at the moment, what do you think of Sloth's comment on the shortened nights?
Because people started talking about something else. The questions about wagons were just to get people talking, really, like I've said before.Neuky wrote:@Sloth
You've made it your early mission to question people about wagons. I assume you've done this for a good scum-hunting reason. I can't see it, but that's fine, as long as it's important to you.
Then there's this dialogue you had with Quilford.He says:Sloth wrote:Quilford, same question to you. What are your thoughts on RVS wagons?You reply:Quilford wrote:They're fine, but I don't like people jumping onto them without offering at least a semblance of a reason.He says:Sloth wrote:What do you think of the two wagons we have going right now? Did you purposefully refrain from joining one?You don't let him off the hook:Quilford wrote:What wagons? I suppose I should clarify; I don't like it when people jump onto wagons without saying anything else in their post.But that's where it ends. The bolded part never got a response from him, and you just seemed to drop it.Sloth wrote:There were two votes each on Vi and Empking.
You lack a case.Faraday wrote:You don't find my case convincing? What parts are wrong?
This is exactly how I wanted to articulate my thoughts on RVS wagons. I dislike wagoning for the sake of wagoning.Sloth wrote:wagoning for the sake of wagoning?
I didn't realise two votes constituted a wagon; I thought that these people had just been random voted for twice.Neuky wrote:...Sloth wrote:What do you think of the two wagons we have going right now? Did you purposefully refrain from joining one?
But that's where it ends. The bolded part never got a response from him, and you just seemed to drop it.
Wait, weren't you just calling someone names for sheeping?Vi wrote:Blatant of Faraday is indeed blatant and indeed .
Is there any reason you're still only talking about one person at a time?Sloth 90 wrote:Also, Vi,[hiplop]just read the scummiest to me at that point. Maybe it's just noobishness but his lack of any sort of opinion about the game is weak - however, I feel like his openness about his apathy is leaning towards a town tell.
No, I was calling Neuky a sheep because... he is a sheep.Quilford 93 wrote:Wait, weren't you just calling someone names for sheeping?