Sorry all for the delay, had a few connection issues. Should be more stable now.
Zang wrote:Hoppster wrote:Uhh, not liking this reaction at all.
Can't quite put my finger on it but my gut is POSITIVELY SCREAMING to me that this is a scum reaction to an apparent DK-gambit on himself.
Feels a bit like scum gleefully mocking somebody who fake DK'd him.
It wasn't an apparent fake day kill gambit, it was proven that it was a fake day kill gambit when the mod posted. Also why do you think that I'm scum gleefully mocking someone who fake day killed me instead of town gleefully mocking someone who fake day killed me.
Well, mainly gut on my part if I'm honest.
Re-quoting the offending section of your post:
Zang wrote:Tahalindur wrote:Kill: Zang
Really? This has been so overused that it becomes almost obvious that it's a fake day kill gambit when you post it. What did you hope to gain from this?
Your post has a tone which I want to describe as patronising, but it's not quite the same in my mind.
It's part-patronising, part-gleeful, part-mocking, part-just-plain-evil.
As weird as this sounds, it's like something from a movie. The good guy, faced with the bad guy, pulls out his pistol and shoots. The bullet whizzes past the bad guy.
And then, the vibe I get from your post: the villain cackles evilly, and says "Oh dear, Mr. Bond, you are a poor shot. I really don't know how you ever thought you would defeat me (mwahahaha)," or some other derogatory remark, mocking the hero's valiant but ultimately futile attempt to kill him.
(Following this, of course, it turns out the hero wasn't trying to hit the villain but was trying to shoot some chandelier off the ceiling or something stupid like that. But that's not important for this analogy.)
Your post feels like it is coming from the exact same state of mind as the villain in this scenario. The villain sees the hero's failed kill attempt and becomes cocky and patronising, feeling he has the upper hand over the hero in this battle.
(I struggle to describe my gut and feel ridiculous doing so, but hopefully by using the movie scenario people will know what I'm talking about. >>)
The Rufflig wrote:@hoppster: If you wanted to know why I was leaning negative on pappums, you should have left a post of his for me.
Wasn't looking so much for specific reasons, but wondering why you gave pappums and bv the same 'summary' ("Not enough content") yet gave different reads ("leaning a bit negative" and "no real opinion" respectively).
Nexus wrote:Oh, Tar, fake daykills are lame.
Nexus, what prompted this?
Came one minute after your post (immediately above it), and I'm wondering what made you suddenly post that.
pappums rat wrote:something
OH HEY I REMEMBER YOU
Don't ignore me plzkthx.
@ everybody:
Can you all stop ignoring pappums? Seriously, look at his ISO, it's so incredibly inconsistent, and his vote on Snake is horribly horribly opportunistic.
SnakePlissken wrote:My first thoughts back are this. Ive played with Nexus a fair few times offsite and
whenever he gets really aggressive & into arguments fairly easily he's more often than not scum
Ie. Aggression is a scum-tell from Nexus.
SnakePlissken wrote:So the screwdriver gambit gave me a town response from CES,
Nexus usual aggression
and Zang, drawing attention to a role.
Ie. Aggression is a null-tell from Nexus.
Which is it, Snake?
Also, why did you drop your meta-case on Nexus to vote Surye?
I would rather go for a Snake lynch over Surye, but want to put a pappums lynch out there, as people seem to be ignoring him.
I can see some evidence of scum-hunting in Snake and Surye's ISOs. Not in pappums' ISO.
Benmage: First, for the sake of irony. I'm going to illustrate how completely idiotic and hypocritical scumhunter is.