Twistedspoon wrote:Parama wrote:^you have an awesome username :3
clearly parama is playing RBS, Random Buddying stage
VOTE: parama
and in retrospect i realise you asked for a vote anyways, so here you are
actually red pandas are just awesome
but anywho I like how you give a reason for your vote then give another reason immediately after, like your first reason wasn't sufficient (hint: neither are, at least for a serious vote). it's like you're trying to find a reason for voting me seriously, but failing. also that's scummy if you don't get it.
Fishythefish wrote:UNVOTE:
VOTE: Twistedspoon
His vote for Parama gives an actual reason (buddying), which he then immediately undermines by saying he's voting because Parama asked for a vote. Smacks of not wanting to actually be involved in conflict. His comment to Haylen seems to do nothing but draw out the RVS further by trying to downplay the importance of what little content there is at this stage of the game.
Oh hey look I got beat to the point.
Hmm... let's see if there are any votes on Fishy past this point...
BBmolla wrote:VOTE: Fishy
Something about this guy seems fishy(hur hur), mostly his degree of seriousness during RVS, which to me is always a bad sign.
AHA! "serious during RVS" =/= scumtell, it means someone is trying to catch scum, which is, hmm, THE POINT OF MAFIA? herpderp scum #2 caught.
Twistedspoon wrote:Fishythefish wrote:
@Spoon: what I mean is that the first of your reasons seems semi-serious, and the second thrown in to make it clear your vote is totally random. And serious votes early in the game develop conflict.
i am of the opinion that no vote is truly random in RVS. Most of my random votes seem semi-serious but they're still random votes in RVS
if I'm to vote anyone it will be for something with a micron of suspicion, but still a random vote if that makes sense
the second part was just an observation which i found interesting and decided to include
Uhhh... nope, you gave "reasons" for your vote which don't look like "random" random voting reasons.
And you gave two; the second isn't just "a thing you noticed".
Chair wrote:Zang is town for 31. Sathorsis might be town for 30.
Neither of these have any merit if you don't back them up.
Also why exactly are you voting twisted? Just for the sake of wagonning? :/
Lurconis wrote:@Fishy that is a very weak reason to believe scum have day talk also (and I do realize the irony as I am committing the same crime right now) I don't like that you skipped RVS and immediatly jumped into a serious vote and then started either guessing about something only scum would know for sure and sticking by it so passionately this early on.
For that
Vote Fishy
but... what? it's the usual for scum to be able to talk during pre-game, and the modpost fishy quoted backs it up anyways.
SERIOUS IN RVS IS TAKING INITIATIVE, NOT A SCUMTELL. it's actually pretty pro-town.
Zang wrote:Chair wrote:Zang is town for 31. Sathorsis might be town for 30.
Isn't it early to be declaring someone as town/scum?
wow. you're thick.
BBmolla wrote:Oh and no reason for Fishy to be lynched this early, not in my opinion anyway.
UNVOTE:
1. it wasn't L-1, why unvote?
2, if you think he's scum, why unvote?
This just looks like scum hopping off a mislynch wagon.
BBmolla wrote:I don't. But having five votes on someone on page three doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Not enough info yet.
VOTE: Johhog
Would you mind joining us Mr. Hog?
holy crap. "not enough info" even though you've made a serious vote. RVSing AFTER a serious vote? Guys guys guys this guy is super mcscumpants how is he still alive.
vote: BBmolla
fishytown twistedscum the rest of you losers I'm unsure about