Open 53: Near-Vanilla - Game over!

[Phate]

Vote: DiscipleSlayer

[Phate]

Unvote
Vote: klebian

If you don't like it, do something about it.

[Phate]

xD.

Not even close.

[Phate]

Was the OMGUS vote facetious too? =P

[Phate]

Nor is he hindering it, not on Page 2.

Unvote; Vote deadscilent

[Phate]

DS, wtf?

[Phate]

No, let's not take it any way we want.

Are you legitimately claiming doctor?

If so, you're a fucking moron.

[Phate]

U^/\/o7e
V0t3: dea|)scile^/t

This wagon has gone from 0 to 4 in ~2 hours. The members of the wagon are myself, JDodge, klebian, and Shanba. None of us have given any reason for our votes.

Discuss.

[Phate]

The problem is, it doesn't start discussion. It ends discussion, because instead of discussing everyone, we're just discussing you. It is less than useless.

QFT.

[Phate]

Disciple Slayer, do you actually think this is a good way to play?

First you fake claim, than you claim again, which is clearly fake.

FoS: Disciple Slayer

DFTT

Clarify, please. I'm unfamiliar with the acronym. Or was this supposed to be QFT?

[Phate]

DoS' behaviour does not warrant a policy lynch. If I decide he's scum, my mind will change.

[Phate]

Ditto above.

PhoS: Skitzer

for mindless echoing.

[Phate]

Vote: TheSweatpantsNinja

[Phate]

Skitzer: because my former vote was random, because I agree with Shanba, and because mentioning the above two facts as reasoning for voting is just as bad or worse than simply voting without explanation, even if they're true and the extent of your reasoning.

[Phate]

Ross, I know my sentences are convoluted when I'm in a hurry, but take a minute and decipher them instead of jumping to conclusions.

The extent of my reasons for voting are as follows:
I agree with Shanba, and have nothing further to add to his analysis.
My former vote was random, and this one's not.

However, voting and using either or both of those reasons by themselves is a sure way to get zealous townies and opportunistic scum to jump on you, even though they are right now completely true and valid.

[Phate]

Suck-up much?

PhoS: RW

[Phate]

Vote: RW

[Phate]

I don't need prodding. I'm busy keeping an eye on Korlash; sorry I haven't posted in awhile. I'll be more indepth this weekend, probably.

[Phate]

'Cuz he's just that attrac... wait... no.

I can never read Korlash. He always strikes me as either scum or stupid town.

Also, he's pushing a VI lynch, citing one game (well, not really citing, just vaguely mentioning some other game) where VI claimed, retracted, and was scum.

[Phate]

I think RossWilliam is town. His reactions are feeling genuine.

Unvote

I'm not sure what to make of killa seven. It's hardly opportunism, as the previous two people had just both agreed RW wasn't being scummy, but it's eyebrow-raising. I want to see more out of killa seven.

[Phate]

Wrong game.

[Phate]

I jumped on RW as a tongue-in-cheek response to RW's request for bandwagons. I was hoping to provoke some responses or draw some opportunism. That mostly failed.

[Phate]

RossWilliams, while I agree, your post declaring that is useless to the town; in fact, I think a town complaining about inactivity (without actually doing anything about it) is more likely to make more people lurk.

Post an analysis! Vote a lurker! Stay silent! But don't complain about lack of content when you're not giving any.

[Phate]

Korlash completely missed the point of my post. I'm not criticising for not contributing; I'm criticising for trying to look like he's contributing when he's not.

[Phate]

Korlash... can you read? I JUST SAID that I'm not criticising because they're not contributing; I'm criticising because they're trying to look they're contributing when they're not.

[Phate]

Someone wake me when Korlash learns how to read and type English and use basic critical thinking skills.

No, never mind. I should probably respond to this.

You didn't make a point with your last post; you just misinterpreted mine. Do a recent meta of me and find how often I post and when I post; you'll find it's consistent across the board.

What the fuck is your beef with the word 'criticising'? You do realise that you're doing it now? You find it unhelpful? Why? Actually, let's start from the beginning.

Do you know what the word 'criticising' means?

[Phate]

Criticising: to express one's views as to the merit or demerit of, especially to find fault with.

That is how you find scum.

When someone use crap logic, you criticise it. Then you judge reactions. I am criticising someone's (at this point, I've frankly forgotten who) attempt to look like they're contributing when they actually aren't.

You responded by criticising my post, after missing my point. We are currently criticising each other. This is not unhelpful; this is Sp- er, Mafia.

[Phate]

Korlash, that is exactly what I meant by "You missed my point."

Let me spell this out for you. I'll use small words.

You seem to think that I am

criticising

getting mad at other players for not

contributing

helping. You seem to think that this is

hypocritical

the pot calling the kettle black

bad.

In actuality,

Actually,

Instead,

You're wrong. I am

calling them out

pointing out that they are

pretending

trying to look like they're

contributing

helping when they're

actually

really not.

[Phate]

The point you should take from this, neko, is that Phate will respond not necessarily when agitated, but on weekends.

[Phate]

klebian, why are you voting RossWilliam?

[Phate]

It differs from case-to-case, and on meta. If someone is lurking or active-lurking in just one game, that's cause for suspicion. If their behaviour is the same sitewide, it's not.

[Phate]

Vote: MelodyMan23