Mini 1238 - One After the Other - Over!

[whispersilk]

@ I find that strange considering your own stance on the matter.

Why?

Because personally you don't see an RVS vote change as scummy, right? Pretty much how I feel about it too.

However, someone else used that as an excuse to vote for monk, and instead of standing by your own beliefs and saying to Empking "hey bro, I don't really think a vote change in RVS is scummy", you blatantly sheeped him and voted for monk too.

Let me ask you another question, and I guess this should have been the one I asked in my previous post:

Seeing as we both agree that there is nothing wrong with changing your vote during RVS, and answering based upon your personal theory of the game, who made the scummier action first? monk for changing his vote, or Empking for using monks vote change as a reason to vote him and call him scummy?

[Friend]

You're missing the point, whispersilk. I'm starting to think that you didn't even read my post.

But to answer your question, I find neither of those actions scummy.

[Ashblade]

Apparently everyone hates candy here. Meh.

UNVOTE:

I also didn't realize we were playing trap mafia otherwise I would have taken my Yu-Gi-Oh cards with me, right now all I have is a Reverse Trap in Wriggle.

Anyway...

Two objectives, find opportunistic scum, end rvs. Empking decided I was scum from the littlest thing lets go

Scummy does not always equal scum, your trap was bad and poorly placed 'traps' catch townies just as much as scum. Your reaction to this just adds more to the pile.

Monk isn't scum due to join date.

I doubt it, pretty sure it would go either way at the moment.

Emp is slight town, monk is null to newish and Whiskers looks fluffy,

edit: and whispers isn't reading Friend.

VOTE: whisper

[whispersilk]

Silk: If there's nothing wrong with having two random votes then how does it lead one out of RVS?

Sorry, never been called that before and didn't notice it till now.

I don't understand what you are asking me here.

[Empking]

Silk: If there's nothing wrong with having two random votes then how does it lead one out of RVS?

Sorry, never been called that before and didn't notice it till now.

I don't understand what you are asking me here.

If random voting twice is not scummy and just a null action then how could monk expect it to lead us out of RVS?

Also, what finally got your attention to that question?

[Friend]

Whisper, did you even read my post 36?

[whispersilk]

@Empking: Because catching someone calling it scummy and using it as a reason to vote is a good way to catch opportunistic scum.

I noticed all the pink nested quote boxes and the bottom of page two while I was re-reading a comment made by friend.

[Empking]

@Empking: Because catching someone calling it scummy and using it as a reason to vote is a good way to catch opportunistic scum.

Why would scum call it scummy? So they could ride it to a lynch? Because I doubt that would happen. To spark discussion? No scum wouldn't do that, that's pro-town. What was the scum motive for calling monk out?

[Friend]

Stop ignoring me whispers...

[whispersilk]

Whisper, did you even read my post 36?

Yes, I did, and I'll explain why I don't like it.

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with changing your vote during RVS, because it elicits reactions from people as it did in this case. monk has no reason to claim it was a trap, other than it really was a trap. Empking reacted and used it as a reason to vote for monk. I don't like that. Friend used it as a reason to vote for monk too. I don't like that either.

I don't think there is either. You're misunderstanding my position. I think it's scummy that instead of saying "there's nothing wrong with changing your vote in RVS, it's not a big deal, calm down" he said

"LOL it was a trap Empking I've caught you as scum."

It makes no sense unless he's nervous about his play, which I find scummy. Town have no reason to be nervous.

But monk didn't say that at all, so why are you putting your own spin on what he really did say?

This is what he

actually

said:

Unvote. Vote: Monk

- Two random votes, the first a second vote.

I set a trap, I didn't think you'd be the one to set it off, disappointing empking VOTE: Empking

I'm sorry, but I see nothing displaying nervousness in that post. He didn't say "LOL" or even mention the words "scum" or "scummy" like you claimed in your post #36. He just stated his plan claim pretty seriously and expressed disappointment in Emkping. You took what his statement and changed the words and tone in an attempt to make it appear a nervous one.

I'm sorry, but I don't like it.

If he actually

had

said it the way you made out, then yes, I think I would agree with your claim that it appears nervous and perhaps like he is covering some kind of error, but, he didn't and I don't.

Anything else?

[whispersilk]

Stop ignoring me whispers...

Yeah, you can stop that right now. Just because I don't reply to you instantly doesn't mean I'm ignoring you, so don't try to paint it that way because it's hella scummy.

[whispersilk]

@Empking: Because catching someone calling it scummy and using it as a reason to vote is a good way to catch opportunistic scum.

Why would scum call it scummy? So they could ride it to a lynch? Because I doubt that would happen. To spark discussion? No scum wouldn't do that, that's pro-town. What was the scum motive for calling monk out?

Why wouldn't scum use it to start a wagon? I've seen scum start wagons for petty reasons, wait for silly townies to sheep them, then jump off before the lynch. Hell I've even seem scum do it twice in a row and get away with it.

[Friend]

I set a trap, I didn't think you'd be the one to set it off, disappointing empking

This is incredibly nervous, sorry. I was simply paraphrasing. He doesn't go into the nature of his trap or why it's even a trap in the first place. I don't think he intended to set a trap at all from the looks of this post - I just don't think monk is a good enough player to think that far ahead. I've played with him before.

Yeah, you can stop that right now. Just because I don't reply to you instantly doesn't mean I'm ignoring you, so don't try to paint it that way because it's hella scummy.

Then say something to that effect when you're responding to another player. I asked you twice if you read my post and you didn't mention it in any shape or form in your responses to Empking. So, as a matter of fact, you were ignoring me.

[Empking]

@Empking: Because catching someone calling it scummy and using it as a reason to vote is a good way to catch opportunistic scum.

Why would scum call it scummy? So they could ride it to a lynch? Because I doubt that would happen. To spark discussion? No scum wouldn't do that, that's pro-town. What was the scum motive for calling monk out?

Why wouldn't scum use it to start a wagon? I've seen scum start wagons for petty reasons, wait for silly townies to sheep them, then jump off before the lynch. Hell I've even seem scum do it twice in a row and get away with it.

OK, so you think I thought it would get monk lynched. Oookay.

[whispersilk]

I was working and replying to Empking because I'd already missed his question to me and he was getting antsy. Then I was copy pasting quotes from the previous 2 pages to reply to your question.

Seriously, you're going to sit there and try to make out I was ignoring you just because it took me 20 minutes to reply to Empking and you. Do you have any concept of real life, and the fact that people have them?

I'm pretty happy with where my vote is right now.

[Friend]

Yeah, you could have easily said "I'll get to you, Friend."

I don't find it scummy, just irritating.

[whispersilk]

@Empking: Because catching someone calling it scummy and using it as a reason to vote is a good way to catch opportunistic scum.

Why would scum call it scummy? So they could ride it to a lynch? Because I doubt that would happen. To spark discussion? No scum wouldn't do that, that's pro-town. What was the scum motive for calling monk out?

Why wouldn't scum use it to start a wagon? I've seen scum start wagons for petty reasons, wait for silly townies to sheep them, then jump off before the lynch. Hell I've even seem scum do it twice in a row and get away with it.

OK, so you think I thought it would get monk lynched. Oookay.

It's possible, but unlikely.

However, my concern is not with monk or Empking, it's with Friend, and his reaction and twisting of monks statement.

Don't you think there is anything suspicious about someone changing the words and tone of a post to suit their claims?

[whispersilk]

Yeah, you could have easily said "I'll get to you, Friend."

I don't find it scummy, just irritating.

Well prepared to get more irritated, because I've had to wait 2 days to get a response from some people while playing this game. People have jobs and real lives, and can't always reply instantly. I'm not here to cater to your impatience.

[Empking]

Don't you think there is anything suspicious about someone changing the words and tone of a post to suit their claims?

I have to say that I agree with Friend.

[Friend]

Whispers: When you're online, you should be able to at least say something to me. If you weren't online and replying to other people I wouldn't be irritated.

Also, I didn't twist monk's statement at all. Do you feel like monk's "It was a trap" post was completely calm and collected?

[whispersilk]

This is incredibly nervous, sorry. I was simply paraphrasing. He doesn't go into the nature of his trap or why it's even a trap in the first place. I don't think he intended to set a trap at all from the looks of this post - I just don't think monk is a good enough player to think that far ahead. I've played with him before.

No, that

wasn't

nervous, imo. What

you

changed it to could be construed as having a nervous tone, yes. But he didn't say what you said he did, did he?

And no, what you did was not paraphrasing. You outright changed the tone and wording of what he said.

Again, I'm not the least bit interested in monk or Empking right now. I don't like the way took what monk said and made it into something it's not. Hell, if monk's claim of having a plan came across as being so nervous and scummy, then why isn't everyone else voting him? Why is it only you?

[Friend]

I saw it as very nervous, so I construed it that way. You're nitpicking at this point and this argument is getting stale. I'm tired of wasting my time on you.

And Empking's voting monk, too. Maybe monk's buddies don't want to hop on the wagon. What kind of a question is that, anyways.

[Empking]

I don't think this back and forth between you two will leak anymore information.

[whispersilk]

Whispers: When you're online, you should be able to at least say something to me. If you weren't online and replying to other people I wouldn't be irritated.

Dude, what part of "I have a job and I can't reply to everyone all at the same time" don't you understand? Why are you demanding that I not only reply to you ASAP, but I should also let you know when I can't. Honestly, you're really beginning to irritate me with your pettiness.

Also, I didn't twist monk's statement at all. Do you feel like monk's "It was a trap" post was completely calm and collected?

Uhm, yes you did; it's all there in black and white for everyone to see, and as I've already stated: I saw no signs of nervousness in monks post.

[whispersilk]

I saw it as very nervous, so I construed it that way. You're nitpicking at this point and this argument is getting stale. I'm tired of wasting my time on you.

And Empking's voting monk, too. Maybe monk's buddies don't want to hop on the wagon. What kind of a question is that, anyways.

I'm nitpicking? Seriously? This coming from the guy that nitpicks over me taking 20 minutes to reply to his question is laughable.

Yes, we know Empking voted monk, because you sheeped him

And no, no one is jumping on monks wagon because what he said was not a scum tell