Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Netlava]

/confirm

[Netlava]

The pact is fun and all, but I think it's sub-optimal play for town. It benefits any baddies that manage to sneak in because the inherent bandwagoning nature makes it more difficult to differentiate between members of the pact than the usual "independent" approach. Still might be interesting, though.

Could we hang on to in-thread discussion until we actually start please?

Why is this advantageous?

Also, earthworm and petergriffin are way too interested in arguing about the pact.

FOS: Petergriffin

FOS: earthworm

FOS: StrangerCoug

[Netlava]

Why? Because I feel that scum may be more interested about this pact than townies. I'm largely indifferent to whether a pact forms - it is interesting, perhaps, but not the best option. For scum, I think it is more important for their strategy and such - especially for them to get in a pact, if one were to form. I think earthworm described it as a "once in a lifetime opportunity" or something.

Also, the amount of debating over a policy that is ultimately inconsequential to finding scum comes at a surprise. The large chunks of text sound like a bunch of fluff. Now, I don't mind being interested in arguing, but I do hope it carries over to actual scumhunting. The main thing is that this was a great opportunity for scum to appear active, arguing over policy, without actually scumhunting. You guys may have overdone it, though.

I also don't agree with your stance on the policy. I get the feeling that you are intentionally not getting why a pact is not pro-town in order to further the argument.

[Netlava]

So wait a second. You want us to scumhunt before the game has even started, and yet you wish to basicially stifle discussion, (Calling the people who were talking about the implications of the treaty scummy, and saying that scum would be more interested in talking about the pact than townies.) After you criticize someone else for reccomending stifling discussion? What?

Pointing out questionable behavior =/= stifling discussion. In fact, it may even encourage it or shift the topic to something more useful. I'd prefer a discussion about scum over some policy debate, but, I don't expect anyone to have a case at this point. The sudden enthusiasm over some policy was what I found suspicious.

Vote: PeterGriffin

as my not quite random vote.

[Netlava]

Oh dear, I'm yellow again

Erm, I don't think much of the current nhat, untitled, strangercoug suspicions. Actually, I think untitled has made a pro-town impression. Nhat's reasoning I don't agree with, but I don't think it's indicative of scum. StrangerCoug looks ok, his explanation for not wanting pre-game discussion seems in tune with his overall play style.

Cass's post 325 is a bit scummy

@Nhat: I disagree that your 'softclaim' is any kind of tell. I tend to use words like 'we', 'our', etc. a lot.

We are after all a group here (with some traitors in our midst, but they're trying to blend in).

I consider (soft)claiming 'town', no matter how subtle or unsubtle, a null-tell. Because you see, there is no reason in the world for anyone not to do it. (Btw, I've heard of forums where everyone starts the day with 'hi, townie here' or something like that.)

Don't like the "feel" of the bolded part. I think scum may be more likely to pad their posts with such statements. Whether this is just posting style remains to be seen.

I think Untitled has done a good job defending his actions for the most part. I am more suspicious of Battle Mage and his pact. First off, I want to say the pact is a null tell, but it's more accurate to say it's misleading to vote people based on who is and is not in the pact. The pact simply won't work, as it's too easy to infiltrate.
Also, 73 posts in the pre-game and not a lot of substance to go with it, either. Mafia is largely a game of quality, not quantity.
Vote: Battle Mage

That deserves a

Vote: StrangerCoug

For hypocrisy and badly stretched 'logic'.

I can see the hypocritical part, perhaps, but where's the badly stretched logic?

Also, same question for Cephrir:

Vote: Untitled for craplogic, pretty sure I touched on this in the pregame.

I checked your posts and you didn't.

I'm leaning town on BM, because after any bit of BM questioning, and several people rush to his defense. I'm also leaning town on a couple of other people, but I don't think it's of note at the moment.

Petergriffin and earthworm, I'll probably go back and look into their interactions in-depth some time.

[Netlava]

Yay! The wonderful colorful votecount is here!

I re-read the early part of this game and didn't get anything out of it.

Not liking this. What "play style" are you referring to? Why does this playstyle excuse him for his hypocritical behavior later in the game...

Loaded question! I was referring to StrangerCoug's earlier comment about pre-game discussion. But anyways, as for his "hypocritical" statement - it's still early - I'm sure it can be mended. The comment is mostly correct anyway.

Cephrir's recent posts about votes indicating lynches are a bit scummy. They are general statements, but he doesn't actually discuss the specific situation at hand, but instead tries to apply the general blanket statements when it looks (to me) that they clearly don't. This suggests that he may not believe what he is saying, or is purposefully ignoring certain details.

I do not see anything in that list that would make BM scum, do you? I don't see how the case justifies the vote, so I call craplogic (with several others).

Well, I do see a few things that could be seen as suspicious. BM's alignment actually isn't as clear cut as some people make it out to be. I'm leaning town on him, but I have doubts, and some people are acting as if BM is definitely town, which is a bit suspicious. I'll have to go back and check to see who, though. I think this may be a situation where scum may prematurely think "obvtown" on someone, when it really isn't the case.

[Netlava]

Cass calls the case a distraction, which sounds like a conscious decision.

Unvote, vote: Cass

[Netlava]

Uhm what? I don't get what you're saying. Yes, calling it a distraction was a conscious decision... I usually type my posts when conscious...

"Conscious choice" or "arbitrary decision" may have been better wording.

[Netlava]

Earthworm's defense of me is much appreciated, but I'm a bit wary. The problem is that typically, with some exceptions e.g. lynch situations, I won't be comfortable defending other players without knowing their alignment. I usually see scum defend other players more than townies defending other players. This situation, in particular, may be a bit premature, which makes me suspect a possible buddy-up attempt.

As for cyberbob's case, the reason I didn't respond to it earlier is because I thought I already addressed it. Here is a an earlier post:

Pointing out questionable behavior =/= stifling discussion. In fact, it may even encourage it or shift the topic to something more useful. I'd prefer a discussion about scum over some policy debate, but, I don't expect anyone to have a case at this point. The sudden enthusiasm over some policy was what I found suspicious.

[Netlava]

Netlava, my reasoning behind defending you wasn't so much to defend you, but to say where I disagreed with Cyberbob's argument.

If I see an argument that I think is flawed I'm going to point it out.

Fair enough. I consider defending another player only a mild scum tell. However, I'm suspicious of this explanation. It does not seem to match the type of post you were making earlier, meaning that the posts do not imply such a motive.

On the topic of vote-hopping, what do you guys think of this? In five posts, Cephrir made 3 different votes... I'd like to know what people think, because the only other game I'm playing is being moderated by Cephrir, so I'm having a hard time viewing him impartially.

While the content of the post itself is fine, I am suspicious of the manner of delivery. I find Cephrir suspicious, but not so much for vote hopping as his previous comments about votes intending lynch. Either way, I am suspicious of the way this the post is delivered. Your post points out something that would be considered suspicious (vote-hopping) and implies guilt, yet you do not make any comment about Cephrir's guilt. I also do not like the excuse about not being able to view Cephrir partially because I don't see how the reason given would obscure an impartial judgment. The whole neutral type feel of this post which contains reasons that you would find someone scummy is the type of post that I normally see from scum - a sort of pot-stirring but noncommittal type of post.

Cass's most recent posts are interesting in light of the overall situation. She goes into detail, unprompted, on why bandwagoning is good and how all the cases are "flimsy." This comes after her vote that looks misplaced - it comes at a time when he is making a vote that is more reasonable than his previous one. More importantly is that the reason itself is shady.

Do you find ANYONE scummy?

I also dont see your logic for me being town?

BM

Currently, I find Cass, earthworm, and Cephrir scummy - for reasons already given. Also, I'm watching snaps now, because he made a post that sounds exactly like the post I made as scum in a different game

[Netlava]

Whoops, forgot the answer the last question.

I also dont see your logic for me being town?

My logic is that many people defended you prematurely and posted as if you were obvtown in this game, some of whom are quite suspect. I don't think scum would be comfortable prematurely defend their scum buddy with so little impetus.

[Netlava]

Post 143-untitled: You'd rather get rid of a contributor than scum?

how exactly do you know he's not scum? FoS: hasdgfas

This is a good point. I missed this earlier.

I must have missed the part where you explained why you thought this was scummy instead of wrong (which it's not, either).

"Cephrir's recent posts about votes indicating lynches are a bit scummy. They are general statements, but he doesn't actually discuss the specific situation at hand, but instead tries to apply the general blanket statements when it looks (to me) that they clearly don't. This suggests that he may not believe what he is saying, or is purposefully ignoring certain details." (from a previous post)

From what I've picked up, MafiaMann is town, I'm pretty sure I know his role too.

If you did, somehow, know his role, then this wouldn't be a very pro-town thing to say or discuss.

[Netlava]

In my head, I think of Cephrir as nearly confirmed innocent, despite him having done absolutely nothing to put himself there.

I think this is a bit of a false dilemma.

I'm sorry that I couldn't catch up at a better time.

You finished reading the thread though, I assume?

Post 502-Netlava: Only a minor scumtell? Really? That's not what I understood when you pointed it out. Also, is the game you mention in the last sentence over?

Yup, I think it's a possible buddy up attempt, but not a definite one. Also the game in question is indeed over.

[Netlava]

*digs through old posts*

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 6&start=12

O rly?

Who's misrepresenting who?

I guess I have to repeat myself again. I mentioned that I was looking for a specific response where a baddie would jump in and argue solely around a game mechanic and on principle. Baddies love to argue on principle. I suspect that you are taking this personally and feel that I am implying you are scum after your response to my trap. I didn't find anything wrong with your reaction. But right now, I think you are being paranoid.

I was obvscum in this game as you can see. Now compare it to this:

Wow, does that sound like he is scared of BM?

SrangerCoug has said an awful lot, but has not said very much. He mentions his case on me a few times. What case? He has said nothing for me to defend.

He also talks about being misrepresented, yet he stated I was anti-pact. My only comment on the pact was that it was null and wouldn’t affect the game one way or the other. How is that “anti-pact”?

Who is mis-representing who?

StrangerCoug has yet to anwser my simple question “Why did he initially vote BM?”. It’s a very simple and fair question. Yet he has completely ignored it.

Now, as a fellow maker of this type of post, I can say a number of things about it. The sentence "Who's misrepresenting who?" suffers some of the same types of problems I was pointing out with earthworm's earlier posts, though to a lesser extent, in that it does not take a side, but implies guilt of one side. Saying "who's misrepresenting who" was my way of interjecting into an argument between two people, and sort of taking a side, but still keeping options flexible. I do not like the sound of that post.

Also, the "scared of BM" thing I don't like. I almost expected someone to post that, even though it looks nothing of the sort. I'd say it's more of a convenient misinterpretation.

And finally, he votes someone for not answering questions, which I did a lot as scum (in a different game).

[Netlava]

The context of the two posts you are comparing is completely different. BTW it should be "Who is misrepresenting whom"

How are the two contexts different? Does this mean you find the context in which I used it scummy?

@ Cyberbob: My "discussion" of the pact does not contradict my reasons for suspecting people. I gave about 2 lines on why I thought the pact's validity was a non-issue, and that peter's & earthworm's long back and forth made it an issue. Note that "too interested" was my reason.

[Netlava]

post

i dont feel like posting now, but im still here

[Netlava]

Alright, deadline is out, so everyone who is not voting should at least vote for someone.

I don't think that Cass was cautiously bussing armlx. However, it's a bit strange overall to FOS because of the number of votes needed to get a lynch, and also because Cass earlier in the game comments that people should not be afraid to vote.

[Netlava]

Unvote EA because deadline is approaching and I never actually wanted to lynch him.

This seems to contradict "votes generally mean intent to lynch."

[Netlava]

Green ftw

*taps foot impatiently*

[Netlava]

Earthworm should be in prod territory methinks

[Netlava]

Your last post was on pg 23. That was before the game started slowing down.

A bit too hasty no?

We need more info before im comfortable with a lynch

29 pages is plenty, plus we have a deadline coming up.

[Netlava]

People are jumping on everyone for the little and stupidest things. Not sure if it is all intentional or not but most of it is crap. I have yet to find a case I can agree with. I should be making my own case but a few posts after I notice something someone else points it out.

If you want to make your own case, but someone else points it out before you can say it, then why do you think every case is bad? And are you suspicious of ANYONE?

hasdgfas, I'm curious what you think of earthworm now.

[Netlava]

I haven't seen anything to make me change my mind about thinking him town, why?

Just looking for inconsistencies, that's all, since both you and earthworm are on my watch list.

Earlier you said this:

This is quite scummy. You should be able to comment on something

And now, it turns out that earthworm has been active lurking for quite some time, but you didn't comment on it.

[Netlava]

So because he made one post without pretty much any content, he's active lurking? I find that to be a crap argument.

Nice mistake?

[Netlava]

Please explain.

Just checking if you were aware of an oversight.

unvote, vote dynamo. Dynamo's last post cements it for me. That said, 740 is incredibly opportunisitic. The Cass case should be looked at again regardless of how this one turns out.

What makes Cass's vote more scummy than others?

[Netlava]

I'm getting a newb feel from dynamo's posts that seems geniune enough. The main thing I don't like is how he gave up on defending himself. The rest, I think, can be explained well enough.

[Netlava]

Well, it would be great if Dynamo could defend himself *hint, hint*. Dynamo, who do you think is scummy?

[Netlava]

L-2, and I'm leaning not scum on Dynamo. I'll wait and see what other people think before voting (if necessary)

[Netlava]

Unvote, vote: DynamoXI

[Netlava]

I stated my intention in my previous post to vote dynamo. I checked the vote count, and it seemed that most of the people left were fresh replacements/inactives, so rather than wait for them, I decided that it's better to move the game along.

[Netlava]

Hmm, this is a bit disappointing. I announced my intentions clearly enough. It's not a typo - I don't actually think Dynamo is scum. Sometimes, though, I vote people who I don't think are scum simply for the sake of a lynch. Tis just a playstyle.

But since this is regarded as scummy, then that's fine, I'm won't be doing this in the future. I'll just let my vote sit uselessly on someone who I do think is scummy. I'll gladly wagon my current suspects though (Cass, earthworm, hasdgfas, cephrir, and pimhel).

Unvote, vote: cass

I like cass's, cephrir's, and hasdgfas's recent reactions *cough* scum *cough*

[Netlava]

I'm going to go ahead and

FOS Netlava

, because he's done other things I didn't like, in addition to the scummy actions that have already been brought up.

This is scummy. Somehow earlier things that you specifically didn't find scummy are now considered scummy. What are the scummy things you didn't like btw? I don't recall you finding anything scummy about my play.

[Netlava]

Hmm, nothing much new to add at the moment. I'll go back and repost some thoughts on my suspects tomorrow.

[Netlava]

Vote: Cass

as stated earlier

[Netlava]

I stated my intention in my previous post to vote dynamo. I checked the vote count, and it seemed that most of the people left were fresh replacements/inactives, so rather than wait for them, I decided that it's better to move the game along.

Hmm, this is a bit disappointing. I announced my intentions clearly enough. It's not a typo - I don't actually think Dynamo is scum. Sometimes, though, I vote people who I don't think are scum simply for the sake of a lynch. Tis just a playstyle.

But since this is regarded as scummy, then that's fine, I'm won't be doing this in the future. I'll just let my vote sit uselessly on someone who I do think is scummy. I'll gladly wagon my current suspects though (Cass, earthworm, hasdgfas, cephrir, and pimhel).

[Netlava]

And?

[Netlava]

I think I've already addressed everything. If there's anything I need to answer in particular, feel free to ask, but hopefully it doesn't involve me repeating myself. FTR, my vote was an attempt to play less conservatively and I tried this before in another game (in which I was also lynched for this), so I've given up on this. I really do not see the big deal of voting for someone I don't think is scum if I see the lynch as being inevitable; this is not some "clever" way of avoiding responsibility. I waited for everyone to say their piece, and since I noticed that most people had voted dynamo and the lynch was pretty much inevitable, except for a bunch of replacements that might take, say, 3 weeks to read the thread, that voting is just a way to move the game along and my stance is already clear. With a couple of people repeatedly posting MOAR VOTES ON DYNAMO I decided "hey, why not, my vote is sitting uselessly around anyway, why not bring meaning to these statements?" Note that hasdgfas in particular made a couple of these posts and as soon as I voted stopped paying any attention to dynamo at all and wanted me lynched (to some extent, over dynamo). So much for fulfilling a request.

And also, why would I, as scum, choose this method to jump on a bandwagon when I could just lie about finding dynamo scummy or whatnot? And before you scream WIFOM you should probably pay attention to risk/rewards. I avoid lying as town since lying is used to determine who is scum. So I decided to adopt a new approach, but I guess it just doesn't work here, and perhaps that might be a good thing. But either way, if you think one frickin vote like this, where I state my intentions CLEARLY before I even do it is scummy, then I can't change your opinion on it.

[Netlava]

The fact that you've been against both wagons on scummy players, the first being a townie, is beginning to concern me. I did agree with you about Dynamo but I'm fine with the Netlava wagon. Will be looking at you esp. if Netlava is lynched as town.

This is some seriously shady business here.

[Netlava]

Sorry, haven't been posting (skool has just started) and of course, since the wagon is on me makes me not feel like wanting to post

Not much of note in the recent pages. I noticed that my suspects aren't posting. But I'm not posting that much as well so I suppose it's fair.

The fact that you've been against both wagons on scummy players, the first being a townie, is beginning to concern me. I did agree with you about Dynamo but I'm fine with the Netlava wagon. Will be looking at you esp. if Netlava is lynched as town.

I don't really feel like explaining this, but it just seems wrong to me logically. The "lynched as town" segment bothers me especially when cephrir is commenting on why it's not ok to not find me scummy. And, of course, I know what I will flip, so it seems extra suspicious to me.

Of course, moreover, in context with that post, I also find it cephrir's overall stance on dynamo suspect. From what I can gather, he did initially find dynamo scummy, but later didn't, and the contrast is pretty major.

This wagon will inevitably go to a claim as well it probably should.

Vote: Dynamo

I'm a helper.

Still here, still not really wanting to lynch Dynamo, still not bothering to contribute much until we've determined whether to lynch Dynamo.

I'm pretty sure he's town at this point.

It almost seems as if he forgot what stance he took on dynamo.

Lastly, when dynamo gets lynched, he says

Better be scum, etc.

also weird for above reasons.

[Netlava]

Convincing people is mostly useless, people. I don't need to repeat myself 1000000 times over some vote. I said before, and I guess I have to repeat myself yet again and again, if there's anything in particular you want answered, then ask and I'll respond. Otherwise, general blanket statements on "how I need to defend myself" are useless. Unless you expect me to sit around and comment on my alignment all day. While we're on the suspect, I guess, I think netlava is town. Y'know, maybe that vote thing was strange, but I don't see the malicious intent there. I think if netlava were scum, he would just, y'know, manufacture reasons instead. But I think a policy lynch is understandable, certain favorable meta exist and should be continued. Otherwise, I think netlava is town.

There, happy now?

Btw, Cass's distraction argument is false as I pointed out earlier, though I'm kinda confused why Cass would pull that same argument again after I found it scummy the first time around. How is that more so a distraction than anything else?

You are allowed to change your mind if someone does something to warrant it. Are you saying that between the two Cephrir quotes there was no input from or about Dynamo?

I'm saying that the progression felt unnatural. The change is never clearly indicated though. If you want to get a feel of what I'm saying, then read his posts in isolation.

Also, Cephir's view of needing to take stance a on person x and stance b on person y seems mechanical and perhaps more indicative of a scum line of thought.

ou mean just after Dyanmo self-hammered? What's wierd about that?

because he thought dynamo was town. I'm speaking from experience here, but being right about a mislynch > being wrong about a correct lynch.

[Netlava]

If my conviction about Armlx was rock-solid, I'd already be voting him. (The actual reason for my hesitation is that in my very first game here I went aggressively after armlx, being rock-solid conviced, and he was town. There are a few people on this site who seem to have a tendency to give me tunnel vision.)

This is a pretty drastic change in approach. Earlier in the game, Cass was an active proponent of being bandwagon-happy.

Also, many people seem to find my posts scummy. I'm not sure why this is, but I'm guessing it has something to do with this being the biggest game I've played yet, and I have trouble getting involved in all the discussions and keeping track of everyone in the game (especially with all the replacements ). It gives me the feeling that the scum are simply all lurking somewhere in the backgorund where I'll never even notice them...

By giving an alternative, and probably irrelevant explanation, you aren't addressing the actual reasons people find you scummy. Also, giving an explanation for why people find you scummy seems to acknowledge that you are doing something wrong in order to bring about such a reaction that's justified, and could thus imply guilt.

Run that one by me again?

The fact that you've been against both wagons on scummy players, the first being a townie, is beginning to concern me. I did agree with you about Dynamo but I'm fine with the Netlava wagon. Will be looking at you esp. if Netlava is lynched as town.

[Netlava]

Okay, Netlava, I get it I think; you just phrased it in a sorta exaggerated way that doesn't make any sense.

Please explain.

[Netlava]

TBH, I haven't been looking too much into the armlx-korts-sc-skruffs thing right now, but that's because I think they are town.

[Netlava]

I'm not clearing anyone; I'm just stating my current read and opinions as it concerns to this situation.

[Netlava]

This kind of feels like buddying-cum-something-else. Not sure whether I'm looking at it completely objectively, but I'm getting the feeling nonetheless.

Well, it's not, because earlier in the game I pointed out who I thought was town and it wasn't buddying-up then. Plus, this is currently the main topic of discussion, so this just my 2 cents.

Anyways, admittedly, I'm looking at Blakadder's posts for the first time and I realized that he's quietly replaced into this game without saying much i.e. the standard long replacement analysis. Blakadder, thoughts on this game?

[Netlava]

You mean trying to take pressure off a scum buddy and hiding which one by declaring the 4 main protagonists in the argument as pro-town?

I don't even know why I bother posting when everything becomes an interpretation as stupid as this.

[Netlava]

I'm not sure if you're reading the game, but I'm sure that will help.

[Netlava]

Well, I'll look in depth into the raider case when I have time, but I don't recall finding anything particularly scummy about him, aside from the long time he took to read the thread.

...so I dislike Cephrir making it look as if this is a dilemma. I really hope it isn't.

This statement sort of stuck out to me. What do you mean when you say you hope it isn't a dilemma?

[Netlava]

Raider's flip flop is suspicious, though I can see him not understanding a case. I would like to hear more from raider who is suspects are.

Just so I don't have to lurk any more, does anyone have any questions for me, or want to know my stance on anything?

Yeah, who do you find suspicious in this game?

[Netlava]

Raider, what did you not understand about my lynch?

[Netlava]

Btw, cyberbob post is scummy. explanation later

[Netlava]

A little bit of an explanation when you said this would have been nice instead of us having to wait for it.

Don't you have some thoughts on some other stuff asides from waiting for me to post?

Cyberbob's post is scummy because the post implies heavy guilt on raider, by flat-out claiming that raider is lying, but then comes up with a shaky reason about distractions and what-not. The post seems like a scumpartner talking to his teammate.

So yeah, if raider were to come up scum, I'd expect cyberbob-scum as well.

Anyways, I'm leaning raider scum now. His response on who he thought was scummy is also suspect.

Third is BM so making a mountain out of a mole hill and last is Armlx for just not reading.

Seems contrived. Not reading is not a reason to suspect someone. I also don't like how he's sort of acknowledges that his stance was shaky "making a mountain out of a mole hill," but then suspects BM for it. Key word here being mole hill, which implies that his case is not baseless.

[Netlava]

Raider, what did you not understand about my lynch?

Oh yeah, raider, can you answer this?

[Netlava]

Yup, this is all part of my plan *cackle*

[Netlava]

Well, I'm still undecided on raider. I can see him not understanding the case.

What do you mean by needs less kool-aid? And it is shaky, seeing how everything can be called a distraction from one's favored lynch. Plus, you outright claimed he lied. I'm not sure how much stronger you could get from that.

[Netlava]

I didn't know kids could vote.

Raider, what misunderstanding prevented you from seeing my case initially?

How would you describe my case now?

[Netlava]

Please tell where exactly have I been going after "targets of opportunity" and why they are considered opportunistic.

[Netlava]

Apparently, I'm not allowed to ask people where this so-called "going after targets of opportunity" takes place. Amazing logic there.

[Netlava]

Oops, missed that ><

Netlava - two bloody good examples right there in that post - it's not like I'm not giving evidence. You flip-flop onto whichever wagon is convenient, and so far today, you've been pushing the raider case, then backing off it, then pushing it again, but you've never committed to it with a vote: your vote has stayed solidly on the wagon with the most chance of overtaking yours: Cass.
Still loving my vote.

Unvote: Cass

There.

[Netlava]

Original Roll String: 1d26

1 26-Sided Dice: (5) = 5

[Netlava]

18. Citizen Karne (replacing Tovarish)

Vote: Citizen Karne

[Netlava]

Hmm... so let's see... I've thought Cass was scum for a while now, but I have to change my opinion because her wagon has the most chance of overtaking mine. Sounds good to me.

Guess I need to stop "pushing" this raider case too.

[Netlava]

>_>

[Netlava]

Oh for God's sake. No need to have a tantrum about it.

Ok, maybe I need to tone down the sarcasm, but it's stupid when asking a question == throwing a tantrum.

[Netlava]

That's because I can't tell with raider. Anyways, hopefully he can answer my question when he gets back.

[Netlava]

How accusing me of throwing a tantrum helpful in any way? I may be a bit annoyed at times when posting, but I still make my point without being too offensive.

The point is that asking people to justify their posts is not something I need to reconsider.

[Netlava]

swiss town