veerus wrote:The survivor claim idea is ridiculous and, as pointed out in 223 by armlx, we would never see one. In fact, the people who have jumped on this idea (kinetic/cybele) currently seem suspicious as hell as it looks like a coordinated attempt between two scum-partners to try and encourage the town into voting for a townie under unrealistic pretenses.
...
I do not really consider Kinetic's "bus" statement a slip as he might've just failed to find a proper verb at the time for what he was trying to say. However, his survivor-based attacks on Natirasha have the "eager scum" feel to them. His pressure on Nat to reveal alignment information only helps support that.
vote: Kinetic
FOS: Cybele
Umm, what? Here, let me fix your perception...
Quick wrap up of what has happened so far wrote:
Natirasha wrote:...My role implies that there are at least two survivors in this game. I want them to come forward ...
Empking wrote:Yeah, if you're a survivor claim.
Kinetic wrote:Long Fucking Post which basically says I don't understand why Survivors would claim, would Nat please clarify some questions I have.
armlx wrote:I'm down with Survivors claiming.
VisMaior wrote:Natirasha wrote:game. I want them to come forward and tell me why I shouldn't kill them right now
"Come forward so I can kill you!"
Err... Do I have to point out ... Nah.
Ok, first off, I was against the whole survivor claim idea, not for it, as shown above. A lot of people were for it, I didn't understand them or anyone else on why a survivor would claim, and instead of someone answering me they all just blew it over...
I'm glad you as well have linked me and Cybele -.-;;; See what you did FL. SEE WHAT YOU DID!
Anyway, if I get this right: You think that my attacks are ones coming from a survivor, so that makes them look scummy... and thus I'm scum? Isn't a survivor a neutral role, not scum? Am I lost? I am so confused... >.>
veerus wrote:Kinetic, you seem eager to claim, so I suggest you start.
I see what you did there.
I have no problem with claiming, however, I have my conditions.
First, everyone must agree that this claim will go through to everyone. If someone tries to dodge it, we need a consensus that we will lynch them.
Second, I'll generate (or someone else can if you think I have some magical powers) using the boards dice rollers, a completely random order in which claims will happen. That way no one can challenge that the claims were done unfairly.
If these two conditions are agreed upon, I believe we will have a fair and quick claim.
forbiddanlight wrote:You two are probably survivors, of different flavors, since instantly a bandwagon forms on the biggest threat to you. Hmmm...
First, think ONLY of me. ONLY KINETIC. Don't talk about Cybele. I don't give a fuck about Cybele. Mention Cybele in your reply to ME and you're linking the two of us, for better or for worse. Only respond to things I've done, and that I've said. If you respond to things CYBELE has done and used them to justify thoughts about me, then you are LINKING us together and prejudicing your responses to ME based on something CYBELE did. I really don't understand how you can't see that as a form of linking... You can hardly say a sentence without mentioning us both together. Stop it.
Second, you keep throwing that tag on me, Survivor this, survivor that. You totally belittle all of my arguments without even evaluating them by throwing that tag on them. You're biasing yourself and everyone else. Poisoning the Well.
You tell me I'm a survivor, then since I'm a survivor in your book, all my arguments are obviously flawed because, obviously Nat is the biggest threat to me (How, pray tell, is he a threat to me?). I havn't heard of Nat having some magical ability to kill survivors. Does he? If he did, yea, IF I was a survivor, that MIGHT be a threat. But I'm not, he hasn't said he does, so your entire argument there is conjecture that is completely meaningless. READ my original arguments. Everything that you read originally that you didn't totally throw out of hand you AGREED with. So I challenge you, AGAIN, think of me as not a survivor, read my arguments, and challenge the ARGUMENTS, not the person.
forbiddanlight wrote:
If you want to have a logical fallacy-off, I can play that game too, but it's just a distraction. I show you how your argument is a fallacy, you show me how mine could be a fallacy, blah blah blah. In the meantime the scum win. I'm going to end it here and now before it becomes a distraction.
Because I'm right
lol. Let it go.
?