Mod, the #75 vote-count is weird. Gamma and Nekka's counts don't make sense. Thanks
Fixed.
Corporate wrote:for making me feel like he is keeping attention off of himself by putting it everywhere else.
I can't keep attention off myself by suspecting a lot of things. That only brings more attention.
Nekka wrote:FoS: Atlas This is only not a vote because currently I think Wall-E deserves it more. Why do you feel you have to pick up on every single persons little details. You're not exactly making mountains out of mole hills but you are definately over exagerating against quite a few people.
You know, the last time I actually jumped on something was Page 2, #44. And if you didn't notice several of my posts since then have
dismissed
suspicions on other players rather than "over-exaggerate" them. Let me show you; (Numbers for me indicate dismissing suspicion; numbers for you indicate suspicions)
#61- Response to Gamma's challenge; Not too concerned with #50 (1); clarification of what confirm vote means; Doesn't think that Nekka is opportunistic (2)
#69- I buy Gamma's claim. (3)
#72- Response to Gamma (no suspicion here), response to Zach's suspicions, Doesn't think that the role-wording makes Nekka scum (4)
#79- Clarification of something that I thought was scummy from way back when. Doesn't mean anything.
Now let's compare that to your record (starting at Page 3, since that is where I started)
#57- Calls a portion of the claim-post scummy. (1)
#60- FoS on Eek (2)
#64- Gamma's role looks like a quote, switches vote to Wally (3)
#78- Disapproval of Zach's weird comment.
I don't see where your accusation is coming from. If you look back, I have been suspicious of only four players this entire game outlined in #30. I haven't continued any of my cases or suspected anyone since Page 2, and then the first time I point out something telling I get jumped on by two players, one of which threatening me with a vote? Because I really don't like this accusation, and because I feel that it is totally leeching off Corporate's logic I'd appreciate it if you pointed out every point from "quite a few people" that you felt was over-exaggerating.
The same goes for Corporate; I'd like you to quote with reason "every little thing" that I jump on. Actually,
unvote, vote: Corporate
for ignoring the continuation of my case in #44. I do think that I have a bit more dirt on you than Jersey at this point.
Jersey wrote:I'm thinking out loud. I wanted to see if anyone else shares my concerns or thinks I'm overreacting (again). Not to mention, I want to give Gamma a chance to respond before I decide to vote for him. After all, isn't more discussion better than less, especially on Day 1? I want to make sure I am making a theoretically educated vote at this point.
OK, it seemed really odd that you would outwardly say "Gamma is scary, do we really want him with a killing role, I'm not comfortable with it!" without doing anything about the situation.
Tony wrote:Because a vig that kills town essentially gives the mafia two kills a night. A reckless vig is nearly as dangerous as scum.
What makes you think that Gamma is deliberately going to kill townies? For now I'm backing Wall-E in making Gamma vig the town's #2 target.