Mini 761 - Game Over

[Gateway]

GO X!

[Wall-E]

Post 19: Wall-E votes for me stating that I tried to give a serious random vote. Fail. Vote was not serious. I'm not even going to address the point that it felt forced. (Define RVS...)

You gave no indication otherwise. You even waited to give your reason for two posts. I consider this to be a lie on your part, given the evidence.

Post 20: Restates that I am carrying a grudge from a previous game. Fail. Point's not serious, we're in RVS.

You told everyone that your vote was based upon a grudge, which I called anti-town. Your continued insistence that I called you scummy is noted.

Post 22: I was trying to convey that the vote wasn't serious, but it's apparently not sinking in.

If you wanted to say that, say that. I see nothing here to indicate that you meant it to be a joke or not serious.

Post 33: I saw your reason for your vote, I didn't take it seriously because I didn't take my vote seriously... but you're intent to push on this as hard as you can so...

Oh, so now I had a legitimate reason for my vote? More backpedaling.

Post 35: Says my post was grudge-fueled. This is what I call ringing a bell really loudly so that no matter how reasonable of an explanation there is for the simple fact that this is not true, the lie will remain heard through the town and instill doubt about me.

That is what I call playing Mafia.

Post 39: After addressing his points and completely destroying them, he now accusing me of backpedaling.

Where did this happen?

Post 40: I point out the inherent flaw of his original point, even if it's true. (It would be an indication of bad play, not scumminess, making the vote opportunistic.)

Exactly what I said. Do you know the difference between anti-town and scummy?

Post 41: This is what backpedaling is Wall-E, done by you. Leading to post 42, and ultimately to this.

I have never once backpedaled. Quote me doing so or you're making unfounded claims, a very scummy thing to do.

Unvote, Vote: Wall-E

OMGUS.

Votes using a quickly refuted point that he continually tries to advance as truth, and then backpedals from calling me scum after being asked why the point he made, even if true would make me more likely to be scum.

Refuted != disproven. Refutation is why WIFOM is such a large part of this game. I make a claim, you counter it, and so forth. Are you voting me for playing Mafia?

He can't justify his vote, he can't justify his pressure, so he backpedals from it, which now makes his vote not serious by default, despite the fact that he said it was serious.

This is plainly untrue.

I consider all of the above behavior on Wall-E's part scummy.

Hm.

FOS: Pitstop

I want to see some game related content from you. My vote on you was designed to pressure you into posting some.

[/quote]

Setting traps?

[Zachrulez]

51 makes me implode.

I don't have time to respond to it now, but I will later tonight.

[Wall-E]

this is us sniffing each-other's butts

[Conspicuous_other]

this is us sniffing each-other's butts

What do you mean by this? Do you mean you think you're just two overly-paranoid townies or what?

[Wall-E]

I mean that we're investigating each-other in the manner of two dogs meeting in a park. Whether or not Zachrules is scum is another matter. Do you think we're both townies?

[Stephoscope]

Taking off random vote, so I don't forget to do it later:

Unvote: Conspicuous_other

[Conspicuous_other]

I mean that we're investigating each-other in the manner of two dogs meeting in a park. Whether or not Zachrules is scum is another matter. Do you think we're both townies?

TBQH, I didn't really pick up a good read from either of you through that exchange.

[Wall-E]

I mean that we're investigating each-other in the manner of two dogs meeting in a park. Whether or not Zachrules is scum is another matter. Do you think we're both townies?

TBQH, I didn't really pick up a good read from either of you through that exchange.

yeah me neither

[Zachrulez]

51 makes me implode.

I don't have time to respond to it now, but I will

later tonight

tommorow.

[Amished]

Just wanted to let everyone know I'll be kinda V/LA til Sunday-ish. I'll be able to read what's going on, but not sure about how much I'll be able to post. As for right now, I want to see where this (Zach/Wall) is going, but it doesn't seem too helpful so far.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Basically Wall-E's entire "serious" vote is based around Zach's joking RVS vote which strikes me as pretty ludicrous. My experiences don't currently lead me to believe this is inherently a town or scum behavior, but it sure as hell doesn't strike me as useful.

Unvote

FOS: Wall-E

I'd also like lordzoner to come back in and let me know how/if his vote was at all serious.

[Wall-E]

look at you, talking down all over the posts i'm making like they're interrupting some amazing content from you or someone else too feeble to drag their mouse pointer over the "Reply" button and press click - what was I saying?

What's up lordzoner? You gonna step up to danny-boy's line?

[Pitstop]

Post 19: Wall-E votes for me stating that I tried to give a serious random vote. Fail. Vote was not serious. I'm not even going to address the point that it felt forced. (Define RVS...)

Post 20: Restates that I am carrying a grudge from a previous game. Fail. Point's not serious, we're in RVS.

Post 22: I was trying to convey that the vote wasn't serious, but it's apparently not sinking in.

Post 33: I saw your reason for your vote, I didn't take it seriously because I didn't take my vote seriously... but you're intent to push on this as hard as you can so...

Post 35: Says my post was grudge-fueled. This is what I call ringing a bell really loudly so that no matter how reasonable of an explanation there is for the simple fact that this is not true, the lie will remain heard through the town and instill doubt about me.

Post 39: After addressing his points and completely destroying them, he now accusing me of backpedaling.

Post 40: I point out the inherent flaw of his original point, even if it's true. (It would be an indication of bad play, not scumminess, making the vote opportunistic.)

Post 41: This is what backpedaling is Wall-E, done by you. Leading to post 42, and ultimately to this.

Unvote, Vote: Wall-E

Votes using a quickly refuted point that he continually tries to advance as truth, and then backpedals from calling me scum after being asked why the point he made, even if true would make me more likely to be scum.

He can't justify his vote, he can't justify his pressure, so he backpedals from it, which now makes his vote not serious by default, despite the fact that he said it was serious.

I consider all of the above behavior on Wall-E's part scummy.

FOS: Pitstop

I want to see some game related content from you. My vote on you was designed to pressure you into posting some.

If you expect 1 vote to pressure me into anything, then you're mistaken.

I'll keep my eye out on you since it's almost as if you want me to get defensive over 1 vote, and because I didn't, you FOS me. Kinda odd.

[lordzoner]

No, DDD, it wasn't serious. But the Law of Averages is by no means statistically sound.

But if it makes you more comfortable, I'll

Unvote

.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

No, DDD, it wasn't serious. But the Law of Averages is by no means statistically sound.

But if it makes you more comfortable, I'll

Unvote

.

Doesn't really make me more or less comfortable. I was just checking to see if you were taking my weak sauce joke logic (like Wall-E did to Zach) too seriously.

The Law of Averages is statistically sound... when applied retroactively. However, when dealing with independent events such as this it is completely useless.

[Conspicuous_other]

look at you, talking down all over the posts i'm making like they're interrupting some amazing content from you or someone else too feeble to drag their mouse pointer over the "Reply" button and press click - what was I saying?

Someone's defensive, aren't they?

[Wall-E]

look at you, talking down all over the posts i'm making like they're interrupting some amazing content from you or someone else too feeble to drag their mouse pointer over the "Reply" button and press click - what was I saying?

Someone's defensive, aren't they?

What is wrong with being defensive?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

look at you, talking down all over the posts i'm making like they're interrupting some amazing content from you or someone else too feeble to drag their mouse pointer over the "Reply" button and press click - what was I saying?

Someone's defensive, aren't they?

What is wrong with being defensive?

When there's plenty of substantive heat from several directions a defensive reaction is fairly natural and expected. When it's heat from one person on page three based on discussion of RVS an overly defensive response doesn't fit with the degree of the "attack". And unnatural actions are usually viewed, rightfully or wrongfully, as the actions of scum.

[Zachrulez]

Post 19: Wall-E votes for me stating that I tried to give a serious random vote. Fail. Vote was not serious. I'm not even going to address the point that it felt forced. (Define RVS...)

Post 20: Restates that I am carrying a grudge from a previous game. Fail. Point's not serious, we're in RVS.

Post 22: I was trying to convey that the vote wasn't serious, but it's apparently not sinking in.

Post 33: I saw your reason for your vote, I didn't take it seriously because I didn't take my vote seriously... but you're intent to push on this as hard as you can so...

Post 35: Says my post was grudge-fueled. This is what I call ringing a bell really loudly so that no matter how reasonable of an explanation there is for the simple fact that this is not true, the lie will remain heard through the town and instill doubt about me.

Post 39: After addressing his points and completely destroying them, he now accusing me of backpedaling.

Post 40: I point out the inherent flaw of his original point, even if it's true. (It would be an indication of bad play, not scumminess, making the vote opportunistic.)

Post 41: This is what backpedaling is Wall-E, done by you. Leading to post 42, and ultimately to this.

Unvote, Vote: Wall-E

Votes using a quickly refuted point that he continually tries to advance as truth, and then backpedals from calling me scum after being asked why the point he made, even if true would make me more likely to be scum.

He can't justify his vote, he can't justify his pressure, so he backpedals from it, which now makes his vote not serious by default, despite the fact that he said it was serious.

I consider all of the above behavior on Wall-E's part scummy.

FOS: Pitstop

I want to see some game related content from you. My vote on you was designed to pressure you into posting some.

If you expect 1 vote to pressure me into anything, then you're mistaken.

I'll keep my eye out on you since it's almost as if you want me to get defensive over 1 vote, and because I didn't, you FOS me. Kinda odd.

I am? Your reaction seems to contradict your claim that I am mistaken.

By the way, get it right, I voted you, and then downgraded you to an FOS.

Here's a summary of the insightful conversation we've had so far.

Me: Do something.

You: No.

I am wowed...

[Zachrulez]

I have just looked at post 51 again, and notice that the vast majority of it doesn't even cover new ground, but mainly rehashes the same broken points against me.

I realize that I may actually be better off answering any questions that anyone has of me concerning Wall-E's 51, rather then letting the quote tree just get ridiculously out of hand.

[Wall-E]

While that sounds like a cop out, I'll agree to the same terms in regards to the issue between Zachrulez and myself.

[Stephoscope]

Sooo...lordzoner happened to be around right when this thread started, but then goes two full days without posting. And then, when he finally does post, he

completely misses the question

that I had specifically addressed to him.

While his account was just created on March the 10th, I'm not getting the vibe of a newbie from him. And this isn't a newbie game.

So I ask, why exactly is he not reading the thread thoroughly?

FoS: lordzoner

[Zachrulez]

While that sounds like a cop out, I'll agree to the same terms in regards to the issue between Zachrulez and myself.

While that sounds like a cop out, I'll do it too?

[Wall-E]

That's three people who are questioning the integrity of the noob. Are you alive, newjack?

unvote: vote: lordzoner