No one ever said who Reckoner should target...CoCo wrote:I see no need to discuss who Reckoner should or shouldn't be targeting. You know, because a vigilante is someone who "takes the law" into their own hands. And that's all you'll hear from me on that subject.
interpreted it as he felt, and regurgitated this information as his own in agreement. I might be the only one to see this, but it could either be scum looking to be part of the NS, or just someone who carelessly skimmed what was written, but wanted to appear as if they had payed close attention the whole time.ChannelDelibird wrote:Seriously, people.ChannelDelibird wrote:Also, itisscummy for you to ask whether the vig is killing or not. He can claim any kills in the morning.Meanwhile, knowledge of whether he is killing or not can help a potential scum roleblocker to decide whether he needs to target Reckoner at night or can afford to try and target someone he thinks might be a cop or doctor.SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Well at that point, there wasn't much to do besides agree or disagree with someone.NHT wrote: I might be the only one to see this, but it could either be scum looking to be part of the NS, or just someone who carelessly skimmed what was written, but wanted to appear as if they had payed close attention the whole time.
I know we didn't discuss who Reckoner's targeting, but I don't see anything wrong with the fact that he contributed his opinion along with his agreement with CDB.CoCo wrote: I see no need to discuss who Reckoner should or shouldn't be targeting. You know, because a vigilante is someone who "takes the law" into their own hands. And that's all you'll hear from me on that subject.
First off, wise to chime in when you're clearly wrong does not help you. You often will be better not saying anything than making it look like you arent actually paying attention. It came off as scummy to me (look above)... sorry.CoCo wrote:Nohandtyper, regardless of how you see it, I figured it wise to chime in on the topic before not doing so came back to bite me in the ass. Would you rather have me quote the STFU post? Furthermore, I KNOW no one said such things. However, discussing the role is not conductive in a scum hunt. I'd much rather analyze the players than play the odds. I'm sorry if my wording made you see more content than I gave.
I honestly don't care what the vig does. The role, if used wisely, helps the town, and I'm VERY pro town.
@DRK: I'm a nerd too! ^5
Good job reading. Don't you care about someone that posts less content than I do?lobstermania wrote:I'm going to Vote:CoCo, mostly for this "very" WIFOMy mess.
And also for thinking that wolframnhart's opinion is more interesting than his one post for the past seven days.
If you're going to call someone out as being scummy, CITE EVIDENCE! I've read his posts, I know his playing style. I dont see it as scummy. I want to hear whyCoCo wrote:Reread his posts.
You'll see. I'm busy with Qax.
CoCo wrote: I assure you, my only wish is to see scum gone. My main suspects at this point are Wicked, DRK, and NHT.
CoCo's suspicions are starting to bother me. He suspected me after I (at the time) mis-labeled him as scummy. He suspected NHT after he went after CoCo. He called lobster scummy after lobster voted for him. The only person he's suspicous of who didn't in some way attack him is wicked and if we look back at his post about wicked:CoCo wrote: Good job reading. Don't you care about someone that posts less content than I do?
I find your vote odd.
Some may say I feel this way because the vote is for me, but I think you are merely deflecting in order to hide amongst the crowd. Cripes, do you think I'm so blind as to not notice the scum tells you've given off?
Careful with your vote. Look at Newbie Game 790 (Congrats on your win in that game Reckoner).CoCo wrote:He vaguely agreed with someone's post after being pressured to give his opinions on someone.Reckoner wrote:Wicked wrote:
I still think that canadianbovine's revotes and unvotes for the same person scummier, so my vote remains on him/her.Wicked wrote:
I never said that I thought the revote was scummy.
And how is that not claiming that CB's revote/unvote is scummy, which you just said you didn't do?
This intrigues me...
Unvote.
FOS Wicked.FoS CoCo
lobster wrote: I'm going to Vote:CoCo, mostly for this "very" WIFOMy mess.
Take it or leave it. It's not like it's never happened before. If your really feel the need, I'm not insulted by a vote.qax42 wrote:Also:
(Thanks to the search feature of this site and looking for posts addressed to me)
@nohandedtyper: I'mextremelyinsulted that you would question my integrity—especiallywhen I've posted it across the site.
Anything you'd like to say about this?Reckoner wrote:Wicked wrote: I still think that canadianbovine's revotes and unvotes for the same person scummier, so my vote remains on him/her.Wicked wrote:
I never said that I thought the revote was scummy.
And how is that not claiming that CB's revote/unvote is scummy, which you just said you didn't do?
*feels bad for leaving*nohandtyper wrote:QFT, it seems like there are only a few of us actually playing.xRECKONERx wrote:I'd like to ask that everyone on the whole try to be more active, or if you can't, replace out.
