Budja wrote:Vote: GreenDude, for having such a hard to read colour
This
semioldguy wrote:chamber wrote:
Vote semioldguyHigh horses are high.
Your OMGUS and hypocrisy are noted. You seem strongly concerned with a wagon that builds quickly, yet now you seem to seek out to do the exact thing you ctiticize, build a wagon quickly with no case to support.
If chamber flips scum, GreenDude could be a likely buddy due to the different wagon reactions.
semioldguy wrote:chamber wrote:
First, that was the second vote not the forth. Second that was for an arbitrary reason, my vote for you was note.
First, arguing which number it was doesn't address what the vote does or appears to be doing. Second, if you don't share your reason, then I have no reason to believe your vote on me wasn't arbitrary. And it's still OMGUS.
Kirbyoshi wrote:
And how would not explaining votes be pro-town?
Kirbyoshi wrote:chamber wrote:
Meant title. what I get for not double checking posts.
sig = signature
Still doesn't explain why you don't explain your votes, just that you don't.
SocioPath wrote:chamber wrote:Why I think something is irrelevant. Only that I do is important in determining my alignment. If you are going to vote for me for it anyway then you aren't playing in a protown fashion.
(and for the record its a lot harder to play as scum when you can't explain your votes.)Wat.
Kirbyoshi wrote:chamber, I don't think why you think something is irrelevant. In fact, I think it's extremely relevant. In addition, you should explain why you're so averse to giving us a simple reason for why you're not giving us any concrete cases,which is what this game is based on. You're still digging yourself deeper, as evidenced by the votes pouring in on you.
Josh wrote:If you don't "feel like" explaining yourself, perhaps you shouldn't "feel like" playing.QFT
ChiboSempai wrote:Who is to say that everything from Chamber is gone? If he acted what we thought was scummy meaning he was mafia, then whoever replaces him would have the same role and be mafia as well. I'm gonna keep my vote for the time being and see how it plays out.
SocioPath wrote:chamber wrote:In short I ask you "Was what I did really scummy, or did you just dislike that I was doing it?"
Its scummy by every definition of the word.
Having a scummy meta and then defending those scummy actions in game with a cry of "but thats my meta!" is also scummy.
Lets say my meta was that of refusing to vote ever. Regardless of alignment, I never vote. Or anything of the sort. And then defended not voted by saying I never vote. And then even got a title based on never voting...that does not change the fact that its scummy.
Part of scum hunting is voting patterns...but oh look, never voting means no voting patterns, no RVS votes, nothing. Not even a self vote.
Thats not really playing the game though, thats just being a jackass for metas sake. Perhaps to boost my chances to win at being scum cause I'm a harder read! Oh Boy!
Anywho, you asked for replacement, and the mod reconfirmed as such...I'm pretty sure you shouldn't be posting in games where the mod is actively looking to replace you.
Site violations and such.
ChiboSempai wrote:I don't even like the whole ~I don't like situation I'm replacing out~ kind of ordeal anyway. If the role is scum, then keeping some votes on as a pressure would do good I think. Imagine if you were the replacement's shoes, your told the game has already been going on for a handful of pages, your mafia, and you've got votes on you already. How do you work your way out of it? They would have to do something if they want to convince us otherwise and want to win the game.
Instead of giving the new player the benefit of the doubt (esp since the role is the same), I'm going to look to the new player to prove that they aren't scum to us instead of looking for reasons in the new player to believe again that they are scum.