Mini 851 - Bloodlust Mafia! - Game Over

RayFrost · Post Post #350 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:16 pm

Zachrulez wrote:
Unvote: Vote: Peabody

Do you often misrepresent people so blatently?

Do you often vote people for one instance of misrepresentation without waiting for an explanation?

Zachrulez · Post Post #351 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:23 pm

RayFrost wrote:
Zachrulez wrote:
Unvote: Vote: Peabody

Do you often misrepresent people so blatently?
Do you often vote people for one instance of misrepresentation without waiting for an explanation?

Any thoughts on that misrep by the way?

It's really bad, especially because he responded to the person who actually typed the quote he tried to use against Looker. Are you liable to believe that it was really some kind of mistake on Peabody's part?

RayFrost · Post Post #352 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:28 pm

Zachrulez wrote:
RayFrost wrote:
Zachrulez wrote:
Unvote: Vote: Peabody

Do you often misrepresent people so blatently?
Do you often vote people for one instance of misrepresentation without waiting for an explanation?
Any thoughts on that misrep by the way?

It's really bad, especially because he responded to the person who actually typed the quote he tried to use against Looker. Are you liable to believe that it was really some kind of mistake on Peabody's part?

I find it to be worth looking into, but not something to arbitrarily vote over.

I think it

is

a possibility that he did. I want to wait for his response before hounding him.

Zachrulez · Post Post #353 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:32 pm

Well it's a reason, on day 1, early in the game.

What makes it any more arbitrary than the wagon that formed on Rosso?

RayFrost · Post Post #354 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:45 pm

Zachrulez wrote:Well it's a reason, on day 1, early in the game.

What makes it any more arbitrary than the wagon that formed on Rosso?

Rosso's was pressure. This one has a reason.

I'd rather see if the reason is valid before, y'know, voting. I won't be voting for pressure if I do vote, so yeah.

Peabody · Post Post #355 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:47 pm

Woops! I'm sorry dude, I must have misread the name. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out.

Zachrulez · Post Post #356 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:53 pm

RayFrost wrote:
Zachrulez wrote:Well it's a reason, on day 1, early in the game.

What makes it any more arbitrary than the wagon that formed on Rosso?
Rosso's was pressure. This one has a reason.

I'd rather see if the reason is valid before, y'know, voting. I won't be voting for pressure if I do vote, so yeah.

I find the reason valid now. Go through your own process of determining what you think about it, but I don't see why you're making such a big deal about my vote. (Unless you actually expect me to play to your standards.)

Pomegranate · Post Post #357 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:53 pm

I'd like to hear. From Peabody first, but he'll probably just say it was a mistake. Then again, though I think everyone must be careful, I could see it happening as a result of carelessness. Everone has to do their best to prevent this sort of thing.

Whether this was accidental or on purpose I don't know, but it seems to me like a careless error. I'll think about it a bit more tonight.

Pomegranate · Post Post #358 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:56 pm

EBWOP:

The first sentence should have been "I'd like to hear from Peabody first, but he'll probably..."

Zachrulez · Post Post #359 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:59 pm

Peabody wrote:Woops! I'm sorry dude, I must have misread the name. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out.

So in taking a jab and accusing Looker of a contradiction, you just happened to use someone else's post as evidence against Looker accidentally?

RayFrost · Post Post #360 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:00 pm

Peabody wrote:Woops! I'm sorry dude, I must have misread the name. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out.

...

that's your response?

you misread the name?

so you misread AlmasterGM to read Looker...

not buying it.

unvote, vote peabody

Zachrulez · Post Post #361 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:03 pm

Frankly, I don't see how something like that happens accidentally when you're making points against someone, unless you're careless scum that's not fully paying attention to the game and just trying to conjure up stupid bs on a player you've pegged as weak.

Zachrulez · Post Post #362 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:08 pm

RayFrost wrote:
Peabody wrote:Woops! I'm sorry dude, I must have misread the name. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out.
...

that's your response?

you misread the name?

so you misread AlmasterGM to read Looker...

not buying it.

unvote, vote peabody

RayFrost wrote:
Zachrulez wrote:
Unvote: Vote: Peabody

Do you often misrepresent people so blatently?
Do you often vote people for one instance of misrepresentation without waiting for an explanation?

RayFrost wrote:
Zachrulez wrote:
RayFrost wrote:
Zachrulez wrote:
Unvote: Vote: Peabody

Do you often misrepresent people so blatently?
Do you often vote people for one instance of misrepresentation without waiting for an explanation?
Any thoughts on that misrep by the way?

It's really bad, especially because he responded to the person who actually typed the quote he tried to use against Looker. Are you liable to believe that it was really some kind of mistake on Peabody's part?
I find it to be worth looking into, but not something to arbitrarily vote over.

I think it
is
a possibility that he did. I want to wait for his response before hounding him.

Nice to see you've changed you mind.

Pomegranate · Post Post #363 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:11 pm

If

that's

all Peabody has to say, then I feel a strong need to

Vote: Peabody

.

That should be L-3 or L-2.

(I know I posted my stuff on him after his response, but I think he sniped me.)

RayFrost · Post Post #364 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:13 pm

He responded.

I didn't like his response.

I thus am hounding him.

Peabody · Post Post #365 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:14 pm

My post was surely an accident. It wouldn't make sense for me as mafia to blatantly misrepresent somebody. I'm sorry, I just got Alamaster and Looker confused.

I truly am trying to scumhunt. I apologize to the town, for if you lynch me, I just hurt the town. Sorry!!

RayFrost · Post Post #366 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:16 pm

Peabody wrote:My post was surely an accident. It wouldn't make sense for me as mafia to blatantly misrepresent somebody. I'm sorry, I just got Alamaster and Looker confused.

I truly am trying to scumhunt. I apologize to the town, for if you lynch me, I just hurt the town. Sorry!!

WIFOM in front...

AtE in back.

Vote stays.

Zachrulez · Post Post #367 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:17 pm

RayFrost wrote:He responded.

I didn't like his response.

I thus am hounding him.

I'm not complaining. I'm glad your vote is on him. I'm just somewhat amused because of the exchange we had prior to your vote.

Pomegranate · Post Post #368 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:17 pm

RayFrost wrote:
Peabody wrote:My post was surely an accident. It wouldn't make sense for me as mafia to blatantly misrepresent somebody. I'm sorry, I just got Alamaster and Looker confused.

I truly am trying to scumhunt. I apologize to the town, for if you lynch me, I just hurt the town. Sorry!!
WIFOM in front...

AtE in back.

Vote stays.

Exactly.

RayFrost · Post Post #369 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:18 pm

Zachrulez wrote:
RayFrost wrote:He responded.

I didn't like his response.

I thus am hounding him.
I'm not complaining. I'm glad your vote is on him. I'm just somewhat amused because of the exchange we had prior to your vote.

You are amused that I kept my word on it?

fun.

Zachrulez · Post Post #370 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:18 pm

What stopped you from making sure Looker actually wrote the posts you found to be contradictory Peabody?

Peabody · Post Post #371 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:21 pm

Well then, there's not much I can do to defend myself. If someone wants to be constructive and ask me questions, I would rather that happen. What I'm seeing right now is

you are obviously scum, so I'm closing my ears to everything you say

. Several people did mention my misrepresentation could be a mistake. Now all of a sudden, I can't get a benefit of the doubt?

Also my defense is not WIFOM. Mafia would have NOTHING to gain by doing what I did unless they want to lose the game. If it is WIFOM, I honestly believe this claim MUST be considered.

I'm amused by how fast certain people jumped on my bandwagon.

Peabody · Post Post #372 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:22 pm

Zachrulez wrote:What stopped you from making sure Looker actually wrote the posts you found to be contradictory Peabody?

I never thought to make sure it was Looker because in my head, it was him. Dumb mistake, I know.

Pomegranate · Post Post #373 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:22 pm

Peabody wrote:Well then, there's not much I can do to defend myself. If someone wants to be constructive and ask me questions, I would rather that happen. What I'm seeing right now is
you are obviously scum, so I'm closing my ears to everything you say
. Several people did mention my misrepresentation could be a mistake. Now all of a sudden, I can't get a benefit of the doubt?

Whoa. Didn't expect this much AtE.

canadianbovine · Post Post #374 (ISO) » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:25 pm

Peabody wrote:Well then, there's not much I can do to defend myself. If someone wants to be constructive and ask me questions, I would rather that happen. What I'm seeing right now is
you are obviously scum, so I'm closing my ears to everything you say
. Several people did mention my misrepresentation could be a mistake. Now all of a sudden, I can't get a benefit of the doubt?

Also my defense is not WIFOM. Mafia would have NOTHING to gain by doing what I did unless they want to lose the game. If it is WIFOM, I honestly believe this claim MUST be considered.

I'm amused by how fast certain people jumped on my bandwagon.

which people are you amused by?