drk: i felt your self vote came well after the rvs. the pregame to this seemed more like an rvs than the actual start. i am confused on your stance of policy lynching CSL. if you were gambiting, what did your gambit tell you?
let's get that claim.
If you've actually read the topic, you would see there is a lot of reason to lynch DRK. He started off the game anxious for a lynch and has really offered no reason for us to believe he's town despite being at L-1 (he is at L-1, right?). Also....this is kind of gut, but his play in this game does not at all match his play as town in the game I played with him.Flareonage wrote:VOTE: Don_Johnson
There's no unvoting and I see no reason to lynch drk
Is a Day influenced by having an easy default policy lynch/random lynch better or worse than a day without? I say potentially worse. Theory-wise, I disagree. I'd rather that our competing wagons are on people that others find scummy, not random players. Pretty sure this is a null policy disagreement, though.manho wrote:is a random lynch better than a no lynch?
if random lynch is better, then we should get someone over the lynching criteria first.
The tone of a neutral "/confirm"? You should also be voting Juls, Elli, and me; and Annachie's confirm was only different in that it had a period at the end. I'm calling BS. And DRK does acknowledge that his attack, which he portrayed as serious, was abso-freaking-lutely ridiculous. Annachie's case on DRK looks good on scan, too. This doesn't preclude Elli scum at all; this is just more strongly scummy. I find it weird that Elli votes Annachie with just "didn't like his post at all" and no indication of the actual scumtells he found.DeathRowKitty wrote:Just the tone I got from it seemed scummy. I can see how you might disagree.
I beg to differ:DeathRowKitty wrote:I didn't want CSL policy lynched.Annachie wrote:It's also in part what you wanted CSL policy lynched for.
Yar, scumbag. Even if it was just to stir the pot - no. Just no. It feels like an "I acted scummy to increase the info and get us out of the RVS" excuse, which is usually, as I indicated, anDeathRowKitty wrote:Join our policy lynch wagon. It's more likely to get us somewhere than a wagon for Elli mixing up his games.SB wrote: Chu chu chu!
Vote: Elli
I'm on your policy lynch wagon. Do I get your vote for that?CSL wrote: Policy lynching will net you my vote. Do not try it.
Why do you read this as newb-scum as opposed to null-newb, please? Stupid =/= scummy (and I can't even tell that he's stupid, per se, any more than the average newbie).Ellibereth wrote:Flareonage wrote:I was gonna vote CSL and then I realized that I'm CSL /fail
VOTE: DRK
Partly random, partly OMGUSConfirm Vote: Flareonage
LOL @ that. What do you think I meant when I said Vaya's posts were scummy? Even I wouldn't be stupid enough to think "/confirm" is scummy, town or scum. Or do you think I expected no one to notice? Either way, your reaction to my vote is almost as ridiculous as my vote was in the first place.Plate wrote: DRK's comment about what little Vaya had posted being scummy when Vaya hadn't posted at all is hella scummy. Unvote; Vote: DRK. The response is even scummier. Yes, you can argue that not posting during the pregame is scummy (I'll remain unconvinced it's not among the weakest of scumtells, but that's a different story). You cannot argue that Vaya's posted little and what she's posted was scummy if all she posted was "/confirm". That's the most null thing a player could possibly post. You didn't say his lack of posting was scummy; you said the actual provided content is scummy. Misrep and the backpedal-wimpiness + sudden vote on attacker is majorly scummy.
Nah, you're reading it wrong. I am town, so adjust your reading accordingly.Plumegranate wrote: SB gives me gut scum feelings, probably really null.
...Plumegranate wrote:SB's admission to not have the balls for real scumhunting, which amusing, makes me frown. Seriously. I'm a girl and my other fruit is a girl. We have the balls.