Part 1:
Clearly you are only interested in jumping down my throat and posting a few thoughts on others. I am less interested in responding to some of what you are saying since it is blatently obvious.
1) If you can not find a point where Llama is leading the town, you haven't read the thread. It's VERY clear in the first 5 pages. Again, I see no reason to bring this up constantly as I said it isn't necessarily a scummy action.
2) You are spending an awful lot of time on me while you seem to give the larger wagon on DocPotter
On DocPotter
His quick hop off the syke wagon in Post 262 is rather odd.
I have 3 votes, and you spend two entire posts cramming the already posted points down everyone's throats, but you give less than 15 words to the bigger wagon. Why is that?
You only seem to care to incriminate me and you don't seem to contribute much to the other cases aside from Nul.
--------
Part 2:
The bolding she is referring to is in a post of his that she quoted: "If you show me something substantial and solid, I'm quite likely to vote with you."
It feels like he just admitting to the fact that he will ride coattails.
Ok so you clearly must believe this about everyone on the DocPotter wagon then. They have (assumed) been all convinced by one reason or another that was brought up that DP is scum. They they voted for DP. Many of them did not find NEW reasons to vote, but agreed with Llama's reasons. This is the VERY POINT i was making.
Are you saying that if there is a valid case against someone and I believe you have a point in voting for them that I can't agree and vote with you? Because you make this sound as if agreeing is an error. Also I'm not the only one who correctly read what I meant from that post. Pom just got confused.
This seems a bit overdefensive to me. Why are you so afraid of your meta?
Its as if you are word for word copying cases from other players. Clearly I wouldn't like my meta because I have few games in D1 and the only one (which I even noted ahead of time would create a bad case) was the game in which i was SK. You should have been able to see this. Don't act blind, you're smarter than that, I can tell.
You are jumping down his throat for evidence in this game that says you are scum when he already gave it to you.
I'm jumping down his throat for current evidence. That game is one single game, and I've said it a thousand times. Its too small of a sample size.
(Concerning that I Fence-Sat as town in another game, and its a bad habit of mine)
I don't like this assumption.
You don't like it because it doesn't help you rail on me. I've fence-sat similarly in other games, like I said its a bad habit.
sykedoc wrote:You're far scummier than Kairyuu. You're clearly manipulating the fact that nothing besides a single game of mine supports you. Your claims are weak.
Why don't you disprove them? Show where you did the same thing as town, rather than ranting and raving.
Claiming they are weak, without backup, is scummy.
You literally just said that it was a bad assumption that I bring up another game where I'm town and fence sit. I believe I even gave the name because its linked on my wiki. This point fails. I did disprove, if you didn't go look at it yourself thats your fault entirely.
sykedoc wrote:Some are on my wiki. I'm sure you knew that since you clearly dug through my game history anyway.
This is a horrid assumption to make.
Why is that? He's allowed to make a case based on one game and call it my entire meta but he can't go look through more than one game? Yeah, because I can prove statistically that I do something from a sample size of one rather than ten, that's logical. I told him where to go for the games. I would have to assume he looked at it since he clearly read my last game after I told him to check my wiki. He knows there's other games there, he seemed to have chosen not to read them.
So out of the other 23 people (excluding yourself and Anon), there's ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ELSE that you find scummy? You are just going to attack the person that's attacking you and vote them. My dear, that's THE DEFINITION of OMGUS.
I told why I found him scummy. I stated my reasons quite clearly and if you missed them you need to go back and check again. I didn't vote for Llama because he had a valid point. Anon's point is based on one thing and I do not like the way he is twisting a small amount of information in a desperate attempt to wagon me. I find this scummy. Sue me.
Along with AtE such as
sykedoc wrote:I'm going to put this game in big flashing lights on my meta so nobody can pull this crap on me again once it's over.
sykedoc wrote:I explained my reaction to five votes OVER AND OVER. You just don't care to listen.
WILL NOT HELP YOUR CASE
How is the second one AtE? I see the first one but the second one was a response to the same question being asked to me continuously. I have a right to be frustrated if I keep getting asked the same question and I'm continually forced to answer it.
While Anon's case is a nice addition, you have done more than your fair share of scummy things IN THIS GAME.
And he hasn't pointed them out. Which is what I've been asking him to do. If he wants to make a case against me it needs to at least have some grounding in this game. Post what you want, but until he has something on me in THIS GAME, the meta is just meta and nothing more.
So, how about you stop all this overemotional whatever the hell you have going on and actually scumhunt? There's like 5 pages of you whining and overreacting about being hammered when you only have 5 votes in a day when it takes 13 to lynch.
ITS HARD TO SCUMHUNT WHEN EVERYONE IS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS ALL DAY LONG. Don't go on making a two page post accusing me of this and that and expect me to ignore it and scumhunt, especially when you directly ask me questions in the post. I've been attempting to as now everyone is not asking me all questions all the time, but you're just bringing it back. Not only that but you're saying what everyone else already said.
Also allow me to point out how the rest of your post is still about me.
On DeathNote
DeathNote wrote:Meta wagons suck, yes, but this is not a meta wagon.
Syk
gained votes because of his attempt to active lurk. He stated early on that he had no reads yet and thus Llama pressured him to actually scum hunt. After a brief debate he finally posted a LoS, not a simply "Such-and-such is scummy" but a List of Suspicion! Thats when pressure rose and the meta case was brought up. Now he spams three posts at a time looking like scum caught on L-1 when he is still has at least 8 more votes to go.
He definitely has a point here about
syke.
On SaintKerrigan
The guy is way too quiet for me. He has 5 total posts in the game.
The
first is joke voting RayFrost.
The
second is QFTing a question asked by wolf.
The
third is telling us he's having a hard time getting his head around the game and that he doesn't have a post restriction. He also answers a question about PRs and posts an opinion on
sykedoc
:
SaintKerrigan wrote:I don't think it's odd that Sykedoc doesn't have much on people yet. It's early in Day 1 for a large game, and personally I don't have that much in the way of reads yet myself. Maybe other people are getting reads out of this, but I don't find it odd that some people haven't found much of anything yet.
It almost feels like buddying
.
I smell active lurking.
On DocPotter
His quick hop off the
syke
wagon in
Post 262 is rather odd.[/quote]
I feel these lats few opinions aren't even that contributory.
At the point on RayFrost you're not only rephrasing people's statements to repost them, you're just saying "yup he's right" and moving on.
With Saint, you essentially said "too quiet" and reposted his posts
With DocPotter you just kinda said "feels odd" and reposted his post.
You are clearly intent on forming a case on me. You don't seem to care about the others.
----
Part 3
Why did you respond to everything in my first catch up post, even if it wasn't directed at you? You just added a bunch of fluff for no reason, other than
I think you just wanted to look cool
.
Another habit of mine. If you are interested, why don't you go look? Its in my wiki. I'm not going to dig through my old games to make a point about something I don't believe is that important. While you're at it, was the bold line really necessary? I highly doubt it was.
Can you quit being so goddamn impatient and let me catch up? That'd be greatly appreciated.
I'm sorry I assumed when you wrote a
Catch Up
post, that you would have
Caught Up
Don't bother telling me you said you only caught up to that point. I saw that. I'm just wondering why you caught up halfway and then posted questions concerning things answered later in the thread. That's why it's not catching up until you're caught up. I just don't really feel like answering questions that have been discussed already when it's your job to read up to make sure it hasn't been asked.
sykedoc wrote:
I fix: He wasn't voting for you due to disagreeing with your policies. He was voting for you because you weren't contributing to scumhunting. He isn't voting for you anymore, so I might have to ask him if that is still the case rather than making assumptions.
I was trying to make the point that Llama voted for me because I wasn't contributing to scumhunting. You off the bat make the assumption that he agrees with the meta case. I'm not Llama I don't know. I was telling you that if you wanted to bring this up it would be best to ask Llama directly how he felt on the matter rather than making an assumption that he does.
I have read the thread. I didn't feel he was white knighting, so if you can kindly point out where he did so, I (and probably everyone else) would greatly appreciate it.
Its honestly in the first few pages. Leading up and until post 73,
The biggest example is here:
No one gets to be funny over PRs. Infact,
everyone need to say if they have one or not in their next post.
I do not have a post restriction. Yes fun is a part of the game, but fun that hurts the town is not a part of the game.
Bolded for emphasis.
Again, for the 100th time I'm concerned about why you're bothering with it as I've said time and time again that its null. It doesn't lean to either side.
Obviously, you have never played with me before. I post my thoughts as I catch up. You telling me to read everything as response to any of my questions is scummy. Why don't you just respond instead of going out of your way to be nasty?
It isn't scummy. Don't tell me you're caught up (but only halfway) and then ask me questions discussed two pages after where you stopped. I don't think this is efficient. It wastes valuable time when you could simply go and finish reading before asking. Its really like if someone with a working watch asks you for the time. I'd tell them to look at their watch because it's right there. Same goes for you. The posts are right there, I requested you to look at them because you were asking me for something that was there in front of you.
Again, I note that you only seem to be interested in attacking me.
FoS
Starbuck
Its not the fact that you are trying to build a case its the way you're going about it:
1) You spent a little time on nul, but you spent two walls of text yelling at me and asking questions.
2) This doesn't seem to be an original case. This is a Frankenstein case comprised of points from many other people. I don't feel that any of the points you raised in those two walls of text were your own. I feel you were repeating points to make yourself look like you had a better case.
3) You don't seem to bat an eye when something has already been discussed and dealt with. You actually continue on with it (such as the white knighting bit) despite the fact that its either obvious, or not relevant.
4)You play 20 questions and then ask why I'm not doing something else. If you want me doing something else stop asking questions.
5) Even with the reposting of points, you don't seem to add a lot of meaningful content ON to said points. You seem to either be agreeing with them flat out, or saying the same thing in different words.
