Mini #367: Endgame'd

[Thestatusquo]

I think he was referring to elias and luna.

[spectrumvoid]

I just reread what I said earlier, and I think I should clarify. I mostly believe the reason why Elias posted in some games and not here, because I'm also guilty of that. Addition: And I don't see Elias being hyper-defensive or anything. But I am suspecting the coincidence. Hope that clears it up.

[lunalovegood]

Unvote, vote Elias

because of his timing and everything else TSQ said in post 271.

[Arafax]

I think he was referring to elias and luna.

That is correct...I'm also an over-poster to most people, so I need more posts from everyone...Sorry, just my playstyle.

[Elias_the_thief]

No, I'm not stretching. Lets look at the timetable here:

1) I point out we might need to prod you.

2) You immediately post for the first time in days, almost immediately after being called out, saying that you haven't had time to play much mafia, and that somehow explains your abscense from the game, which it would, it it were true, and in the meantime call my motives into question by stating there are 'people lurking much worse than you' This all seems a bit overdefensive seeing as I never used the word lurker, but rather enquired if we ought to prod you.

3) I politely enquire who has been lurking more than you, considering everyone has posted way more than you recently.

4) You respond by trying to shift the blame to luna, who admittedly, could be scum, but I think it's more likely a distancing technique, and saying that well...She's not posting content. This is inconsistant with your earlier claim that a) there are MANY of "them", and b) That "they" are lurking.

5)I point out that it isn't true that you have no time for mafia, because you've been posting in other threads, thus proving your claim a lie. I also point out that everyone else has posted at least 2-3x as much as you have recently, thus proving your claim of worse lurkers to also be false.

6) You respond by questioning my motives in looking at other threads

(for future reference, I didn't, I can see when you are the last person to post in a given section, lets say little italy for one, I go in, to check to see if someone has posted in this game, notices you haven't, but have instead posted in the thread right above it. but ALSO, people frequently check out other players games, both previous and current, in order to get a better read on them. It's called meta gaming.)

instead of responding to the fact that your two earlier claims have been proven wrong, and you responded to a thead that you hadn't responded to in days after a period of about an hour after being mentioned, proving you have been checking the thread frequently.

ok. First off: I carefully explained that i have been busy for several days before you posted that. After I finished all my homework the night of said starcraft mafia post, i was going to breiefly check responses to see if anything of worth had been posted. At this point my father yelled at me that he needed to use the computer. At this point i had ONLY HAD TIME TO CHECK STARCRAFT MAFIA. The only reason i posted there was because 1)our mod had posted a post or be modkilled message, and 2) it would only take 30 seconds to respond. So, that is the reason behind my post on starcraft mafia and not here. you can check it yourself if you wish.

secondly: the thing you call "shifting the blame to luna" was in response to your inquiry about who was lurking worse than me. When I said that, still hadnt gotten around to reading the previous and most recent page. to the best of my knowledge, there still were worse lurkers than me, besides luna. i admit it was stupid to respond before reading the most recent posts, but I can't undo that now.

thirdly: I have always been a very defensive player. I havent been playing too long so i cant show you many examples of this, but if you check newbie 255 you will find that i was lynched as a townie because i was being overdefensive. im not going to change my playstyle just like that, even if i do get lynched because of it.

[lunalovegood]

Unvote

because I'm happy with what elias said.

[spectrumvoid]

removes FOS

What can I say? In the first place, I don't even think Elias was being over-defensive. The frustration in his last post seems genuine, not an emo scum-tell. Also, I didn't really have a strong argument for him.

Someone in another game told me removing an FOS was scummy. But I still don't understand why.

[Wuffles_II]

Someone is really stupid, then.

Whats scummy is keeping your vote on someone over and above the time they satisfactorily defended themselves against the accusations.

That statement is only a general one, and has nothing to do with this game, in advance.

PBPA going up soon. Man, I have the attention span of a goldfish this week :p

[Norinel]

I can't say anyone's ever removed an FOS in a game I was in, mostly because they don't have any actual game effect so most people just sort of forget about them if they don't turn into a vote. Removing one does call attention to the fact that you laid one in the first place, but I'm not sure how that could be scummy.

You've been working on that PBPA since Sunday? Impressive.

[Primate]

Wufflesstillsux Vote Count

Thestatusquo -

2

- (Norinel, Lowell)
Wuffles -

2

- (Ziliu, CDB)
Elias -

1

(TSQ)

6 to do what must be done.

[Elias_the_thief]

removing a fos is scummy? definately never heard that on before. ill have more to say after i see that PBPA from wuffles.

[Thestatusquo]

Wuffles has been promising a PBPA for like...3 pages.

[Arafax]

Wuffles has been promising a PBPA for like...3 pages.

Yeah, what's with that Wuffles?....I have heard that removing an FOS is scummy too, but I disagree with it....I think placing and removing FOS's are good for the game IMO.

[Elias_the_thief]

Wuffles has been promising a PBPA for like...3 pages.

yeah, thats true, its been a while. but he said it was going up soon. it filled me with hope. probably false hope.

[Wuffles_II]

Erg...arg...

Ok, seriously, the PBPA will be going up TONIGHT.

I keep getting distracted by shiny assignments and stuff.

[spectrumvoid]

MBL told me removing an FOS is scummy. Because it draws attention to you not thinking the person is scummy. I was like, huh? I thought it'd be obvious from what I comment on anyway. Oh well, I'll continue this discussion somewhere in the tactics thread if I remember to do it since it's really bugging me.

Nothing has gone on. Like everyone else, I eagerly await Wuffles's PBPA with bated breath.

[Lowell]

SV- I agree with you about FOSs. A person's reasoning for removing an FOS can be every bit as illuminating as their reasons having them in the first place. People who have opinions and are not afraid of them are, IMO, useful for the town.

I, too, eagerly await Wuffles' much-hyped epic. Has anyone bought the movie rights yet?

[Wuffles_II]

1.

Pretty sure that warrants a

FOS: Elias the thief

are you lunas scumbuddy?

2.

Erm.

FOS: Anyone who doesn't have a sense of humor

Also, though, Luna, that was awfully defensive for one random vote on day one. Maybe my vote is good where I have it.

3.

unvote, vote Elias.

Ah, the fateful –1 to hammah vote placed on Elias. I think this was just a stupid play on TSQ’s behalf, and that it does not reflect his alignment. My view of this almost certainly will not change.

4.

think that much pressure on somebody is not deserved if you don't have a reason. And that quick and very apologetic unvote seems fishy too. What I'm saying is, maybe not so much the quick unvote, (I would probably have quickly unvoted if it really was true that I didn't realise he was one from a lynch) but more the apologetic excuse seems like a slight over-reaction. Anyway, it deserves a vote.

This makes no sense. You say that had you not realized he was 1 from lynch, you would have done the same thing I did, but you wouldn't have stated your reasons, which is all my 'overly apologetic unvote' was? Stated reasons. In fact, nowhere in my unvote did I do anything remotely apologetic. I just unvoted, and explained why. You then go ahead and place a vote on me for something 'you would have done yourself.'

Keeping in mind you've been lurking, and your first post on the page is just a bandwagon hop restating others reasons, and using crap logic, I think it warrants a

FOS: Ziliu[/b

Here, TSQ justifies his FOS of Ziliu for being a lurker.

5.

Lurking is more conducively discussed in terms of time between posts, not the number of pages. This thread has been open 8 days, and this is the first time he has posted. Your defense is noted, however.

Just to note here – Lurking is more suspicious later on in the game. I feel TSQ’s reasons here were kind of bad, this early in the game.

The next few posts are of TSQ eventually coming to the conclusion that Zilias HAD posted more than once, with a few prods from CDB and I.

6.

I will admit that what I did looked scummy, but that's because I wasn't aware of the vote count, and what I like to do day one is form wagons to gain information. I unvoted when I realized that he was one from lynch, which was not 'backpeddling' or 'over apologetic' as some seem to think, but was the right play.

I'll claim if you want, but like... It was really just a stupid mistake on my part.

I don’t think this is wrong at all. Stupid mistakes happen at 4AM. Incidentally, I’m posting this right now at 5AM, NZ time. So much stuff is going on right now.

7.

perhaps you felt that i was lurking after a total absense of less than a day? what exactly was the reasoning behind joining that wagon in the first place.

MAFIA 101 FOR ELIAS BECAUSE HE'S AN IDIOT: Day one is random. In order to stimulate discussion, people form bandwagons, because they force reactions. That was the justification for joining the wagon. The same justification EVERY OTHER PERSON ON IT HAD. Sorry everyone, this may seem a bit defensive, but it really isn't. I'm just frustrated that this is the third time I've had to explain this.

signifigant pressure for what? you must have noticed at least that i had 3 votes on me already, and that's certainly enough to require a response from me. what was the point of another vote at all?

The tail end of this has been covered above. But additionally, ZOMGURSTUPID Have you not read the entire last page of the thread, which has been devoted to discussing the relative truth or untruth of my statement that I did not know I was putting you one from lynch?

Additionally, since I have already offered to claim if need be, your further attacking me is meaningless unless you're trying to get a concensus to overrule wuffles.

Those last two votes struck me as wrong, as they seem quite a bit more defensive from Elias then would be normal seeing as he is no longer under significant pressure, and the points he is raising have already been discussed. Am I right here, or am I way off?

Whilst overly abrasive, I felt that this reply as somewhat justified, in that too much emphasis was being placed on the –1 to hammah vote.

8.

Uh...Elias, I think I responded to your main point pretty well.

@ Wuffles. Conceded, sorry for misunderstanding.

@

First of all, yes, maybe I've been lurking, depends how you choose to define lurking. But if I've been lurking, many many more people in this game have been lurking.

But I do acknowledge that you have a point in your defense. I probably was a bit unclear, but what I was trying to convey was that it was not so much the unvote in itself which my scumdar pinged on, but more the tone of the post in which the unvote was contained. Call it a hunch.

Then you say that I just bandwagon restating others' opinions. Well, I have to say that I consider that better than very blatantly bandwagonning someone to lynch minus one without stating any reaons whatsoever.

I won't like a claim from you though. Not yet. Though I'm curious to hear what others think about thestatusquo.

While it's true that many others haven't been posting (

mod note: Can we get prods, please?

I find the kind of lurking where you post without saying much to be far more likely to be a sign of a good scum player.

And no, it's not better, because while mine was a mistake, yours was a very calculated move, which makes it more suspicious in my eyes.

TSQ’s first of many prods at Ziliu’s suspicious scummy lurkerish play.

9.

Uh, no, I'm still happy with my vote where it is

K.

Ahem, back to business. Well, with this TSQ stuff cleared up, lets put some pressure on the lurkers, eh?

Vote: Luna.

I'm actually happy with not voting at the moment. My biggest suspect is elias still, based off of his extremely defensive reactions.

I could be persuaded to go lurker hunting. But only for Ziliu.

I found this post quite suspicious – if you’re only willing to condemn one lurker, then it’s not “lurker hunting” its “Ziliu hunting” – a TSQ-sponsored sport, apparently.

10.

And Because Zilziu is like a lurker second class. He popped up once, jumped on a bandwagon, and has disapeared since. So he's a lurker + suspicious.

Continuing on the Ziliu Campaign.

11.

K. So. That's your only response after not posting anything since your overly defensive begining to day one, and saying you didn't see anything at all by page 4? Not good enough. Not good enough at all.

unvote, vote lunalovegood

This puts her at three. See, I learned my lesson.

TSQ changes to the Luna Lurker vote – as she is not saying anything nor making any opinions clear.

12, 13

luna is obv scum.

Yeah, you're scum.

:wtf: - TSQ has no basis for this other than that Luna hasn’t jumped into any arguments at this point.

14.

Hey, Ziliu. If you're going to mislead the town, I would suggest that you do it by NOT POSTING CONTENT THAT PROVES YOU WRONG IN YOUR OWN CASE. Kthx bye.

[what]made you change your mind?

Well, maybe THIS:
1)

That's your only response after not posting anything since (insert last post here.)

2)

saying you didn't see anything at all by page 4?

3) and that's her only response to being called out is a determined refusal to be productive.


So. Three responses, WITHIN your last post that tell you why I voted her, aside from lurker hunting. If you had ANY patience at all. you'd have noticed that I said a POST EARLIER that I was making up my case, and planning to post it after class.

I reiterate. Learn to read.

TSQ, at this point, jumps back on Ziliu. Not entirely unfounded, I must say.

15.

Ziliu, I never said I was sure you were scum at all. In fact, I never even voted you. Nice job with the improvement of the reading skills, though, because I didn't change my vote after norinel voted, but instead after luna refused to respond to the case against her. I did so with a plethora of reasons that you've already admitted I supplied, and a warning to others where she was in the lynch count. What exactly was scummy about it?

However:

Okay here you go a complete sentance happy? And

vote: TheStatusQuo

because you all said to make a decision and that is mine and i know this is going to get a ton of complaints but that is my opinion.

No mafia, already under suspicion would OMGUS as blatantly as she just did, so I am very inclined to believe in her noobness right now. So,

unvote

and we'll see what happens from here

Agreed, Luna is a noob.

16.

Your overiding problem that doesn't allow you to answer anything I said in my last post?


ALSO,

FOS: CDB

Thats a horrible plan...For town anyway.

TSQ calls out CDB on his stupid no lynch comment. Fair enough.

17, 18, 19

Yeah, but I'm town, and therefore not the best for today. Please outline, other than the -1 lynch, which has been extensively covered, what you find scummy about me? I can't defend myself against..."You know...He just feels scummy."

The 'accident' that you keep mentioning IS the defense. It was a day one wagon to put pressure, I didn't know how close to lynch she was.

Guys, this is distracting us. I am town, we need to focus on finding scum. Since I am not scum, all you guys are doing is throwing out red herrings. Perhaps you're scum trying to push a lynch on a town, or perhaps you're just a bad town player, but either way, you're not helping the town by focusing on me like this.

The ZOMG post. Very, very bad. Wuffles vote j00 bad.

20.

<snip>
1. hypocrisy: Accusing me of bandwagonning when you do the same without giving reasons

-Ok, fair point. I didn't think of it that way. I'm still not scum, though.

2. Vote-hopping (from me to luna) and accusing people left and right, probably to get attention off yourself

Let me repeat this, because you still seem to be inable to read. I NEVER VOTED YOU. EVER. I FOSd YOU BUT I NEVER EVER VOTED YOU. Everyone has been pointing out what they find suspicious. That's how this game is played. I have shown why I thought Luna was scummy, and now I tend to think that she's 'too scummy to be scummy' So I'm not voting atm, waiting for something scummy to come up.

3. Desperately using non-arguments (I'm town, you should be focused on scum) to try to draw attention on oneself.

That is because up until now I had not heard any argument against me besides "HE PUT HIM ONE FROM LYNCH LOLz." So I was inclined to believe it was scum throwing out red herrings, and focusing on a moderately scummy thing I did accidentally to force a bad lynch. You just actually posted reasoning, which makes me inclined to believe you're not scum. Not sure about CDB though.

In general, I feel that you have very strongly played to get focus elsewhere without addressing the points made against you.

I have responded to every point made against me.

And instead rely on an aggressive attitude and tone in your post towards other players to ridicule to put everyone who's trying to say anything against you in a bad light. Which, IMHO, is not pro-town behaviour.

My style is a little bit abbrasive and rude. I find that this gets the most reaction out of people, and helps me judge scum the best. It is not by any means 'a non pro town' style. Like, there are some rediculous styles, Lordy in scum chat just basically shouts "I'M SCUM." over and over again, so I don't think you can accuse me based soley off my playstyle. It seems to me like it would be the same regardless of like...what role I have. :rolleyes:

It’s true, Ziliu. TSQ has never voted you.

21. CLAIM

I am a bog standard townie. I win with the town. Pretty vanilla guys. *shrug*

Okay, sure. No way of proving/disproving you till tonight, assuming we have a cop.

22.

@CDB. My claim is what my pm says I am. I'd be willing to be any other vanilla can confirm it.


@Wuffles. I already posted defenses, but people did not believe them. I got frustrated, and thats what came out.

@Everyone. Vote for me if you like, I'm town, but vanilla, so voting me might not be a terrible play, certainly better than lynching power, or even outing power. But mafia would be better. *shrug*

I don’t like the emo tones of this post – self-defeating posts are never the correct play as town.

23.

@ arafax:

In posts #9, #115, #118 TSQ says these "you're obvioulsy scum" type posts...What is that?...You're not claiming cop because you said it about multiple people...So, what is that all about?

Perhaps you should stop editing which posts of mine you use, and pay attention to 140, where I most def said this:

And wuffles, that's my response to the request. All my reasons typed out. (I like to say things like "she's scum obv." in order to get someone posting, not necessarily because I'm sure. I thought the jokng nature of that tone of voice was easy to pick out. I guess I was wrong.)

Yeah...So like why are you only paying attention to some of my posts in order to make me look more scummy then I am?

In post #11 you make a statement about Elias & Luna being scum buddies?...What the heck are you doing?

Yeah...Pretty easy to understand based off of the fact it was RANDOMVOTINGSTAGElolz and I was just throwing random suspicions or half suspicions out, just like everyone does.

In post #18 you call Luna on lurking...It's still the random stage and many have not even posted yet, but you're bringing out lurking already?.

Yeah, my post 18 was directed at norinel, and I think you'll find it makes much more sense not through your distorted context if you read her previous post. kthxbi

In post #48, did you then post that he wasn't lurking?...I'm confused.

Well, admitting you're confused is the first intellegent thing you've done in this thread, because that post was directed about ZILIU, and was in the middle of a drawn out discussion with CDB...Like...Do you just read through the thread and pick out things that look scummy out of context?

Post #85 you say that you'll go lurker hunting, but only for Zuilu...What's that all about?

Well like...This might be understandable, considering you've asked me this before. I say MIGHT because I already answered it in post 88

And Because Zilziu is like a lurker second class. He popped up once, jumped on a bandwagon, and has disapeared since. So he's a lurker + suspicious.

AND you hadn't ANSWERED ME IN A MANNER THAT SEEMED LIKE YOU AGREED WITH ME IN 89!!!!!!!

And Because Zilziu is like a lurker second class. He popped up once, jumped on a bandwagon, and has disapeared since. So he's a lurker + suspicious.

Sounds good enough for me.

Wuffles, whats with the "rawrs?"...You only use them sometimes, I see?

So now we get to the meet. You just completely made up a case against me. Like. Not any of it was even close to being relevant, and not only that, you said you found me suspicious for something you said you agreed with me on. Like...I don't see how what you just did could be pro-town behavior. A pro-town does not need to invent a case, ignoring contrary information in the thread like you just did. So it warrants a

vote: Arafax

Guys will probably jump on me for OMGUS voting, but I'm not. I'm not voting ziliu, wuffles or CDB, because they have at least attempted to use logic in pushing for my lynch, arafax did not.

Yeah, it really does seem like Arafax wants TSQ dead.

24.

No, it's not rediculous. When looking through a thread to build a case, you look at every single post a person makes, and see how it affects your case. At least that's what I do, wuffles. I'm not saying that he needs to post/read posts of mine which are referring to naked girls being pushed past my dorm room, but if he is going to call me out, he should at least read the posts that are directly contradicting what he's saying. Not doing so is skimming, and just attempting to make me look bad, which is not something town would do. If town was building a case and saw "Hmmm... I'm not really right about any of this" you would assume they would stop building the case. That's not what arafax did.

I can buy the confusion shtick up to a point. And that point is where he says he finds me suspicious for something he not only had a conversation with me about, but agreed with me about. That is uber scummy behavior, folks.

This post reeked of truth. No emo attempts to get the town on-side, just fact.

25.

I'm not sold pon wuffles, though you do bring up a good point. I think what Arafax did was pretty damn scummy.

QFT.

26.

That's just the point. Nice strawman falacy, though. No one said you should post non scummy posts. We're saying if there are posts that contradict you, you shouldn't post such a case.

QFT again.

27.

I think two things are rather interesting:

One, obviously I still think Arafax is the play, and two, has anyone noticed how luna has not posted at all since she stopped being in the center of attention?

Wuffles is interesting, I'm going to re-read all his posts tonight, and see if he doesn't strike me as scummier than arafax, but I doubt it because arafax is looking really scummy to me.

Restatement of intent. Fair enough.

28.

Also,

unvote, vote wuffles

that's the exact opposite of what you said before.

He's two from lynch guys, proceed with caution.

Right. Jump on the wuffle-wagon.

29.

Lowel, I posted a response to everyone who has raised points against me. Arafax, I think I very well showed why I thought they were scummy, and luna I didn't say she was scummy, I said she hadn't posted since the attention came off of her. Both these statements are true, and unscummy.

I voted wuffles based off of this post:

TSQ, one thing Arafax has done consistantly is post his reasons.

The fact that he places FAAAAR too much emphasis on your -1 to hammah vote right near the start is irrelevant.

But he just needs to realize that it would be beyond stupid, BEYOND retarded, hell, even beyond WIFOM for a mafioso to DELIBERATELY put anyone at -1 to lynch that early in the game.

It would not serve a mafioso any good at all to do so - just look at how much scrutiny TSQ has come under since he did that - He's now going to have to be absolutely on his game for the rest of Primate Mafia, alignment be damned.

From this point on, I really feel that anyone who points fingers at TSQ because of that should be regarded with suspicion. Putting someone at lynch -1 is just not something anyone, regardless of alignment, would deliberately do.

rawr!

Which seems kind of strange considering that he was just asking people to hammer me based on the same things he's attacking here. I also found his post about "If he isn't the play we should go...x" To be scummy, especially considering it was on someone on the same wagon as he is. That isn't enough for the vote?

Yeah, he didn’t bother to note that I never advocated voting for him based upon his –1 to hammah vote on page 2…

30.

You know wuffles. You're right. I had thought you were on my wagon because of the -1 lynch thing, but going back and re-reading, I can't seem to find you post any reasons EVER. Just a vague agreement with channeldelibird, and a comment about my playstyle. That's it in the sense of reasons. Don't quite know how I missed that before, because they you were willing to have someone hammer me, and you hadn't even posted reasons to be voting me.

Bullshit. I voted you because you were going emo.

31.

I tend to agree with you norinel, unless we can assure scum, which I don't think we can, I am probably the best play for the town at this stage.

Again with the EMO. This is not how a townie would normally act – yet, often, TSQ’s posts make a great deal of sense. It’s like, he goes emo with the ZOMG post or the “wow, I AM the best play, kill me” posts, and then, when I call him out, he goes back to solid-seeming logical defences of other parts that I was suspicious of. It just makes my reactions toward TSQ far more suspicious.

32.

How the hell have I presented 0 effective defense? I have responded to every point brought against me.

As to 'having given up' It's true. I'm town, but just vanilla. I feel like it's the best play to kill me then risk outing a power role.

Sigh, TSQ, outing a power role is much less dangerous than myslynching a townie in a 12-player game…especially when 2 townies are already NK’ed/MK’ed.

Bad logic gets you killed.

33

Who exactly is more lurking than you, Elias? Everyone has posted at least 2 times since you have.

34.

Yes, you have been absent for several days, which is rather interesting because I have seen you post several times on starcraft mafia.

Also, at least luna is contributing to the conversation, which is more than you're doing.

AGAIN with the friggin lurker hunting.

Well, at least he’s consistant.

35.

No, I'm not stretching. Lets look at the timetable here:

1) I point out we might need to prod you.

2) You immediately post for the first time in days, almost immediately after being called out, saying that you haven't had time to play much mafia, and that somehow explains your abscense from the game, which it would, it it were true, and in the meantime call my motives into question by stating there are 'people lurking much worse than you' This all seems a bit overdefensive seeing as I never used the word lurker, but rather enquired if we ought to prod you.

3) I politely enquire who has been lurking more than you, considering everyone has posted way more than you recently.

4) You respond by trying to shift the blame to luna, who admittedly, could be scum, but I think it's more likely a distancing technique, and saying that well...She's not posting content. This is inconsistant with your earlier claim that a) there are MANY of "them", and b) That "they" are lurking.

5)I point out that it isn't true that you have no time for mafia, because you've been posting in other threads, thus proving your claim a lie. I also point out that everyone else has posted at least 2-3x as much as you have recently, thus proving your claim of worse lurkers to also be false.

6) You respond by questioning my motives in looking at other threads

(for future reference, I didn't, I can see when you are the last person to post in a given section, lets say little italy for one, I go in, to check to see if someone has posted in this game, notices you haven't, but have instead posted in the thread right above it. but ALSO, people frequently check out other players games, both previous and current, in order to get a better read on them. It's called meta gaming.)

instead of responding to the fact that your two earlier claims have been proven wrong, and you responded to a thead that you hadn't responded to in days after a period of about an hour after being mentioned, proving you have been checking the thread frequently.


So heres the list of scummy things you just did (aka just read this part if you want to know the condensed reason for my vote, see above for more in depth stuff.)

- Overdefensive reaction to being mentioned as needing a prod.
- Proved that you have been watching the thread carefully enough to be able to post an hour after being mentioned.
- Shifting the blame, (wrongly) to luna.
- Were proved lying about 'the many people' 'lurking' which turned out to be luna posting more than you.
- Were proved wrong about not having any time for mafia.
- Instead of responding to all that, you question my metagaming in an attempt to once again shift the blame off of you and on to me.


And that was in the sequence of a few posts. I think it more than warrants an

Unvote, Vote: Elias

Number of people TSQ hasn’t attacked – one fewer.

Now. Must sleep.

Someone else do me, fax, and CDB please. I’m so damn tired

Hope I've been detailed enough.

Finish: 5:20AM. Sleep time ^_^

[ChannelDelibird]

I, too, eagerly await Wuffles' much-hyped epic. Has anyone bought the movie rights yet?

I'm already working on the soundtrack.

/waits for wuffles

[Wuffles_II]

HAHA, SARNATH'D j00!

Night all.

[ChannelDelibird]

Oh ferchrissake, I had to simulpost that, didn't I.

[Arafax]

Wow, I vote for Wuffles to be nominated in the Scummies for the longest post ever.

I still don't think that TSQ is scum, which is what Wuffle's post mainly says IMO...It kinda sucks that we've been at this for 12 pages and really have gotten no where.

CDB, why no comment after you were waiting for Wuffles and then you didn't post anything of content when he did post?...That just seems weird to me.

[Elias_the_thief]

ok. that was not really as useful as I had hoped. I already knew about all the points you addressed.

[Wuffles_II]

Yeah.

As I said, TSQ really has been all over the place, in terms of logical sense and in terms of attacking people.

That's why I keep changing my mind on him - because he's so damn hard to read.

Wow, I vote for Wuffles to be nominated in the Scummies for the longest post ever.

Well, I had to show that I was really working these last three pages, lawl

[spectrumvoid]

*gives wuffles a cookie*

Interesting. I'll do a PBPA on Afarax, because I currently can't get a read on him so it'll be good for me.