In post 518, Jal wrote:
1.
I've already proven it took you ten posts and 2 1/2 days to prove your statistics. It was not addressed immediately. I don't need to "believe" you. I've already proven, with
facts
, that you didn't.
And I still maintain that you would not have believed any proof so offered until you took the time to check it yourself, or someone checked it independantly. Something you refuse to address I must point out.
I have also not argued since you posted games that I don't believe you, yet you are trying to fabricate that I am.
That would be after Jake's post that he went and checked. I maintain that you would not have believed me regardless until you or someone else checked. Evidence suggests that Jake checking is what stopped your arguing, not me posting anything.
2.
"What exactly do you find scum worry about relative to town, Baby? (corrected)
I looked through several your past games. You don't bring up statistics, at least not in the 10+ games I looked at. If you aren't bringing up statistics, then how can you gauge the reaction to someone asking for proof and being adamant to you proving it to be a scum reaction?[/i]
I know, since I said: "I've played under a couple of names here,
Why yes, it is a recent thing. It grew out of a specific game. And as I repeatedly said, it was a tool to give me a place to look, not a place to vote. You seem hung up on that big time.
Scum worry about being caught. Scum worry about not knowing or understanding why they got caught. If you don't know why or understand why it's kind of hard to talk your way out of it.
This is the whole basis behind reaction fishing.
To put it in simple terms.
My vote worried you. You don't understand the reason for it. Therefor you argue a non-point to death to try and talk your way out of it.
Why I wanted to look at a specific wagon at a specific size is a complete null point. You're harping on about it is a scum reaction. You're misrepresentation of the facts surrounding it is a scum reaction.
Or am I confused and you're talking about your use of the word strange?
I looked at that too. You barely use the word strange in games. We're talking 0-2 mentions a game, and more to the tune of "strange choice" regarding a night action. Of the few times you used strange several times? You're scum. You were cult in
Stars Aligned III, which seems to be the equivalent to mafia for that game and your were a traitor cop in
Secret Society Mafia.
You need to look at other games under another name. Wait, didn't I suggest that already?
Either way, you don't employ the former tactic, and of the rare occasion you more consistently employ the second you're scum.
At least you're finally doing some work to support your statements. But you have more work to do.
I'll give you a hint though. It does seem to happen more when I'm snarky.
3 & 4.
I will repeat myself.
I was the second vote on Lurker, which effectively started the wagon rolling. You had to read my "bull shit misrepresentation" post first before two more people hopped on. If you felt my post and vote were scummy and bullshit, you didn't need a statistic.
It doesn't make sense for you to look at the wagon first and THEN look at who is scum on it.
Why doesn't it make sense?
Next, I want you to show case how "Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets" is a statistic. Also, how it actually related to the topic at hand (how it's acceptable at face value).
It must be.
In post 458, Jal wrote:One is a statistic which you used as a basis to vote and one isn't. I'll let you figure it which is which and how they're different.
My reason for voting you is purely your scummy action, followed by further scummy actions which keep my vote there.
mHork is one of those easy targets and until he does something truly scummy I won't be voting for him. Not for being Mhork anyway.
Since "lord Mhork is one of those easy targets" is the only one of those two statements you mentioned that is actually affecting my vote, then it must be a statistic. I don't see it myself but it's your words that say it not mine.
