I have defended myself against the exact same
I begin games by behaving "off-the-wall" just as often as I begin games with cutthroat logic. If you'd like me to cite examples, just ask. I'm perfectly willing to do so.
Same. I voted for you early on, then I'm like, 'nah, that's just glork.' I'm not getting that impression anymore.ibaesha wrote:I totally cut you a break for the initial off the wall behavior because I know that.
Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:FoS: Glrok
Confirm vote: MBL
Sesame Street Mafia -- focused, completely unfounded, relentless attack on one playerSave The Dragons wrote:Please do so. Your play is looking a lot different from other games I am in with you.
No.Glork wrote:Sesame Street Mafia -- focused, completely unfounded, relentless attack on one playerSave The Dragons wrote:Please do so. Your play is looking a lot different from other games I am in with you.
Snakes on a Plane Mafia -- general ridiculousness for the entire day that I lived in that game. Probably the most absurd I've ever behaved in a D1. Wagon-pushing, lynch-mongering, shameless unfounded accusations.
Choose Someone Else's Role Mafia -- More general ridiclousness. Shameless trolling and spamming. Comment made on how I plan on hopping/starting as many wagons as I possibly can.
Newbie 254, to a lesser extent. Deliberate unorthodox, confusing behavior -- intended to spur reactions from other players
Mafia 54 -- focused, vehement attack on a single player, with shaky basis and shameless wagon-mongering
There. Happy?
Nightson wrote:Glork, I knew you (cause your Glork) and Phoebus were already scum but you could at least pretend to hide it.
bizarre humorous out of place suckup x 2, accompanied by no content whatsoever == solid scum lead.Nightson wrote:Z0/\/\G! Scu/\/\m0rz!!1!Glork wrote:This quickly seems to becoming one of those "I can't say anything right" situations.
Jokes aren't scummy MBL.MrBuddyLee wrote:So that statement implies that you don't find Nightson's two comments cracking jokes about your scumminess the least bit suspicious. Got it.
In my book, one such comment might be ignorable, two is significant.
Glork wrote::badposting:Nightson wrote:unvote, vote: Phoebus
DEAR EVERYBODY PLZ KILL THIS GUY KTHXBAI
Glork wrote:I was thinking that I had voted Nightson before, and not Bogre.
Alright, so you thought you were voting Nightson and saw some reason (apparently his vote of Phoebus) and decided you wanted Nightson dead. Once you realized that you weren't voting Nightson, why didn't you change your vote then? Did he suddenly not need to be deaded for the post you quoted because he wasn't who you were voting in the first place? And what do you think of the two posts where he 'jokingly' calls you scum? I really don't get how you can go from wanting Nightson dead to defending him (the post where you say MBL fails), either.Glork wrote:I misremembered who I had been voting for. Nothing more, nothing less.
Not my fault nobody decided to comment on my vote on StD. In my book the most important thing Day 1 is discussion and whether it comes about through people being serious or people reacting to non-serious content it's all discussion.ibaesha wrote: Nightson, jokes don't necessarily equate to scum, but the if that's all you're doing, then you're not adding anything of content either.