In post 243, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:lol fuck you ns. That's totally not even the point of that post AT ALL and the fact that you are attempting to twist it that way is pretty indicative.
Care to explain the actual point?
In post 246, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:No dude. It's "I have no idea what's going on because end of the month = deadline at work" and shit just got fucked up. We're done today so I finally don't have to work at home or on the weekend, and can spend some time with this game.
Then instead of getting pissed off as you did in the post say "Sorry guys but I have a lot of work to do. I'll post my case soon" etc.
Just went to check. MM is correct. Which would explain how Nacho "forgot who he was voting". the question is why is notscience pushing Wake? And saying that Nacho is voting him when he's not.
@Boro: You want to give reasons besides just saying it's "interesting?" -_-
Already said why I'm pushing wake, and I judged based on the votecount which was incorrect. So.
In post 137, notscience wrote:Sakura, your vote would be better served on Wake. He's asking other people to do shit for him, and is blatantly coasting through the game.
So, you say you don't like his 49, which was this:
And that's the only reason you posted this entire time. This is your case. You don't like that he was joking around. Now, a post that sounds forced is a fine reason to suspect someone, but it's not the reason to not look for other motivations, not question the slot further, not test the slot - you know, scum hunt. You spend the rest of your posts urging people to vote wake, and immediately attack when me I enter the game, going so far as to try to say that the fact that I wasn't caught up yet is a scum tell.
I'm curious why no one asked you for further clarification on this, considering it is a weak point, and was not justified later in the thread. At no time in your ISO do you expand on this and at no time do you have any other scum reads.
So, ns, is there something I'm missing here, or is this actually what you're claiming is your case on my slot?
In post 196, Dry-fit wrote:As I've said I think Nacho is town. Also jumping on him for not contributing at this point is a super easy vote to make and doesn't do much to advance things.
and you're probably town, but what makes it an easy vote?
Nacho isn't the worst player, and the player base isn't the worst so he has a fairly good chance of getting out of a wagon, and winning the favor of quite a few people. About half the player base is made of people who know what they are doing, and won't derp-lynch anyone
Nacho also isn't reaching out to me yet, which is something I don't like. especially when he has me as town for god-knows-why
I'm not worried about a quicklynch. I'm worried that Sakura was using Nacho as a place to park her vote for a very noncontroversial and easy reason, that he isn't contributing. In fact you can see how easy and nonserious the vote was because as soon as Nacho gave any content at all Sakura sheeped him, even though his case was based on nothing but gut.
I think it is true that there's no reason to have a town read on you though.
BoroPhil wrote:can we just end today now please? no point dragging it out
UNVOTE:
VOTE: bubbajack
I know you're not delusional enough to believe that everyone's going to sheep you after posting this. So tell me, what do you expect calling for the end of the day right now to accomplish?
I should be getting in a reread tomorrow. REGINA deserves more attention.
Andy Murray: Two time Wimbledon and one time US Open Champ! Former world number 1!
You have yet to show any evidence to this, other than that you didn't like that one post. You have not explained your perception of my motivation, nor my votes. You have not attempted to question this slot, in any way, nor have you even asked about the post you didn't like.
Half the playerlist is lurking. Your scumbuds are in the lurkers.
Your ISO shows zero intention of finding scum. You have not asked anyone about their reads, their reasoning, or their actions. You have not pushed other wagons for reactions. You have not given any reads lists. You have not put pressure on "the lurkers" or asked anyone else to.
You have yet to show any evidence to this, other than that you didn't like that one post. You have not explained your perception of my motivation, nor my votes. You have not attempted to question this slot, in any way, nor have you even asked about the post you didn't like.
Are you trying to lecture me, scumfuck? There's no need to question, that doesn't change your scum role pm. You already said you can't justify your predecessor. Your predecessor was scum. Therefore, so are you.
Half the playerlist is lurking. Your scumbuds are in the lurkers.
Your ISO shows zero intention of finding scum. You have not asked anyone about their reads, their reasoning, or their actions. You have not pushed other wagons for reactions. You have not given any reads lists. You have not put pressure on "the lurkers" or asked anyone else to.
So I am scum for not pressuring lurkers? Like scum do for easy lynches? Do tell. I already said we can find your scumfuck friends after we lynch you.
More aggression without actually addressing the points I brought up.
Why didn't you question wake about his post or test him further?
Why did you try to cultivate other reads on the rest of the playerlist?
Why did you not push other wagons?
Why are you not attempting to find other scum that could be scum with me, since you "think" I'm scum?
Your response is unnecessarily rude and defensive when I am asking you to clarify your stance.
In post 237, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:can't read my predecessor's thoughts for whatever case you have up to this point.
And if you are referring to this, please explain how this = "can't justify my predecessor" because I most certainly can since, as you pointed out quite clearly, we share the same role.
However, this was also written before I took a look at your ISO and found a lot of noise and very little useful content.
In post 270, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:However, this was also written before I took a look at your ISO and found a lot of noise and very little useful content.
When you've had the worst 3 days of your life then maybe you'll see why I'm just fluffing around
Interesting. So I stopped posting for a day and the thread becomes much more active. Easy to make the correct conclusion about my posting= - yessiree my posts are unnecessarily spammy haha
Both players in the ns vs. ETL feel natural and townish. both sides are feeling so tunnely in their thought processes, which I expect from ns...whereas ETL's overdefensiveness fits the vibe I recall from 1462.
you guys are on a roll, which is really super awesome yall...keep it up!
also the nachomamma thing whom I have never met, he/she feels very erratic which is an odd choice of playstyle to continue utilizing. bah. Maybe I'm insane for thinking that, but I will look back at other peoples tomorrow. Carry on
Why didn't you question wake about his post or test him further?
I disagree. I went into him not chasing down reads.
You went into him not chasing down reads? What are you talking about? You never asked him about that post. You never even bothered to push him beyond telling other people to vote for him and calling him scum.
ns wrote:
ETL wrote:Why didn't you try to cultivate other reads on the rest of the playerlist?
Because they're lurking. For assorted reasonings, some being newbies. What'll we get for pressuring them? Newbie flail.
So, everyone except me and you is lurking and must be town?
ns wrote:
ETL wrote:Why did you not push other wagons?
Because THEY aren't my scumread.
So, you only have one scum read, correct? You have no idea about anyone else who could possibly be my partner?
ns wrote:
ETL wrote:Why are you not attempting to find other scum that could be scum with me, since you "think" I'm scum?
Because there are too many lurkers to wade through.
So, you're being lazy and going for whoever is talking? Or you legitimately think all the lurkers are town. And my slot must be scum because I'm not a lurker. Your logic doesn't add up here.
ns wrote:
ETL wrote:Your response is unnecessarily rude and defensive when I am asking you to clarify your stance.
VOTE: notscience
if I wasn't already.
And I don't give a fuck
You have made that very clear. Why are you playing then?
