In post 73, charter wrote:Ha. As soon as I vote Zoidberg, Shos chickens out and unvotes him. This is classic Zoidberg GF, Shos Goon.
For the record, the only time I've voted this game was my last post.
Shit. This actually makes sense.
In post 73, charter wrote:Ha. As soon as I vote Zoidberg, Shos chickens out and unvotes him. This is classic Zoidberg GF, Shos Goon.
For the record, the only time I've voted this game was my last post.
It was a 5p vengeful, the link is on my wiki page. Micro 48, I think. He hardly posted anything at all, less than 20 posts all game.In post 62, shos wrote:Zoidberg, what kind of posts DID charter post in that game? and what was the setup please?
I said I find him difficult to read; there's a difference.and how comes you find Maestro scummy when you can't read him?
Pardon my french, but that's fucking retarded. There is a huge difference between being asked something and being unwilling/refusing to discuss, and simply not saying something. Just because YOU feel it's okay to post an un-asked-for list of players ranked in order of scummyness so that scum knows who to focus on doesn't mean I feel the need to do so spontaneously. You are either an idiot or being deliberately argumentative.In post 71, drmyshotgun wrote:Well this was nowhere to be found in your ISO previously, so I wasn't misrepping you, was I? Tut tut.
People can decide for themselves. I think you're playing very much like that game, actually.In post 65, charter wrote:If you read the last game you will see that I'm not playing anything like last game.
You claimed that I misrepped you meaning that your postsZoidberg wrote:Pardon my french, but that's fucking retarded. There is a huge difference between being asked something and being unwilling/refusing to discuss, and simply not saying something. Just because YOU feel it's okay to post an un-asked-for list of players ranked in order of scummyness so that scum knows who to focus on doesn't mean I feel the need to do so spontaneously. You are either an idiot or being deliberately argumentative.In post 71, drmyshotgun wrote:Well this was nowhere to be found in your ISO previously, so I wasn't misrepping you, was I? Tut tut.
In post 81, drmyshotgun wrote:You claimed that I misrepped you meaning that your postsZoidberg wrote:Pardon my french, but that's fucking retarded. There is a huge difference between being asked something and being unwilling/refusing to discuss, and simply not saying something. Just because YOU feel it's okay to post an un-asked-for list of players ranked in order of scummyness so that scum knows who to focus on doesn't mean I feel the need to do so spontaneously. You are either an idiot or being deliberately argumentative.In post 71, drmyshotgun wrote:Well this was nowhere to be found in your ISO previously, so I wasn't misrepping you, was I? Tut tut.didcontain them when they surely did not. Now you are trying to fix your past mistake and it is so clearly visible.
150% agreed. generally the next part of post 74 makes me think more of gunnytown. might be confirmation bias but dunno.In post 74, drmyshotgun wrote:
So you admit what you've been blabbering is all worthless? This sentence is so waffly and I don't know what point you want to make. But it occurs to me that you yourself are not sure of what the hell you are saying.Maestro wrote:Not sure if the suspicious action outweighs the Town-looking one...especially since you have to remember that if he were Scum and hammered me I'd at least think about shooting him. He might be backing off to allow that to WIFOM. No real concrete ideas from me right now, I guess.
In post 85, shos wrote:SOOOOO I think that we should lynch Maestro first. opinions? ^_^
In post 80, Maestro wrote:Blatant OMGUS...
I'm guessing since this is a 5P you're at L-1.
You're very obviously Scum, Zoidberg.
I think I agree with charter: shos/Zoidberg.
nothing needs to be said.In post 86, Maestro wrote:
1. I never said Zoidberg was very obviously scum, I said he was looking worse and worse. This just means that I think he's scum...if you'll actually read my posts, comrade, you'll see I had a null read on him. Null + "looking worse and worse" just = "somewhere in the scummy direction". Nice try though!
this is definitely not evident by that fact, since you voting him is a hammer, and a hammer is something you cannot take back.
2. I'm not "serious about [Zoidberg's constant responses] as reasons to vote" and I never said I was. This should be evident by the fact that I...didn't vote him...? You're being stupid here, shos.
Can we at least agree to lynch Zoidberg and go from there?
Maestro wrote:
shos, if you don't, I will.
In post 94, shos wrote:I have nothing else to add.