I only have one vote, I liked Nacho's interpretation of the Noir - Cheery Dog interactions; although, I still have mixed feelings about them, and I felt like getting a vote out there, so I thought Cheery Dog would place for it. I have found something better now.
In post 1617, ζ wrote:Why would I need to consider either of those things?
Well, you don't need to, since you're scum, but town would because actually considering the circumstances under which posts are made and the content of player's posts are what matters.
In post 1617, ζ wrote:Finally, I'm not trying to paint you as scummy for not providing links 'quickly'. Did you just steal that argument from Cheery Dog? That's funny. The reason I found you scummy was because you didn't provide links at all. When you're trying to say that post-by-post catchups are a playstyle thing for you, you save a lot of time by just providing the data that proves it instead of just asserting it.
I never said it was a play-style thing for me. On the other hand, it's absolutely true that I do usually sort my reads by player, but in a 26 player game, I just didn't feel like it.
In post 1617, ζ wrote:I did not see Nacho's reread. Moreover, I try not to chase too many people in a day.
This is more of the deliberately narrowed focus in a multiscum game.
Also, I've presented him with something by all rights, considering his case on me, he should find scummy, but rather than offering an opinion on it, he just makes an excuse for not talking about it.
In post 1621, ζ wrote:He's committing the Amished tell for his buddy.
More bullshit.
How did Zeta town-tell?
Ok, so Zeta's Quilford. I have something to say about this, but it involves an ongoing game, so I'll have to keep my mouth shut for now. Suffice it to say that he's a liar who needs rope.