In post 7, SleepyKrew wrote:In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
We are here to have.a reasonable discussion. Please don't bring religion into this. Religion and reason don't mix.
VOTE:
In post 7, SleepyKrew wrote:In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Plum wrote:The first a bit for what I assumed the reasoning was (related to you engaging only in joke territory) I liked, though on the other hand not hard to pick up on/vote for as scum, so not too indicative. Seemed better/more productive when your response was in joke territory, less so now because presumably player relationships and stuff, which gives context that makes it all kinda null (also that being more likely context for LLD's vote to start with than what my best guess was initially &c.).
Plum wrote:Given the overall interpersonal dynamic now apparent? Certainly not. Before that was clear to me, at the time I originally mentioned it? Not per se, but given my assumption at the time that the vote had to do with you only responding to joke elements in the thread, that your next response in the thread at all was on a joke level was what I noted.
In post 40, Plum wrote:RedCoyote - Maybe? I don't really care at the moment for myself. It's only overexplaining if it's too much. For me it isn't; for other people, maybe?
In post 13, Vi wrote:Ah, I wasn't the only one going into this thinking it would be a Bible-themed game. I was hoping for a setup likeIn post 7, SleepyKrew wrote:In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Ham (sc: Abraham)
Shechem (sc: Rebekah)
Laban (sc: Benjamin)
vs
Shem
Isaac
Israel
Joseph
Esau
Ishmael
Pharaoh
Tamar
Hagar
Leah
In post 64, SleepyKrew wrote:Holy crap I'm the second-newest player in this game.
In post 42, Salamence20 wrote:In post 39, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:My vote wasn't and isn't a joke, btw.
I also enjoy how SK seems do not give a damn about nothing except when it comes to himself and his paranoia about getting voted.
Self-preservation is always good.
In post 30, vezokpiraka wrote:plum and SK scumteam.
In post 85, SleepyKrew wrote:In post 69, RedCoyote wrote:SK, how come you only have 10 posts? Does this mean you are scum?
I'm still tied for #1 man (and now I'm #1 again).
This RC case is a meta case so if you're gonna do it then show the meta.
@UT
Is the latest VC accurate (specifically Juls's vote)?
In post 70, Salamence20 wrote:Im with Vi. Im trying here, while the rest of you run around twiddling your thumbs.
RC im ashamed of you. Ive never seen you so fluffy.
In post 91, Vi wrote:not salamenceIn post 88, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:Tell me who the scum are, Cloudbird!
I was with you until "thus". I have no desire to cow you into silence. I do, however, believe that Salamence is Town enough at this time that he should not be the focus of your investigation or vote. (By implication, your case and line of questioning does not shake my belief in Salamence-Town.)hamster 89 wrote:You are with VI trying to shut down a line of questioning, thus forcing thumb twiddling?
Quaroath 89 wrote:VIhamster 89 wrote:VI
talking of my Catholic credentials
(also, the cameo rap was by far the best part of that song and makes me wonder if they should have done the whole thing)
In post 80, vezokpiraka wrote:I don't want to vote rc right now.
In post 129, Plum wrote:In post 65, Quaroath wrote:Sal, I really don't like the content (or lack thereof) for your posts.... 29 has you making excuses for a pretty useless post. I doubt that you'd get modkilled just for saying it was a serious vote that demands pressure. That's just a weak excuse. Mind you I have zero clue about your meta, but it's hard to imagine saying a vote is serious as being modkillable.
So confused. So many other more useless posts here. Taking the Salamance explanation way more seriously than it was intended (???). Anyway, Quaroath, why didn't you vote Salamance in post 65? The whole post feels a little weird to me, to be honest. It's worded like a case, really, inasmuch as it's dissecting multiple posts from Salamance to demonstrate scumminess, with questions more rhetorical than inquisitive. But it tries to avoidbeinga case - no vote on Salamance, no strong suggestion that the anomalies discussed are scummy per se . . . it's odd. It's definitely content in a bulk seen little to that point in the game, but to what end? Also, while I'm here:
In post 92, Quaroath wrote:In post 80, vezokpiraka wrote:I don't want to vote rc right now.
Who DO you want to vote? It seems like you don't want to participate at all.
Weird to ask someone who's still on his RVS vote this while you're still voting your RVS vote and no instances of you using the term "scum" yourself in your whole ISO. Like, yes, Vezok has contributed less content, I guess, but . . . not really like this.
In post 241, vezokpiraka wrote:In post 240, RedCoyote wrote:vez, can't find a wagon that suits you?
Sk is the wagon I want. Plum was a wagon that formed grew and I plum is also a scumread..
In post 243, vezokpiraka wrote:Yeah I brainfarted.
What I mean is that Plum is y second scum read and when I saw the wagon on her grow and the one SK do nothing I decided to switch.
In post 261, Vi wrote:EBWOPIn post 260, Vi wrote:I'm not sure if you'reQuaroath 250 wrote:Those last two are prime grade PEACH quality.:lacingyour posts with fruit jokes. If you're not, please do.
In post 296, Jazzmyn wrote:@Master Zik and Quaroath: You have only 5 and 10 posts respectively, and the content of them isn't exactly giving me warm fuzzies.
Regards,
Jazz
In post 298, Jazzmyn wrote:In post 297, Quaroath wrote:Until you decided the make 10 of the last 25 posts, we were tied at 8. Wah.
Lil kettle action there.
I feel like I need to make a corny joke now.
Apologies, but I don't understand your quoted post above. Please elucidate.
What part.
Regards,
Jazz
In post 301, Plum wrote:*popcorn*
In post 306, Plum wrote:I *am* the food shtick, and really, I was just there to make the corny joke you were looking for, Quaroath. Besides, this Jazzmyn stuff is too delicious to pass up . . .
Happy scumday, Vi!
In post 398, Master Zik wrote:The above post is poor for reasons that I'll expound upon later.
Just so that I don't forget. Old age.
In post 398, Master Zik wrote:The above post is poor for reasons that I'll expound upon later.
Just so that I don't forget. Old age.
In post 399, Quaroath wrote:In post 398, Master Zik wrote:The above post is poor for reasons that I'll expound upon later.
Just so that I don't forget. Old age.
You don't need to. I know it's poor.
I don't care. Ragefest disengaged me and literally all I remember is Jazz calling me (and you!) out for not posting enough when I had the same number of posts. And it ain't got better.That's a total I'm annoyed with Jazz vote, not a "I think you are scum" vote.
In post 604, Master Zik wrote:How is it hubris? Thanks for correcting my sentence, by the way.
No and yes.
I see SleepyKrew being pushed for something that is null at the very least least for him, and in my opinion the push on him looks just as scum-driven as the one on Vezok.
I've seen his scumgame, yes. One recent example is Joss Whedon mafia by Bulbazak, but he was carried by Nachomamma8 and Ms. Marangal. You can do a metadive too.
In post 605, Vi wrote:Where is your Town read on SKrew coming from, then?
Who are the scum pushing SleepyKrew? (or vezokpiraka for that matter)
In post 616, Untrod Tripod wrote:
With 11 alive it takes 6 to lynch. Deadline is (expired on 2015-07-23 17:00:00)
In post 733, Jazzmyn wrote:In post 731, Quaroath wrote:@Plum, I'm not going to click through your spoilers, was there someone in there relevant?
Similarly, if you were town, you would read posts instead of just seagulling.
Regards,
Jazz
In post 693, Nachomamma8 wrote:In post 489, Quaroath wrote:I really don't like the sheeping onto VI on the last page. I have a hard time picturing Viscum right now.
In post 595, Quaroath wrote:VOTE: plum
In Vi we sheep.
For now at least. I haven't had the time to really dig back like I should.
I agree that Quaroath looks pretty bad, actually.
I don't think he works as a Plum-buddy. Do you?