In post 973, MagnaofIllusion wrote:There is not a single site or game rule that I am violating
ahem!In post 1, Human Sequencer wrote:4. Play to your win condition under all circumstances. Play for your own enjoymentand the enjoyment of everybody else ingame under all circumstances.
Reaction testing requires you to defend your stance also though, and it does not show your claim that he didn't believe in the tell.In post 962, TwoFace wrote:This is really all I need to confirm what I was saying. When you are "reaction testing" you tell people to back off in a manner like this.In post 39, MagnaofIllusion wrote:If you were as good as you seem to think you are you'd understand the process of what I am doing.
the issue is as I have already stated before, he was defending his reasons for pushing matt which implies he was serious.
I can follow your logic, but I do agree with Magna that it is a stretch - like, let's say for the sake of argument that Magna becomes confirmed town.In post 962, TwoFace wrote:This is basically admitting 23 is a lie. You don't declare "scum found" and later say oops I wasn't being serious about that when he was getting negative attention. (remember Magna was at L-2 when his stance on matt changed from a scum read to a "I was not being serious and i'm going to discredit you for thinking it was in post 176)
no i'm notIn post 976, Cooperative Sheep wrote:In fact to really push the scum claim you're obligated to functionally prove he was serious and wasn't reaction testing.
btw this quote is basically an admission that his scum read on matt was fake.In post 176, MagnaofIllusion wrote:do you really think he believes that Matt was a solid scum read for me on Page 1?
Lies, lies, lies.In post 978, TwoFace wrote:btw this quote is basically an admission that his scum read on matt was fake.In post 176, MagnaofIllusion wrote:do you really think he believes that Matt was a solid scum read for me on Page 1?
I can't control your enjoyment on something that is not directly insulting or denigrating. Nor do I care to. That's not my issue but yours. Especially given how insulting and denigrating you have been to multiple players (including your ally Momo) during the game.In post 975, TwoFace wrote:In post 973, MagnaofIllusion wrote:There is not a single site or game rule that I am violatingahem!In post 1, Human Sequencer wrote:4. Play to your win condition under all circumstances. Play for your own enjoymentand the enjoyment of everybody else ingame under all circumstances.
I haven't lied once this game thanks and I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting my integrity by saying I have lied. I don't lie as town and only lie as scum when absolutely necessary (i.e. I am not scum or my role is ...)In post 979, MagnaofIllusion wrote:Lies, lies, lies.In post 978, TwoFace wrote:btw this quote is basically an admission that his scum read on matt was fake.In post 176, MagnaofIllusion wrote:do you really think he believes that Matt was a solid scum read for me on Page 1?
Do you ever get tired of lying?
A page 1 read is not a "solid scum read" does not mean it isn't a scum read at all. It means it was a Page 1 push on something I found suspect and could come from scum.
Please continue to lie though as I said earlier - upon my flip it will make it easier for you to be roped if you are scum.
sure you can. when you are asked not once but twice to refer to me by my name or an acceptable alternative, you can actually be respectful and oblige. You don't have to act like a 2 year old who when somebody tells them to "stop touching them" stands right next to them with their finger in their face repeating "I'm not touching you"In post 980, MagnaofIllusion wrote:I can't control your enjoyment
Yes you do when you continue to present those posts as "Saying it was a made up accusation" when it has been presented to you over and over that it was not. And if your response to me is "I don't believe it" well congratulations you are saying "I'm lying about my motivation". I know I'm not. So at this stage my only conclusion is that you are lying. I'm not sure what your motivations are but please spare me the outrage that "I never lie".In post 981, TwoFace wrote:I haven't lied once this game thanks and I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting my integrity by saying I have lied. I don't lie as town and only lie as scum when absolutely necessary (i.e. I am not scum or my role is ...)
If you made a misleading statement on page 1, that isn't my fault for thinking it is was the truth, it was yours for misleading people.
To make the case qualify as a legit scum case to me, you are. I'll agree that besides the bar I'm setting there is no other obligation, but I do think the theory scum motivation falls apart without showing that he, as town and/or scum, wasn't legit pushing that case thinking it would go through to a lynch as opposed to doing a Page 1 runup.In post 977, TwoFace wrote:no i'm notIn post 976, Cooperative Sheep wrote:In fact to really push the scum claim you're obligated to functionally prove he was serious and wasn't reaction testing.
I disagree, it is assuredly an admission that it wasn't rock solid. Frankly I'd be more concerned if he had claimed it was a solid read at that stage of the game - isn't it normal to have reads adjust and mature? I know it's what I do. It's what a lot of players seem to do in my experience also.In post 978, TwoFace wrote:btw this quote is basically an admission that his scum read on matt was fake.In post 176, MagnaofIllusion wrote:do you really think he believes that Matt was a solid scum read for me on Page 1?
except you won't be NK'd tonight.In post 991, TwoFace wrote:Win/win is lynch Momo. I'm NKd tonight and people can basically start fresh day 2.
same.In post 996, TwoFace wrote:I'm not super mislynchable. I'll never get lynched this game.
