So you say I should only use roach's own posts to judge him? Alright. The post numbers are the ones I get when only viewing roach.
Brace for impact
Roach post 15 wrote:Alright...
WHY IS THERE A BANDWAGON ON ME?
That is my question to you.
dude, cut out the shouting. Only kind of people I've ever seen shouting in mafia is bad townie and scum. And I think you overreacted.
Roach post 16 wrote:And that means I am? Can't you tell I'm a different person?
this is the first time you ask for a clean slate, I'll only quote this post and maybe his latest post on the subject, everything between I can summarize by saying he doesn't accept he's wrong, he keeps insisting we shouldn't look at Aisar, and is as stubborn as a mule.
Roach post 19 wrote:Now, I'm not going to be so low to say that you are scum...but then again...
Taking moral high ground? You say you're not going to say it, but you do imply it here. Either make a case against your attacker and go for it or don't mention his scummy or not status at all.
Roach post 20 wrote:Well, cicero, Garnasha, and mcpaltp...
Sorry, I'm just really focused with getting Flameaxe lynched. I'm drawing blanks on those three.
this doesn't sit right with me. You are actually admitting here what I was thinking about your first 10 posts or something like that: you are so tunnelvisioned you can't analyse anybody else even if someone points you in someone else's direction.
Roach post 23 wrote:Aisar claimed my character before I replaced him, yes? Therefore, I see no reason WHY I should be lynched, other than you
idiots
people who got this wagon on me are disillusioned. My play is DIFFERENT because now I'm here, meaning that people will start voting for me left and right, which is now bad because I will now:
CLAIM: Pete Tyler
. I'm just a
Vanilla Townie
trying to route out the scum.
My 'attack(s)' on Flameaxe was substantial because I was CITING HIS PLAY, unlike those voting for me who fail to cite mine.
woa, calm down emo. Shouting, saying people should listen while you're the one who only responds to people by repeating they shouldn't judge you on Aisar's behaviour, second time in your post history where you swear in strikethrough text and to top it off claiming without being anywhere near getting lynched. And claiming the only role that doesn't risk a counterclaim at that. Claiming vanilla townie imo is worth exactly nothing, making this feel to me like Slitheen too eager to use his safeclaim
Roach still post 23 wrote:So, please. Aisar claimed, now I will claim. See?
You're proud about it too, aren't you?
Couldn't resist:
Roach post 26 wrote:cicero wrote:Roach wrote:Yosarian2 wrote:Roach, you're wrong. If a player does something scummy, that makes it more likely they are scum.
If they get replaced, that dosn't change the odds of them being scum(1)
, so
they're STILL more likely to be scum then if they hadn't done the scum tell in the first place(2)
.
1) Who? The player that got replaced or the replacer?
2) To me, each player starts off with a clean slate. That INCLUDES players that have replacements (or, more specifically, the replacements themselves). Is that wrong, so wrong that it warrants me a vote?
You make my brain hurt(1)
and I wish I thought you were scum.
Stop playing the victim(2)
. Your question 1 answer makes no sense. and
your number 2 is just plain wrong(3)
.
1) Well, that should be a sign that you should think more often. Anyway, sorry if I do.
2) Well, that's going to be hard, because I
am
the victim. Aisar's play was scummy, yes, and I'm ashamed that I'm replacing a complete ass. But his role (and therefore my role) is PRO-TOWN. And people are voting for
me
, not Aisar, because of
Aisar's
play, not
mine
.
3) Right now, when I read that comment, I try to stifle giggles. Why? There are a million different ways I can misquote your comment and make it into a bad joke.
1) ad hominem much?
2) Maybe a victim of Aisar's play, fair enough. Though I do think you misinterpreted cicero here and he meant you should get into action instead of screaming how badly you're being treated by us.
3) What the hell is your point?
Roach post 27 wrote:The Fonz wrote:Roach wrote:
2) To me, each player starts off with a clean slate. That INCLUDES players that have replacements (or, more specifically, the replacements themselves). Is that wrong, so wrong that it warrants me a vote?
Yes. This is VERY wrong.
But is it wrong enough to warrant a vote?
simple question, simple answer: yes. Especially if you keep insisting and being stubborn about it like you did.
Roach post 28 wrote:Iammars wrote: Aisar's gone now, we should get the suspicious vibes off of Roach.
^THIS is what I'm talking about. People are judging me on
Aisar's
play, not
my own
. That's BAD.
What exactly did iammars say here? I don't fully understand it I think. Judging by Roach's reaction I guess it's a lifeline. This is the only thing in this post that's not an accusation in the direction of Roach.
From here on he gets help from some people who say that while Roach's reasons are wrong, his idea is right: don't look at what Aisar did, look at what the replacement does. Their arguments, unlike those of Roach, sound sane, so now I'm going to
unvote
and
vote: Roach
again because of his own behaviour.
Yos and iammars (dunno if I miss someone here) also say it wouldn't even be bad for Roach if we looked at Aisar to judge him.
One point I agree about with Roach: Flameaxe is a non-contributing troll. But that doesn't mean you should get tunnelvisioned on him, which Roach did.
V/LA until finals are over.