This is some major bullshit. I wish I could have been here when your wagon was alive and strong so I could bolster it with my vote as well. When confronted on this by CSF and Bell, let's take a look at this:In post 52, Marshmallow Marshall wrote:Light townread on Pickaxe Pete because he actually tries to generate AI discussion and ignores the NAI stuffIn post 42, Pickaxe Pete wrote:I see people.
This line of thinking does not make sense whatsoever. I know that you have not been active since post 115 but when you return please answer the question posed to you by CSF here in response to your 110:In post 110, Marshmallow Marshall wrote:Voting with a line meant to be replied to, and not taking part to the discussion about theory that took over the thread for some posts. Not saying his posts are legendary, but they are still better than Superbowl's, for example.
---In post 120, Cat Scratch Fever wrote:I don't follow. Which line by Pickaxe Pete warranted a response...? Like aside from you who quoted his posts to give him a townlean, no one even bothered to respond to Pete's posts.
This feels like a contrived read. More votes on Marshmallow plz n ty.
Is this what you're talking about when you said you threw a tiny bit of shade at superbowl? How is this throwing a tiny bit of shade? This is the only time you've addressed SB in the game:In post 144, Town looter wrote:For me it's because I threw a tiny amount of shade at superbowl as a bit of a reaction test and got two small nibbles.
Can you please clarify: where did you throw a tiny bit of shade on SB, and where was MM's response to that which made you decide to vote for him? Who was the other person who took your "bait?" This seems like a really weak argument worthy of voting for because I don't see anything indicating that you actually threw shade at SB and especially don't see anywhere where MM gave a reaction to that. And yet somehow MM gave enough reaction to vote for him?In post 47, Town looter wrote:That's really not what I said though, was it...In post 45, superbowl9 wrote:Disagree low activity players are better for scum to have around.In post 43, Town looter wrote:Unless there is good evidence of lurking, no. Mis-elimming an active slot will generally tell us more than a mis-elim on an inactive slot. This obviously only applies to early game, activity will be a useful source of information later in the game because of how easy it is to fly below the radar.Elimming a high activity slot just for info is not a good idea
---
Stan, can you please define, in as much detail as you possibly can,In post 165, stan1ey wrote:This argument between you two feels forced af
---
Did we just completely ignore the fact that 72 came in and voted 4 different times on page 9? What the hell was that, 72?
---
Why are you unable to see that your naked vote on Norway was sketchy at best? This whole page 10-11 interaction where you're defending your naked vote is really poor. When pushed to explain, the best you've got is to quote two posts from Norway that are super clearly sarcastic and not to be taken as AI? Additionally, your case that Norway is scummy because he wants to know why you're voting him is bad. Everyone would want to know why you cast a vote for them if you just did so out of the blue with no explanation whatsoever. It feels like you set up a trap for him: you know Norway is talkative and expressive and posts a lot. Are you scum taking advantage of that who set up Norway with a naked vote to inquire why you voted him, and then you smeared his playstyle calling him hyper defensive when he simply wanted you to explain why you voted for him? You tried to make him look bad for wanting to understand and wanting you to clarify your vote. Why is it bad that Norway wants you to give information on your vote? I thought you were an advocate of not keeping information to yourself but sharing it with the rest of the world, according to this:In post 278, Nero Cain wrote:I'm not really understanding why a naked vote is getting everybody up in arms. I'm not really hard scumreading him or anything but I had a little niggle and I didn't really want to leave my vote empty after I got off Stan. Its been a while but I vaguely recall norway proclaiming himself as town ad nasuem when he was scum.In post 277, SJReaver wrote:Can we go back to Norwegian though? I'm interested in if you're scum-reading him.
In post 16, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Good thing i'm green☆assuming that I remembered correctly then that seems p similar to his scum game.In post 118, NorwegianboyEE wrote:I’M TOWN!
In post 182, superbowl9 wrote:Nah not necessarily. Transparency is powerful but it's also a game of information. If you just put everything out there 100% of the time you will lose your advantage.In post 180, Nero Cain wrote:oh, you are one of those players :/In post 176, superbowl9 wrote:Do you just not understand the concept of keeping information to yourself so you can greater benefit lol?
VOTE: Nero CainIn post 187, Nero Cain wrote:I strongly disagree but its game theory so no point in arguing about it and cluttering up the thread. Lets lynch stan or at least talk about him. What is even that fuzzy alien avatar?
---
If something doesn't change we're PL'ing Lapsa before long.