I'm up with this. It was one of the reason's I didn't vote aegon right away.IH wrote:Ok. I propsed this in my last nightless game, and scum tried to use it to attack me the entire time, until the town lynched him to just shut up.Tajo wrote:Love of bandwagons
Bandwagons are interesting ways to find out information but I seriously dislike them. It shows zero reasoning and scum will usually use them to speedlynch someone. @IH, @yellowbounder, (both present in both Berry and Aegor wagons), @Aegor and @Lquiz any conclusions of your love of bandwagons? Why are you bandwagoning him?
So I'll propose it this time too.
Since we have, "Lives" I suggest that anyone who speedhammers should be insta lynched day 2. We need time to talk, and we need to make sure the day doesn't end abruptly.
Anyone else up for 0 tolerance speed lynching policy? We can define "speed lynching" after we agree on it.
I will even temporarily unvote until then.unvote
So what are you exactly proposing?IH wrote:Ok. I propsed this in my last nightless game, and scum tried to use it to attack me the entire time, until the town lynched him to just shut up.Tajo wrote:Love of bandwagons
Bandwagons are interesting ways to find out information but I seriously dislike them. It shows zero reasoning and scum will usually use them to speedlynch someone. @IH, @yellowbounder, (both present in both Berry and Aegor wagons), @Aegor and @Lquiz any conclusions of your love of bandwagons? Why are you bandwagoning him?
So I'll propose it this time too.
Since we have, "Lives" I suggest that anyone who speedhammers should be insta lynched day 2. We need time to talk, and we need to make sure the day doesn't end abruptly.
Anyone else up for 0 tolerance speed lynching policy? We can define "speed lynching" after we agree on it.
I will even temporarily unvote until then.unvote
My thoughts are you are a distraction I would like to see dead, but if you want to tell us who your scum buddies are that would be nice and all.Aegor wrote:It wasn't exactly a joke. My votes tend to...elicit reactions, let's say. So I wasn't joking about being scum. Rather, I wasn't just doing it without purpose, although I did have fun while writing it, I admit.BB wrote:Aegor just said two posts before this that he is NOT joking. Why would you blantantly saying it is a joke when he claims it is not? Are you trying to cover for your scum buddy?
So do you admit you did it for the reactions?Aegor wrote:I am a distraction? To all of the productivity that could have been in the first two pages? If anything, the reactions to my posts were more informative than anything else.
Whats wrong with my questions?Blackberry wrote:Lowell -- yay? =P I don't remember where I've talked to you before, but I like your dice, lol
popular -- I don't like your million questions. This to me is a scum tactic to put pressure on people. And the last line, defending aegor.
Well it deters quicklynching all around. I'm up for quicklynching regardless, because why would someone quicklynch a scumbuddy unless it was a gambit? I'd bet it was another scum.Berry wrote:IH -- I meant to comment that I think it is somewhat ironic that your way of dealing with a quicklynch is to quicklynch somebody ... And I will admit, if I were confident to a certain degree that someone was scum and I personally had the opportunity to quicklynch them I probably would (as I like taking risks and I would be fearful that someone I was sure of was scum would outtalk their way of being lynched).
I'm going to agree with the quicklynch thing, unless quicklynching lynches scum, then I'm perfectly fine with it, lol.
1.When someone speedhammers/speedlynches, we lynch them backPopular Tajo wrote:So what are you exactly proposing?
We lynch the guy who speedlynches?
Why dont we define speed lynching first?
Could you link me to that previous game you're talking about?
About Aegor's case, meh, why he as scum would need to post that? Dont they want to avoid the most possible attention?
Why did you dance around so much? As town it is a potentially disastrous play. As scum, it's a downright bluff, and pure, "irony" that I see alot from people as scum. Personally I don't like it when anyone claims scum, joking or not, because there is SOME reason for that.Aegor wrote:Okay, here we go.
I did it somewhat jokingly, and somewhat not. My response: "Joking? No." was actually in response to the question: "First time doing this, Aegor?" The explanation about my theoretical scumbuddies was not to be taken too seriously. However, there was still some "serious" component, as I could have joked about something more innocuous. In this way, the explanation was both for my own amusement and just breaking the ice. Considering the facts that I am amused and we are still talking about it, I would say that it was a success.
Aegor, what reactions have you seen so far? Was it worthy?Aegor wrote:@IH: Basically the last four or five my votes have been incredibly inflammatory (lynch-1, lynch-2 in a game full of nervous newbies), or with strange explanations. Feel free to check my play history, you'll see consistency.
its eerie that i ended up replacing the person you random votedfarside22 wrote:Hey I'm the first to vote. I never had that happen before.
vote: Near
I'm to far to be near.
Well, yes. First, we got out of the random voting stage pretty quickly. Second, I'm surprised that some players (BB) would take the posts so seriously, considering the fact that I'm by no means a new players. Of course, they may not have known that. But there's a difference between calling for my lynch, and asking for reasons...pop wrote: Aegor, what reactions have you seen so far? Was it worthy?
we know eachother.ChannelDelibird wrote:Comment for comment's sake? I don't really get the point of this post.killa seven wrote:its eerie that i ended up replacing the person you random votedfarside22 wrote:Hey I'm the first to vote. I never had that happen before.
vote: Near
I'm to far to be near.
We had an issue in another game. I'm thinking he is saying what a concidence my vote turned out to be against him without trying.killa seven wrote:we know eachother.ChannelDelibird wrote:Comment for comment's sake? I don't really get the point of this post.killa seven wrote:its eerie that i ended up replacing the person you random votedfarside22 wrote:Hey I'm the first to vote. I never had that happen before.
vote: Near
I'm to far to be near.
You know, like what he said.Aegor wrote:Okay, here we go.
I did it somewhat jokingly, and somewhat not. My response: "Joking? No." was actually in response to the question: "First time doing this, Aegor?" The explanation about my theoretical scumbuddies was not to be taken too seriously. However, there was still some "serious" component, as I could have joked about something more innocuous. In this way, the explanation was both for my own amusement and just breaking the ice. Considering the facts that I am amused and we are still talking about it, I would say that it was a success.
