![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
BM
NEGWLTWWTKY. Need i say more?armlx wrote:BM, a meta + Peers' behavior on day 1. I have a game that shows Peers is capable and does act like a normal player as town, so his behavior this game is just as out of place as it would be for you or I.
Plus the reasons of many others to agree with this.skitzer wrote:Isolated readthrough of ThugBehram/Peers/Celebloki (in the same fomat as TheSweatpantsNinja)
Post 4 (Peers): He says that his vote on Battle Mage was because of a meta. I personally don’t agree with metas.
Post 17 (Peers): He hops on the killa seven pressure-wagon, this may sound hypocritical but I learned not to employ pressure-wagons, usually, they are not worthwhile. But in this case, I guess it was.
Post 34 (Peers): Unexplained vote. These are always notable.
Post 0 (Celebloki): Thinks BM was protown. Of course, I’m not sure either, but I don’t think he was protown.
Post 3 (Celebloki): Still doesn’t agree that BM was bad.
Post 5 (Celebloki): Earlier, he suspected Matt_S. Now, after Matt_S attacks him, he seems to focus directly on his other suspect, WhoMe?. This is definitely strange.
Post 6 (Celebloki): Not to be bias, but I hardly doubt Celebloki has never been lynched in any mafia game.
In conclusion: If I were just to do a reread of Peers, I would classify him as neutral. But Celebloki’s Post 5 and 6, but mainly Post 5, have convinced me for now.Vote: Celebloki
I think I’m going to do more readthroughs, because I’m sure there are better cases out there.
I'll have a look at it in a sec. But it does put you above Scope in my mind.skitzer wrote:Plus the reasons of many others to agree with this.skitzer wrote:Isolated readthrough of ThugBehram/Peers/Celebloki (in the same fomat as TheSweatpantsNinja)
Post 4 (Peers): He says that his vote on Battle Mage was because of a meta. I personally don’t agree with metas.
Post 17 (Peers): He hops on the killa seven pressure-wagon, this may sound hypocritical but I learned not to employ pressure-wagons, usually, they are not worthwhile. But in this case, I guess it was.
Post 34 (Peers): Unexplained vote. These are always notable.
Post 0 (Celebloki): Thinks BM was protown. Of course, I’m not sure either, but I don’t think he was protown.
Post 3 (Celebloki): Still doesn’t agree that BM was bad.
Post 5 (Celebloki): Earlier, he suspected Matt_S. Now, after Matt_S attacks him, he seems to focus directly on his other suspect, WhoMe?. This is definitely strange.
Post 6 (Celebloki): Not to be bias, but I hardly doubt Celebloki has never been lynched in any mafia game.
In conclusion: If I were just to do a reread of Peers, I would classify him as neutral. But Celebloki’s Post 5 and 6, but mainly Post 5, have convinced me for now.Vote: Celebloki
I think I’m going to do more readthroughs, because I’m sure there are better cases out there.
Does that help, BM?
skitzer wrote:I'm not saying that Peers' meta of me had value, but firstly, its hard to reinforce that you 'dont agree with metas'. More importantly, why should your views on metas, which are used by 98% of people on MS at various times, be considered a scumtell from Peers?skitzer wrote:Isolated readthrough of ThugBehram/Peers/Celebloki (in the same fomat as TheSweatpantsNinja)
Post 4 (Peers): He says that his vote on Battle Mage was because of a meta. I personally don’t agree with metas.
So did i. I wasnt scum. Not buying it- this is the sort of stuff you should be discussing in MD.Skitzer wrote: Post 17 (Peers): He hops on the killa seven pressure-wagon, this may sound hypocritical but I learned not to employ pressure-wagons, usually, they are not worthwhile. But in this case, I guess it was.
But in fairness, this is PEERS. What did you expect? He does this kind of thing all the time. The scummy thing if anything is that you only found 1 example of him not explaining himself properly!Skitzer wrote: Post 34 (Peers): Unexplained vote. These are always notable.
sorry, you lost me.Skitzer wrote: Post 0 (Celebloki): Thinks BM was protown. Of course, I’m not sure either, but I don’t think he was protown.
That is a fair point. I'll look into it, along with post 6, which i guess i need to read to understand your commentSkitzer wrote: Post 5 (Celebloki): Earlier, he suspected Matt_S. Now, after Matt_S attacks him, he seems to focus directly on his other suspect, WhoMe?. This is definitely strange.
BM
I'm still looking at Skitzer's case. Rather than trying to defend everyone else, you might wanna take a look at your own case. Because as far as i can see, it's worthless.armlx wrote:BM, Scope is Scope, Skitzer explained himself.
did you PM ABR?Matt_S wrote:Just to refresh everyone's memory, skitzer and Kscope are the ones who are protown. Of course, they still need to follow the same standards as everyone else.
And we still haven't gotten that vote count.
eh? I'm not quite sure what you mean. I've yet to see a response to 3327.armlx wrote:The case on me that you base on believing CKD?
I'm still looking at Skitzer's case. Rather than trying to defend everyone else, you might wanna take a look at your own case. Because as far as i can see, it's worthless.
*facepalm* you werent even in that game. I think of everyone here, only me and TS were. Well, i guess you should read Peers's play in that, and you'll see my point.armlx wrote:If I understood what it meant I could respond.
Lol his play there and what you claim to be his scum meta are so identical, it's hilarious. Try reading them in context if you cant see that in isolation.armlx wrote:BM, skimmed his posts, not seeing it.