My reasons for voting CivilScum.
Point One:
CivilScum wrote:unvote
vote: 1fifi
fifi or sauve?
Who's in?
Pushing for bandwagon.
Point Two:
CivilScum wrote:
The1fifi wrote:By self voting, i got 3 votes. With another person jumping in, it makes 4, which is a pretty good point to start a serious wagon.
I self voted exactly to create a reaction from someone, so i could get a read, cause this game is starting slowly.
Yeah, I'll believe this in a million years [/sarcasm]
Downgrading a decent scumhunting technique, then attacking the shit out of it.
Next post:
CivilScum wrote:Although now that I think about it, both of those things: joking in that spirit in RVS and saying that it was meant to get reactions because the game was starting slowly doesn't fully contradict what he said about julien voting him for joking.
Lightening his previous post, so as not to seem too inapropriate (looks like he's covering for himself).
CivilScum wrote:It's a big part of why I attacked him all my last game with him. Saying things just to make people look bad. He did it horribly all game and got lynched as a townie.
It's just how he plays I think, no matter how annoying it can get :/ which is pretty god damn annoying.
It really looks like you're doing the exact same thing that you attacked julien for all your last game with him. It looks like you're saying things just to make people look bad. That is how I recieved all your attacks on The1fifi and myself.
Point Three:
CivilScum wrote:As I remember, that lynch was due to a bad statistical analysis of my interactions wtih somebody else that was supported by scum, plus a drunken hammer. Meanwhile, that day, I had managed to be suspicious of both scum, remember?
Discussing a previous game, he puts across that his suspicions were correct, insinuating that his suspicions should be trusted here.
CivilScum wrote:Suggest something productive otherwise quit defending fifi.
I hadn't even mentioned The1fifi. Assumption or misleading misinterpretation.
CivilScum wrote:Dr cyanide, there are things to look at here, it's troubling to hear you suggest that we abandon it. We still have people to hear from, and I've got a couple other bad vibes, and it's early. But to say we should ignore all of this and do what is, I TOTALLY agree, going BACKWARDS, is, well, very backwards of you.
I did not say that we should abandon it, I suggested we/others should do something else/ something more productive than attacking one player over a weak argument that didn't seem to be going anywhere.
This is what I mean by Putting Words In My Mouth.
CivilScum wrote:So far, dr cyanide, your defens of fifi amounts to: "Early cases are never right and never hit scum...it's ALWAYS a later one, the third or fourth..."
Awesomely huge assumption.
CivilScum wrote:Words in your mouth? Okay wait let me correct myself. You said everyone involved in the discussion around an early BW is innocent, not just the person in the crosshairs. Was that better?
Yet again, I did not say this, still trying to put words in my mouth. Even worse, when I ask CivilScum where I said this in post 132 he responds by voting for me.
The1fifi wrote:Civils Scum, about your discussion with Cyanide, i definetely think you are right.
Trying to warm up the guy that was just attacking you. Nice.
CivilScum wrote:I also dislike how you made all these criticisms and then offered no alternative. You're talking about "looking everywhere" and "keeping an open mind" without the slightest inclination to do so. Besides your vaguest of ideas about an RQS stage you didn't initiate.
I've been busy r/l. I haven't been giving this game 100%. Excuse me.
Concerned wrote:"VOTE : Dr Cyanide
I agree with Civil completely, I'd add more to the case but whenever I feel like I have something to add Dr Cyanide says it. He's not even trying to defend himself anymore, trying to get the game back on to RVS tracks... wtf?? "
Nice. You're basing your assumptions on Civils assumptions. It's the blind leading the blind.
Something tells me you attack everything you don't understand, don't you CivilScum.