Meta doesn't work on me really. If you dont believe me you can meta me thoughNikanor wrote:dramonic is doing nothing. He is actively lurking. He does not do that as town.
Done.
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Meta doesn't work on me really. If you dont believe me you can meta me thoughNikanor wrote:dramonic is doing nothing. He is actively lurking. He does not do that as town.
Done.
this is the truthNikanor wrote:He is actively lurking.
SpyreX 5Parama wrote:We need a votecount.
Wait, Nikki is a man? Does this mean I'm...?Nikanor wrote:It looks like I'm going to have to explainyet anothercase to Parama.
dramonic is doing nothing. He is actively lurking. He does not do that as town.
Done.
Who said I was trying? >_>dramonic wrote:Also, if you wanna pass as a female you shouldnt jump in innuendos like that.
Eww, whiny. I dislike this. Obviously if you aren't convincing people: you aren't doing a good job at bringing out a good case. So get better! "nods"Para wrote: I almost want to lynch SpyreX because he's in nearly all of my games now.
But he's also very awesome.
And muzzz is scummier.
*sigh* nobody trusts my D1 obvscum read though. I get one every game, and I'm right most of the time.
Point taken. Your Para choice is convincing, which means that Para is showing strong links towards Duck over you. Hmm however: read the below on how your delivery of your argument was scummy, but the argument itself wasn't.DTM wrote:@DTM: no, I'm making Par's argument for him, not the other way around.
This is true: Muzz you did open your vote on Duck with good reasoning.Muzz wrote: I did explain my Duck vote, immediately after making it. Post #8 in my ISO. Everybody but you and Par seems to have understood me just fine. If you want to excuse me of being unclear, fine, but saying I didn't explain until later is just not true.
This is good posting. The following is bad posting. I'll provide in thread numbers for you to refer back to it:muzzz wrote:@Confid: you're hardly more positive about Ken than Duck was.
But still,
Unvote, vote: Duck
Three votes is hardly anything to worry about. Especially when it's, apparently, not like you were going to be afk for a while. And now you're calling him the most suspicious, yet you're not willing to put him at two votes again?
muzzz 89 wrote:As further evidence of Duck's scumminess, I'd like to present meta from DuckTown in Mafia 94:
duckduck96 wrote:Vote Spolium
Bandwagon FTW!
muzzz 93 wrote:That doesn't change the fact that DuckTown should be voting.duckduck96 wrote:Don't post that without the context- that was a band wagon on someone who had self-voted.
I'm sorry: I know you like succinctness (which is awesome yadda yadda), however it took 3 posts to go from: Evidence -> Accusation of action ->muzzz 104 wrote:@Nik: when I voted confid I figured that either both of them were scum, or my argument was flawed.
@Par: I'm voting Duck because he's, uncharacteristically, not voting. I think that not voting isalwaysa problem. There's only one thing that townies absolutelyhaveto do in a game of mafia, and that's vote.
@DTM: I gave you the name of the game (Mafia 94) and Duck's alignment there (town). I assumed that would be enough information for people to find the thread. But if not, you can find a linky to that game by clicking the "wiki" button beneath my posts.
While I understand if people who weren't there are unwilling to take my word for it, I stand by my meta argument. Duck seems significantly more careful with his vote than when I last saw him as town. And I intend to figure out why.
@Suave: Par's voting me, not Ken
Tada! Didn't forget them :3Nachomamma8 wrote:It's quicklynchable because there were 4 scum in that game. Practical? No. Quicklynchable? Yes.DT Master wrote: Why are you calling L-4 in mafia 94 quicklynchable? That means you accuse Duck for helping put Ken in L-4, which reads as the same in the wagon on Ken.
And, no. I wasn't accusing Duck of that... what?
I'd call of it more of a OMG YOU WERE AFRAID TO PUT A SECOND VOTE ON HIM --> scummy, wouldn't you? Note, I'm not using muzzz's argument myself. I'm just pointing out that I see it could be valid, thus why I'm not voting him.DT Master wrote: In an unvote on someone who reads as a town, you are using: OMG YOU DIDN'T WAGON argument + meta -> scummy
Why not?DT Master wrote: I don't think you are correct in your statement of Duck.
Aside: Plus the first half of the question is so unrealistic: if scum put all their eggs in one basket like that it'll be lols. There is a point where theory falls short of the beast that is known as reality.Nacho wrote: Umm... I don't really agree with the forming muzzz wagon; that quote wasn't all that scummy. In the game muzzz referred to, duck didn't hesitate in putting someone within scum quicklynching range for the sake of bandwagoning, while now, he's hesitating to put a first or a second vote on the wagon.
Facepalm != calling someone scummy. When I think someone is scummy for something, I call them scummy for it.DTM wrote:Hai. But Muzz metaed Duck? You are ignoring the point. Muzz presented a meta attack on Duck, like Duck presented a meta attack on Ken. Duck's lack of voting, yes that is scummy. Duck's meta attack makes you face palm because it's on page 4? Wait what! Why didn't you apply it to Muzz.
Why do people keep saying 'Greater *foo*'? It is 'Combined *foo*'.DTM wrote:(Aside: I just thought of a bastardy role: A Greater Hider Serial Killer. The Serial Killer kidnaps a player to murder them: but if you shoot his target you kill the Serial Killer. Your "Kill Dramonic" statement made me giggle and come up with this idea )
Uhh, I eat lots of cheese. Does that count for something?DTM wrote:(PPS Aside: I heard if you eat lots of fruit, it's actually sweet. )
Nik 177 wrote:dramonic, please post something of use before I am forced to kill you.
Thats the exchange. The marked one. The 3rd post Dramonic has made in this game.Dramonic 183 wrote: i didnt read you making similar menace to my predecessor Nik. Do you feel I am a threat?
Go ahead and look at the combined isos. Then read that. Then vote for Dram.Dram wrote:Also, you can't say I'm active lurking, I'm not being lurky.
Not really no. I can be seen as a threat by a person weither he's town, scum or third party. If I wanted to call Nik scum I'd have done it. The fact you created paranoid subonscious ends to my phrase is not exactly my fault.SpyreX wrote:A defense rebuke which, if Dramonic is town, is saying "You find me a threat to your survival (as scum)."
Which, under the BEST of circumstances would still be telling.
I'm giving you reason on that, I had completely forgot he claimed hider. Under that precept I agree he's town. Does that actually change anything to the state of the game?In this case, it gets even better: I'd give Nik's hider claim an 80-20% chance of being a town maneuver (If I really have to go into the detail why claiming hider as scum is a crazy endeavor I will but I'd rather not have to type out that much theory).
Heavy misrep.So, we're not looking at a simple "You're doing this because you're scum" - we're looking at a "You, someone who has a pretty solid chance of being town, are doing this because you are scum not because I haven't done anything."
Well, selective lurker hunting is scummy, so bite me.If THIS wasn't enough - it is also punctuated by the "why didn't you come after my predecessor who was ALSO doing nothing." Which, by nature of being said, means that the fact Nik went after this is actually something you'd find. And called this, again, scummy.
Fine, it's not twisting, it's stretching to the point of alteration.And then went after me for twisting his words - when, in fact, its not a function of the words its a function of the simplest fact he's been doing nothing - until called out on it.
point A is steadily losing value, point B is way overinflatedNot doing anything? Check.
Putting the snipe on Nik for not also calling out McZ for also not doing anything? Check.
That's yet to be provenAdditionally, I'll give you a hint: I'm not getting lynched today. Its not happening. If it DOES, its going to take a major scum-push to do (which is fine in and of itself).
[/quote] humour is not really your thing is it.Go ahead and look at the combined isos. Then read that. Then vote for Dram.Dram wrote:Also, you can't say I'm active lurking, I'm not being lurky.
Why, why, why ever would anyone ever refer to someone they thought wasDram wrote: Not really no. I can be seen as a threat by a person weither he's town, scum or third party. If I wanted to call Nik scum I'd have done it. The fact you created paranoid subonscious ends to my phrase is not exactly my fault.
Actually, it does. Quite a bit. See that whole threat business. If it appears as though you are behaving as if you are both not on the same side and Nik is p much town, well.Dram wrote:I'm giving you reason on that, I had completely forgot he claimed hider. Under that precept I agree he's town. Does that actually change anything to the state of the game?
Not really no.
Haha, no.Dram wrote:point A is steadily losing value, point B is way overinflated
Nah. Humor isn't my thing. Never has been.Dram wrote:humour is not really your thing is it.
I enjoy being pushed, you're pushing me, you think you got scum.
Aren't we all happy?
You realize that this makes 50% assuming a normal distribution of the range you've given, right?SpyreX wrote:I'd give Nik's hider claim an 80-20% chance of being a town maneuver
Well, considering I forgot about the Hider claim, I didnt take for a premise that Nik was town.SpyreX wrote: Actually, it does. Quite a bit. See that whole threat business. If it appears as though you are behaving as if you are both not on the same side and Nik is p much town, well.
Obviously if I forgot the claim my attention wasn't that great <_<Point B is only overinflated if the explanation is "I wasn't paying attention to the gamestate (but not lurking)"
Which, sure, go for it.
You prefer I keep posting fluff?In fact, when considering the spike in activity based on you being called out for lurking saying that you weren't lurking is...
Wait for it...
Wait...
Scummy!