Eep because I forgot to unvote. Are you gonna use eep now as a scumtell too?
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Why is this? In Newbie games, people actually play smart, and they don't tend to do things they know are blatantly anti-town. You know, like policy-voting?Katsuki wrote:1. INCLUDING NEWBIE GAMES AS PROOF FOR "LACK OF POLICY VOTES" IS LAUGHABLE.
THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING. YOU MADE A BUNCH OF POLICY VOTES ON SHOTTY AROUND THE SAME TIME. IT'S SAFE TO ASSUME YOU'RE COVERING FOR YOUR SCUM GAME IN ONE OF THEM.Katsuki wrote:2. YOUR ORIGINAL POINT WAS WITH ME POLICY VOTING SHOTTY, AND THE FACT THAT I "NEVER" POLICY VOTE. YET, SHOTTY IS ONLY IN ONE OF THOSE GAMES, AND THAT WAS MY FIRST TIME PLAYING WITH HIM TOO.
Nope. Blatantly anti-town. Hell, I'd even call it scummy. You could've drawn a counterclaim from the REAL Mario, who might be our doctor, cop, vig etc, and out him for the scum to pick off. If you don't call THAT blatantly anti-town, then I honestly don't know what is.Katsuki wrote:Responding to jim last post, soft-claiming being completely pro-town? Not really. Blatently anti-town? Definately not.
So... your case on us is that we're attacking you...?Katsuki wrote: Calcifer: Still probably scum, terrible case and so called evidence re: "Kat 'never' policy votes". Gandalf has already stated in this thread that that is not true. Still has yet to explain how that is "kat-is-scum" evidence too, just constantly flings around "kat is scum".
Nice try, scum. But we're not settling for anything less than a Day 1 scum lynch.Katsuki wrote:If anything, I would be willing to put my neck in the noose D2 if we lynch Calc today.
Calcifer wrote:@Ani: I love the new avatar. It reminds me that we need prods sent out on about half of the game
I have been busy (evil school).Calcifer wrote:Framm 18 is scumbuddy to Katsuki for trying to subtly discredit votes on his buddy? Maybe.
Could you explain this, please?If it weren't for y'alls aggressiveness this early, I would have probably already voted for you.
Why CMAR specifically? There are a few more people who have been fluffposting more than he has.UNVOTE:
VOTE: CMAR All but two (maybe three) of his posts have been fluff as of right now.
I think that you being as aggressive as you are, makes you more townie than scummy. At least this early in the game, I think that you have been aggressive in the wrong things, mainly my first (random) vote, if you had been less aggressive then maybe I would think that you were more scummy.Calcifer wrote:Could you explain this, please?If it weren't for y'alls aggressiveness this early, I would have probably already voted for you.
Right now it is mainly gut feeling, but his joking around seems off to me. I can't really put a finger on why.Calcifer wrote:Why CMAR specifically? There are a few more people who have been fluffposting more than he has.UNVOTE:
VOTE: CMAR All but two (maybe three) of his posts have been fluff as of right now.
I would still like to you to point out where you are getting that idea, I have never indicated one way or another on that vote. I won't vote for him right now, so there is no "oops, I didn't know he was at L-1." votes.Calcifer wrote: Also, why do you disagree with the Kat vote?
Funny. No one policy votes in a newbie game because you are playing with newbies and hence setting an example.Calcifer wrote:Why is this? In Newbie games, people actually play smart, and they don't tend to do things they know are blatantly anti-town. You know, like policy-voting?Katsuki wrote:1. INCLUDING NEWBIE GAMES AS PROOF FOR "LACK OF POLICY VOTES" IS LAUGHABLE.
If around the same time = span over a month, then sure. I have been making policy votes on shotty for a month now. You are trying to turn an irrelevant thing into a scum tell, when it would be a WIFOM or a null-tell AT BEST.Calcifer wrote:THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING. YOU MADE A BUNCH OF POLICY VOTES ON SHOTTY AROUND THE SAME TIME. IT'S SAFE TO ASSUME YOU'RE COVERING FOR YOUR SCUM GAME IN ONE OF THEM.Katsuki wrote:2. YOUR ORIGINAL POINT WAS WITH ME POLICY VOTING SHOTTY, AND THE FACT THAT I "NEVER" POLICY VOTE. YET, SHOTTY IS ONLY IN ONE OF THOSE GAMES, AND THAT WAS MY FIRST TIME PLAYING WITH HIM TOO.
Tunnel more. Already tunneling on the fact that I am supposedly a fake Mario. Trying to lynch me quick before town changes their mind on me huh.Calcifer wrote:Nope. Blatantly anti-town. Hell, I'd even call it scummy. You could've drawn a counterclaim from the REAL Mario, who might be our doctor, cop, vig etc, and out him for the scum to pick off. If you don't call THAT blatantly anti-town, then I honestly don't know what is.Katsuki wrote:Responding to jim last post, soft-claiming being completely pro-town? Not really. Blatently anti-town? Definately not.
Nope, my case is that you guys have yet to present any case on me other than a "OMG KAT POLICY VOTE, MUST BE SCUM" and a "KAT IS NOT MARIO LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH".Calcifer wrote:So... your case on us is that we're attacking you...?Katsuki wrote: Calcifer: Still probably scum, terrible case and so called evidence re: "Kat 'never' policy votes". Gandalf has already stated in this thread that that is not true. Still has yet to explain how that is "kat-is-scum" evidence too, just constantly flings around "kat is scum".
...
Good, I'm glad that you agree with lynching you today. Have a nice day.Calcifer wrote:Nice try, scum. But we're not settling for anything less than a Day 1 scum lynch.Katsuki wrote:If anything, I would be willing to put my neck in the noose D2 if we lynch Calc today.
So your last few posts have been the same thing. Is there anything you'd like to add?gandalf5166 wrote:Yeah, Kat is definitely scum. Flailing scum at that.
Well, when you vote someone else other than the person most under scrutiny right now without even commenting on his wagon, I assume that you disapprove of the vote/are avoiding commenting on it.Framm wrote:I would still like to you to point out where you are getting that idea, I have never indicated one way or another on that vote. I won't vote for him right now, so there is no "oops, I didn't know he was at L-1." votes.
...an example of how to play correctly; thus, you don't do things like policy lynch or no-lynch on Day 1 because it's inherrantly anti-town.Kat wrote:Funny. No one policy votes in a newbie game because you are playing with newbies and hence setting an example.
How is it irrelevant? Policy lynches are EXTREMELY easy for scum to hid behind and consistantly hurt the town. That's not WIFOM, that's not a null-tell.Kat wrote:If around the same time = span over a month, then sure. I have been making policy votes on shotty for a month now. You are trying to turn an irrelevant thing into a scum tell, when it would be a WIFOM or a null-tell AT BEST.
By that logic, gandalf would be scum too, as he policy votes shotty too.Calcifer wrote:How is it irrelevant? Policy lynches are EXTREMELY easy for scum to hid behind and consistantly hurt the town. That's not WIFOM, that's not a null-tell.Kat wrote:If around the same time = span over a month, then sure. I have been making policy votes on shotty for a month now. You are trying to turn an irrelevant thing into a scum tell, when it would be a WIFOM or a null-tell AT BEST.