You're not going to get that so you should probably not use it as an excuse to contribute absolutely nothing for the duration of the day/game.
This is the kind of ad hom attack that I dislike. You call one post within an hour or so of thread opening "dong nothing for the duration etc". It's bullshit and personally offensive.
Noraa, I have nothing against you. I'm well aware that I'm not likely to succeed in this, but I feel it is ethically appropriate to register my objection.
I feel like this was a scummy non-contributory post.
1.good dodge, not good enough
2. says the guy who wants to lynch asap
3. it contributed, whether you can see the value or not depends on your mindset. I didn't post it to fill up space.
1. What exactly am I supposed to be dodging, your insane page 1 scumhunting?
2. Yes I do, what does that have to do with you making a non-contributory post?
3. See this is where we disagree. It wasn't a vote, it was a baseless statement with no reasoning.
Pine, IDK I think you should give people a chance (fresh game fresh face) before you attack them for how they behaved in the past. Esp when it's obvious and has been for days that he's interested in playing for real.
Just see what he does here and if you don't like it then vote. You had your chance to out.
red-
1. lol when should i start then page ten
2. if you say so. agree to disagree. maybe you think it's not contributory bc it has your name on it.
3. i don't believe voting is the only way to contribute to a game. I prefer to think and figure out why someone did something first before I waste my time voting them.
so what does lynching someone quickly gain you, and do you care so much who it is that dies? Besides Vifam I mean?
Engineers accepted the word “planetary” in its epicyclic sense, but I was always conscious that it also meant “wandering,” “erratic.”
Compassion, Common Sense, and Context should always go together.
Nora, STOP! Freeze right there. Please, DON'T (!!!) make worthless filler posts consisting of non-contributive insane scum hunting on page 1, day 1, in a nightless setup. No more posts, Nora! DON'T think you can post again until page 10 and get away with it.
In post 31, noraaa wrote:Pine, IDK I think you should give people a chance (fresh game fresh face) before you attack them for how they behaved in the past. Esp when it's obvious and has been for days that he's interested in playing for real.
Just see what he does here and if you don't like it then vote. You had your chance to out.
red-
1. lol when should i start then page ten
2. if you say so. agree to disagree. maybe you think it's not contributory bc it has your name on it.
3. i don't believe voting is the only way to contribute to a game. I prefer to think and figure out why someone did something first before I waste my time voting them.
so what does lynching someone quickly gain you, and do you care so much who it is that dies? Besides Vifam I mean?
1. Now THAT is a dodge.
2. No I don't think it's contributory because all it says is "redFF needs to die" with no reason or vote to back it up. It is an inane, pointless statement.
3. Neither do I, when did I say it was? But you don't prefer to think and figure out why someone did something first before you waste your time saying they need to die?
Lynching Vifam quickly gets me a few things. It gets rid of Vifam, there's a chance to hit scum, and it gets juicy reactions from people like you.
In mathematics and theoretical computer science, the broadest and most abstract definition of an enumeration of a set is an exact listing of all of its elements - Wikipedia, copy and pasted in 10 seconds flat
In post 35, noraaa wrote:red, what if Vifam is a really important town role? Would you still want him to die on policy?
ps make me write my paper
the last two nightless games ythan has run have been mountainous. Obviously I would re-evaluate a policy lynch depending on his claim, not doing so would be pretty silly.
1. you were dodging my original remark, obviously. I didn't think I had to spell it out.
2. I didn't say that actually I said I think you WANT to die in which case I'm watching to see if my hypothesis feels correct before I give you what I think at the time you might want. Now I'm less certain based on future posts, so that would have been stupid to vote you. My votes are precious, like Catholic sperm. It wasn't pointless, in fact it pointed out a theory that others could contribute to.
3. You didn't expressly say that but you did call me out on not voting=not contributing. Had I said that and voted simultaneously, I feel your argument would not have been made. Again, I never said you need to die. Read better pls
re vifam- kay thanks for explaining
vifam- that's literally what I stopped trying to read.
Engineers accepted the word “planetary” in its epicyclic sense, but I was always conscious that it also meant “wandering,” “erratic.”
Compassion, Common Sense, and Context should always go together.
