![Image](http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1159901/its-a-puppy-o.gif)
@Copper: I know this has already been covered by other players, but please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you for apologizing, but as per my rules I'm going to give you a warning.
In post 507, Drixx wrote:@SS - Cabd was putting pressure on people and asserting that they needed to claim. In hindsight it makes sense that he was the cop, although that's a pretty aggressive way to play the role.
In post 510, copper223 wrote:
- I know my alignment and made it pretty obvious so forget about Copper.
. It's a shame that his post overall is just exactly as worthless as the post he was reacting to, if we disregard this, small, and probably not even central part.)In post 516, Drixx wrote:Secondly, you did a huge LAMIST and told the game to dismiss "copper" (speaking of yourself in the third person ... interesting) from their thoughts on scum. So far, anyone following along and accepting your premises seems right on track towards EW and me, just as you intend.
In post 514, Epic Warrior wrote:and you postulated several times that I was perhaps not as nooby as I seem either. Just pointing that out.
In post 525, copper223 wrote:
Singer has no likely partner on the EW wagon she could split from, that's why I clear her.
In post 533, Drixx wrote:
I would ask you to ISO me and read what I said about EW yesterday and today before your post. I still maintain that Mal was the right lynch yesterday, because he was lurking without any apparent strategic value. Cabd also lurked strategically yesterday, as did Jason and EW. Singer did to a lesser extent.
In post 539, singersigner wrote:
@++--...why were you concerned about how early to vote someone in the day?
In post 542, Drixx wrote:
Given the fact that Copper considers himself a top notch (99th percentile we might say) mafia player, do you believe that he's never once considered what the scum team had to think about on night one of a newbie game?
In post 552, copper223 wrote:
@Jason
Why aren't you voting EW, did you change your mind from yesterday?
In post 565, Drixx wrote:I have found it very hard to talk myself into you being scum Copper, because it would take exceptionally bold scum to run the game the way you have, but I can't explain away your obsession with a theory you admit has several points of possible failure. I can't explain away how you can say I look townie in one post and then make a completely invalid analogy in another post to advance said theory. I know you are smart and can reason quite well, so simple mistakes like glaringly bad analogies shouldn't come from you. As much as I wouldn't have believed that this would happen today, perhaps the reason scum didn't kill you last night is because you are on the team.
Vote: Copper223
In post 533, Drixx wrote:
1.) Very Active - Generally you'll find the best players and very motivated VTs or scum in this tier. They interact with everything in the game.
2.) Mostly Active - Scum are most often found here
In post 580, Drixx wrote:@++-- - I've seen scum hardcore white knight a partner before. It's a super gutsy strategy, but it can work if it isn't used too frequently within a group of players. I'm not saying I think EW + HI is the scum team; however, I wouldn't completely dismiss it from evaluation based upon that super hardcore defense.
In post 583, singersigner wrote:Eh, fair enough. I didn't read his whole post, just your response, which reminded me of the whole "overlooking the potential doctor" mishap.
In post 586, Drixx wrote:
As you are no doubt aware, a vote is frequently used to see how someone responds. I laid out a case that you could easily dismiss by apologizing for calling me scum for wanting to take the time to do things right when you yourself did the very same thing (in principle) yesterday, along with an acknowledgement that you have been completely focused on your theory to the exclusion of any other possibilities at all. I'm sure you will suggest that we agree to disagree, but I submit that there's nothing crazy about voting for someone when you make a case against him which is clearly solid and which he refuses to address.
@Jason, @EW - We going to hear from you two today?
In post 590, singersigner wrote:@EW...do you mind just giving the cliff notes version of Drixx's case on copper so I feel like you actually understand why you're voting? "Yeah, what he said" isn't really reassuring...
In post 593, Epic Warrior wrote:In post 590, singersigner wrote:@EW...do you mind just giving the cliff notes version of Drixx's case on copper so I feel like you actually understand why you're voting? "Yeah, what he said" isn't really reassuring...
Essentially, Copper's case is based on several assumptions and he won't change his case despite the fact that Drixx pointed this out.
In post 592, Hostile Intent wrote:UNVOTE: copper223
Still waiting for J-Weezy. Unvoting only to stop anyone from hammering.
In post 423, Epic Warrior wrote:HI, I really appreciate it, but odds are I'll get hammered anyway, and then no matter if I'm town or scum they'll think you're scum too. As evidenced by that exchange higher on this page.
In post 357, Hostile Intent wrote:Epic Warrior, not sure if you know this or not, but you shouldn't claim even at L-1 unless someone claims intent to hammer. And since all four players off your lynch have expressed no desire to hammer you, my advise is that you shouldn't claim at all.
What you SHOULD do, however, is scum hunt more so I don't feel stupid for reading you newb-town.
Thanks.