Yeah, those.In post 149, Havo wrote:What's the accusation against me exactly?In post 148, Chip Butty wrote:I don't think sarcasm is an adequate defence...sorry...
That I'm scummy? That I haven't defended my self well enough?
Why so impatient?In post 151, Chip Butty wrote:Yeah, those.In post 149, Havo wrote:What's the accusation against me exactly?In post 148, Chip Butty wrote:I don't think sarcasm is an adequate defence...sorry...
That I'm scummy? That I haven't defended my self well enough?
Sorry, but someone has to go and there isn't any solid evidence on D1. Not sure there is any value in dragging D1 out to a two week talkfest. We just have to go on people's reactions, and yours have been anything but reassuring.
The fact that you're 'Not Scumhunting' is precisely the problem.In post 141, Havo wrote:What's not to like?In post 140, WhyMafia wrote:Don't like his defense
The only thing I see that I've actually been accused of is Not Scumhunting.
24 hours into the game. And we've still got a handful of people who has barely posted anything.
Finally a decent accusation.In post 154, skitter30 wrote:The fact that you're 'Not Scumhunting' is precisely the problem.In post 141, Havo wrote:What's not to like?In post 140, WhyMafia wrote:Don't like his defense
The only thing I see that I've actually been accused of is Not Scumhunting.
24 hours into the game. And we've still got a handful of people who has barely posted anything.
You have a relatively significant number of posts, but very few of them are advancing the game. Instead, you're fluffposting and using sarcasm to discredit people's reads (118, 'nice to see I'm in a game with such good players who can develop serious reads less than 24 hours in').
You seem rather concerned about defending yourself and trying to undermine people's reads on you, and don't seem that interested in looking for scum.
VOTE: Havo
L-1.
Discussion is fine but all you keep saying is it's too early to discuss anything because a few players haven't posted much and too early for reads. What if we all took that approach? We'd be twiddling our thumbs until nightfall. How about anandoning your lofty principles and actually giving some reads, instead of just complaining about how unfair it all is?
I'm more concerned about the parts that I bolded above. Namely, where you seem to be trying to discredit people's reads.In post 156, Havo wrote:Finally a decent accusation.In post 154, skitter30 wrote:The fact that you're 'Not Scumhunting' is precisely the problem.In post 141, Havo wrote:What's not to like?In post 140, WhyMafia wrote:Don't like his defense
The only thing I see that I've actually been accused of is Not Scumhunting.
24 hours into the game. And we've still got a handful of people who has barely posted anything.
You have a relatively significant number of posts, but very few of them are advancing the game.Instead, you're fluffposting and using sarcasm to discredit people's reads(118, 'nice to see I'm in a game with such good players who can develop serious reads less than 24 hours in').
You seem rather concerned about defending yourself andtrying to undermine people's reads on you, and don't seem that interested in looking for scum.
VOTE: Havo
L-1.
I'm not scum hunting. Lol.
Yeah I'm not gonna scum hunt until I have a decent amount of content to read. Just the way I roll.
"I seem rather concerned about defending my self"In post 154, skitter30 wrote:The fact that you're 'Not Scumhunting' is precisely the problem.In post 141, Havo wrote:What's not to like?In post 140, WhyMafia wrote:Don't like his defense
The only thing I see that I've actually been accused of is Not Scumhunting.
24 hours into the game. And we've still got a handful of people who has barely posted anything.
You have a relatively significant number of posts, but very few of them are advancing the game. Instead, you're fluffposting and using sarcasm to discredit people's reads (118, 'nice to see I'm in a game with such good players who can develop serious reads less than 24 hours in').
You seem rather concerned about defending yourself and trying to undermine people's reads on you, and don't seem that interested in looking for scum.
VOTE: Havo
L-1.
Well it's because I know their reads are shat.In post 159, skitter30 wrote:I'm more concerned about the parts that I bolded above. Namely, where you seem to be trying to discredit people's reads.In post 156, Havo wrote:Finally a decent accusation.In post 154, skitter30 wrote:The fact that you're 'Not Scumhunting' is precisely the problem.In post 141, Havo wrote:What's not to like?In post 140, WhyMafia wrote:Don't like his defense
The only thing I see that I've actually been accused of is Not Scumhunting.
24 hours into the game. And we've still got a handful of people who has barely posted anything.
You have a relatively significant number of posts, but very few of them are advancing the game.Instead, you're fluffposting and using sarcasm to discredit people's reads(118, 'nice to see I'm in a game with such good players who can develop serious reads less than 24 hours in').
You seem rather concerned about defending yourself andtrying to undermine people's reads on you, and don't seem that interested in looking for scum.
VOTE: Havo
L-1.
I'm not scum hunting. Lol.
Yeah I'm not gonna scum hunt until I have a decent amount of content to read. Just the way I roll.
Nope. I said it was too early for Serious reads.In post 158, Chip Butty wrote:Discussion is fine but all you keep saying is it's too early to discuss anything because a few players haven't posted much and too early for reads. What if we all took that approach? We'd be twiddling our thumbs until nightfall. How about anandoning your lofty principles and actually giving some reads, instead of just complaining about how unfair it all is?
Yes, forcing out a read list will fix everything I'm sure.In post 158, Chip Butty wrote:Discussion is fine but all you keep saying is it's too early to discuss anything because a few players haven't posted much and too early for reads. What if we all took that approach? We'd be twiddling our thumbs until nightfall. How about anandoning your lofty principles and actually giving some reads, instead of just complaining about how unfair it all is?
In post 157, Havo wrote:L - 1.
This is where I'd normally say go ahead and lynch me, cause town could do worse.
But this time town could literally NOT do worse.
Lynching me is the worst thing town could do.
This is a terrible post. NONE of this is true.In post 158, Chip Butty wrote:Discussion is fine but all you keep saying is it's too early to discuss anything because a few players haven't posted much and too early for reads. What if we all took that approach? We'd be twiddling our thumbs until nightfall. How about anandoning your lofty principles and actually giving some reads, instead of just complaining about how unfair it all is?
I actually missed this. UNVOTE:In post 157, Havo wrote:L - 1.
This is where I'd normally say go ahead and lynch me, cause town could do worse.
But this time town could literally NOT do worse.
Lynching me is the worst thing town could do.
In post 169, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Do you think WM is scum? Or are you pushing a policy lynch on him? Similarly, do you actually want to lynch him today?"
Not overwhelmingly. It's a policy lynch, technically. I want him out so we don't have to deal with the slot later, and then analyze based on what happened to the slot later. I think it's because scum would advocate for his survival to the point of LYLO, where it would be too late.
Was the above serious?In post 32, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Ah. It's because the team is WhyMafia, Mulch, and someone who's gonna bus WhyMafia upon entrance.
How is chip a wagon jumper but skitter (the one that put havo at l-1is not?In post 164, MariaR wrote:Hello? Why do we have Havo at L-1 7 pages in when there clearly softing PR. Get off this wagon the fact it picked up so fast with no counter wagon is red flags all over.
If you think Havo is scum we can come back later. Let's vote the band wagon jumper.
VOTE: Chip
This feels fake. How could you not of noticed that post? Your vote on havo felt opportunistic and i didnt call out on it in hopes someone would hammer (potentially revealing you both as scum)In post 171, skitter30 wrote:I actually missed this. UNVOTE:In post 157, Havo wrote:L - 1.
This is where I'd normally say go ahead and lynch me, cause town could do worse.
But this time town could literally NOT do worse.
Lynching me is the worst thing town could do.