In post 296, pisskop wrote:prodles
Fancy, actually playing the game?
How about you answer my question as well?In post 307, pisskop wrote:ewww
a whole post asking people about their feelz over a PL instead of progressing the game.
those posts are intended to stir up a lynch on a noinfo character. and disguise it as contiribuiting. the more proficient players among you should tell me that post felt right
In post 310, pisskop wrote:from a theory point its a crapsack AtE and from a game progress point its a stagnant soft push
You realise you are asking him if he would be okay with his own policy lynch, right?In post 311, Aster wrote:In post 310, pisskop wrote:from a theory point its a crapsack AtE and from a game progress point its a stagnant soft pushPlease pick an answer that contains a "yes" or a "no".
- Beats around the bush.
Sentences begin with a capital letter. And it is 'comma'.In post 301, pisskop wrote:that coma is extraneous.
Simple. I was actively scumhunting at the same time.In post 299, wilky wrote:In post 297, Chip Butty wrote:Information instead of analysisIn post 294, wilky wrote:In post 290, Chip Butty wrote:
Some setup spec is okay as long as gamesolving is also being done. That wasn't the case here. It was getting into iioa territory, at least enough to warrant an early-game poke.
iioa?
So what makes it different to you talking about information on the draft and whether scum could talk during it then?
Lol hasn’t anyone told you that yes or no questions don’t work and make you look scummy?In post 305, Aster wrote:How about all of you answer the above question with something that contains a "yes" or a "no" and without beaing around the bush? Tomorrow I'll make a list of everyone's answers, everyone who has not answered, and everyone who is beating around the bush in their answer.
- Would you be okay with pisskop getting policy lynched at this point in the game?
In post 319, Chip Butty wrote:Simple. I was actively scumhunting at the same time.
Possibly not full on scum hunting but Aster actually pulled out something usefully from it all.In post 36, Aster wrote:Hold on. I suppose that means the slots would have been assigned identically if the 1 and 7 groups were switched? That does actually give us a bit of information:In post 34, Elmo TeH AzN wrote:You can PM me more about the 1 or 7 Talk. I can Assure you that it changed nothing in the game.
- To anyone in the 7-group who got their slot: nobody in the 1-group tried to get your slot.
- To anyone in the 1-group who didn't get their slot: either your slot was taken by somebody in the 1-group above you, or it wasn't taken by anyone in the 7-group.