I have limited experience with T3, but this is about where I'm at with it as well.In post 93, Datisi wrote:if that were almost anyone else, i'd start screaming for their head because they're obviously making it up as they go, but gut tells me this is not *completely* out of t3's townrange.
In post 93, Datisi wrote:if that were almost anyone else, i'd start screaming for their head because they're obviously making it up as they go, but gut tells me this is not *completely* out of t3's townrange.
Um, pretty serious?In post 46, Aristeia wrote:How serious are you right now?In post 44, Gamma Emerald wrote:Welp my vote is serious now
noIn post 69, T3 wrote:Let me have bad reads in peace.In post 68, Datisi wrote:while it's far from the first time i get some suspicion my way for my tone of speaking, i do kind of expect better from someone who's already played a few games with me.
You seem like you’re spouting bs mateIn post 77, T3 wrote:I already responded to this. Also, I think Titus's 'mindmeld' is towny.In post 76, Datisi wrote:VOTE: t3In post 73, Datisi wrote:if flubber was reacting to something that wasn't rvs, then flubber's own post can't have been rvs either, right? so why are you suspecting umlaut for taking flubber's "rvs" interaction too seriously?
In post 60, T3 wrote:The weird mindmeld dancing around on umlaut.In post 59, Datisi wrote:you're free to elaborate.
This doesn’t mesh imoIn post 77, T3 wrote:I already responded to this. Also, I think Titus's 'mindmeld' is towny.In post 76, Datisi wrote:VOTE: t3In post 73, Datisi wrote:if flubber was reacting to something that wasn't rvs, then flubber's own post can't have been rvs either, right? so why are you suspecting umlaut for taking flubber's "rvs" interaction too seriously?
I think that that might actually be part of the problem tbhIn post 82, Vulture wrote:How does one man who joins so many mafia games never learn.
"welp"
so I don't think seanzie is literally scumreading someone for posting more. I think they're trying to manufacture a push and doing it poorly. so the only thing they could shade alchemist for was "posting". seems like I'm right too, because in elaborating, they're now saying things that are just...wrongIn post 36, Umlaut wrote:A non-ridiculous reading is "there is something in Alchemist's posts that Seanzie didn't like and he's being coy about what exactly" and not "posting = bad," and I have a hard time believing the latter is really what you thought he meant even for a second.
More votes on Flub plz
NowIn post 112, Flubbernugget wrote:so I don't think seanzie is literally scumreading someone for posting more. I think they're trying to manufacture a push and doing it poorly. so the only thing they could shade alchemist for was "posting". seems like I'm right too, because in elaborating, they're now saying things that are just...wrongIn post 36, Umlaut wrote:A non-ridiculous reading is "there is something in Alchemist's posts that Seanzie didn't like and he's being coy about what exactly" and not "posting = bad," and I have a hard time believing the latter is really what you thought he meant even for a second.
More votes on Flub plz
What do you think of my idea that Seanzie may have been testing to see who would try defending/pocketing me?In post 112, Flubbernugget wrote:so I don't think seanzie is literally scumreading someone for posting more. I think they're trying to manufacture a push and doing it poorly. so the only thing they could shade alchemist for was "posting". seems like I'm right too, because in elaborating, they're now saying things that are just...wrongIn post 36, Umlaut wrote:A non-ridiculous reading is "there is something in Alchemist's posts that Seanzie didn't like and he's being coy about what exactly" and not "posting = bad," and I have a hard time believing the latter is really what you thought he meant even for a second.
More votes on Flub plz
That's a 400iq strat that people don't do.In post 114, Alchemist21 wrote:What do you think of my idea that Seanzie may have been testing to see who would try defending/pocketing me?In post 112, Flubbernugget wrote:so I don't think seanzie is literally scumreading someone for posting more. I think they're trying to manufacture a push and doing it poorly. so the only thing they could shade alchemist for was "posting". seems like I'm right too, because in elaborating, they're now saying things that are just...wrongIn post 36, Umlaut wrote:A non-ridiculous reading is "there is something in Alchemist's posts that Seanzie didn't like and he's being coy about what exactly" and not "posting = bad," and I have a hard time believing the latter is really what you thought he meant even for a second.
More votes on Flub plz
I'm not seeing it and you're probably overthinking things. dude got pressured on why he voted for you then straight up liedAlchemist21 wrote:What do you think of my idea that Seanzie may have been testing to see who would try defending/pocketing me?In post 112, Flubbernugget wrote:so I don't think seanzie is literally scumreading someone for posting more. I think they're trying to manufacture a push and doing it poorly. so the only thing they could shade alchemist for was "posting". seems like I'm right too, because in elaborating, they're now saying things that are just...wrongIn post 36, Umlaut wrote:A non-ridiculous reading is "there is something in Alchemist's posts that Seanzie didn't like and he's being coy about what exactly" and not "posting = bad," and I have a hard time believing the latter is really what you thought he meant even for a second.
More votes on Flub plz
This has been on my mind a bit, but have mods recently started putting info like this in their rulesets? This was an oddly specific detail to include and if there’s a neighborhood it means there’s a guaranteed scum in there.
In post 54, Datisi wrote:@flubber, what do you find ridiculous about 34?
He only lied if you take the “you posted more” comment literally which only you and Titus claim to have done.In post 116, Flubbernugget wrote:I'm not seeing it and you're probably overthinking things. dude got pressured on why he voted for you then straight up liedAlchemist21 wrote:What do you think of my idea that Seanzie may have been testing to see who would try defending/pocketing me?In post 112, Flubbernugget wrote:so I don't think seanzie is literally scumreading someone for posting more. I think they're trying to manufacture a push and doing it poorly. so the only thing they could shade alchemist for was "posting". seems like I'm right too, because in elaborating, they're now saying things that are just...wrongIn post 36, Umlaut wrote:A non-ridiculous reading is "there is something in Alchemist's posts that Seanzie didn't like and he's being coy about what exactly" and not "posting = bad," and I have a hard time believing the latter is really what you thought he meant even for a second.
More votes on Flub plz
see 112 116 and 120
It was an incorrect statement because I did joke and make an RVS vote as well. I actually called it out and the response from Seanzie was just a winky face. I didn’t really know what to make of that response but just assumed he was trolling and let it go because I was more interested in the potential Seanzie wagon.In post 122, Datisi wrote:how is that wrong? at the time of him saying that his vote became serious, alchemist was making small talk and asking people how they were? like, it seems like making friends to me... (don't think he's scum for it, but i can see the thought process as plausible.)
In post 12, Seanzie wrote:VOTE: Alchemist21 no townie would ever subject the rest of town to this pun.
In post 27, Seanzie wrote:It isn't, necessarily.
am I missing something like...super obvious? he's literally acknowledging alch was cracking jokes and then saying to opposite after being pressured.In post 34, Seanzie wrote:Good question. Instead of entering with jokes or RVS, Alchemist seems to want to be friends with everyone.