The Icon Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I know what you mean about him bullying his way through the game. He disagreed with an accusation I made my calling me the village idiot, then sidestepped every point I made. When I made a final point against him he ignored it amidst a few tellings off by the mod. When I later repeated myself and asked him to answer it, he didn't. Â When I agreed with Bristep about his points on Mike choosingly editing things, he brushed it off as me "not thinking with my head". Â See, you make a point like this, then condemn people when they agree with you. Calling people scum for voting for scummy players just adds credence to the 'don't bother saying anything so people don't suspect you' train of thought, which means you end up with more coasters than hunters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jaffa Posted December 10, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 10, 2010 Highly convenient you all suddenly think your cases against him are worth a vote the minute he's not here for 4 days. The day phase is rapidly coming to an end, the thread has stalled and I have plans for the weekend so can't guarentee that i'll be about. So yes, I think mine is worth a vote now. Â Regardless of the timing, i'd have voted Mike - I really don't like his attempt to get Corey lynched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted December 10, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 10, 2010 I know what you mean about him bullying his way through the game. He disagreed with an accusation I made my calling me the village idiot, then sidestepped every point I made. When I made a final point against him he ignored it amidst a few tellings off by the mod. When I later repeated myself and asked him to answer it, he didn't. Â When I agreed with Bristep about his points on Mike choosingly editing things, he brushed it off as me "not thinking with my head". Â See, you make a point like this, then condemn people when they agree with you. Calling people scum for voting for scummy players just adds credence to the 'don't bother saying anything so people don't suspect you' train of thought, which means you end up with more coasters than hunters. Â Just because I make points against people doesn't mean I have to vote for them. If I make this point, i'd rather wait until Mike can reply to it before I vote him off. What's also very odd, is how after I said it's scummy you three voted him back to back, you all made a case to defend yourselves, yet none of you admitted to how scummy it looks. It's glaringly obvious that at least one of you has to be a wagon jumper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Red Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Family Guy : TripleA didn't condemn anyone specifically, he said that it was convenient that three people all decided to vote for Mike once he's unable to reply. And he's right, there's every chance that one of those three votes was a scum trying to push along a wagon. Â My concern is that you're very defensive of a very valid point, and very quick to say so as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted December 10, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 10, 2010 What's also very odd, is how after I said it's scummy you three voted him back to back, you all made a case to defend yourselves, yet none of you admitted to how scummy it looks. It's glaringly obvious that at least one of you has to be a wagon jumper. Â Â Family Guy : TripleA didn't condemn anyone specifically, he said that it was convenient that three people all decided to vote for Mike once he's unable to reply. And he's right, there's every chance that one of those three votes was a scum trying to push along a wagon. Â My concern is that you're very defensive of a very valid point, and very quick to say so as well. Â Glad i'm not the only one who thinks this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Icon Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Whilst I see the validity of the point, I see it's flaws as well. Whether Mike was here or not, I feel he's done the damage required to earn my vote. The fact he's not here saves me a long cyclical argument where whatever I say gets twisted out of context and I'm spoken to like I'm 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Red Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Whilst I see the validity of the point, I see it's flaws as well. Whether Mike was here or not, I feel he's done the damage required to earn my vote. The fact he's not here saves me a long cyclical argument where whatever I say gets twisted out of context and I'm spoken to like I'm 5. Â Can you tell me what the flaws are? I don't see any and would like to be informed. Â And yes, while Mike does have a habit of talking down to the rest of the game and positioning himself as the centrepoint I still think that there are other suspects that we can pressure and get a more informed lynch rather than basing it on Mike behaviour (because from what I can gather, this is the way he is in every game.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Icon Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Whilst I see the validity of the point, I see it's flaws as well. Whether Mike was here or not, I feel he's done the damage required to earn my vote. The fact he's not here saves me a long cyclical argument where whatever I say gets twisted out of context and I'm spoken to like I'm 5. Â Can you tell me what the flaws are? I don't see any and would like to be informed. Â And yes, while Mike does have a habit of talking down to the rest of the game and positioning himself as the centrepoint I still think that there are other suspects that we can pressure and get a more informed lynch rather than basing it on Mike behaviour (because from what I can gather, this is the way he is in every game.) Â Just because 3 people agree with an opinion, and can see why someone is scum, doesn't mean they're all scum. In the last game the scum cell barely voted on the lynch, because they didn't need to. Right now there's a high enough town to scum ratio that they don't need to bandwagon a lynch. If anything I'd be more occupied by who defends Mike if he flips scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted December 10, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 10, 2010 Whilst I see the validity of the point, I see it's flaws as well. Whether Mike was here or not, I feel he's done the damage required to earn my vote. The fact he's not here saves me a long cyclical argument where whatever I say gets twisted out of context and I'm spoken to like I'm 5. Â Can you tell me what the flaws are? I don't see any and would like to be informed. Â And yes, while Mike does have a habit of talking down to the rest of the game and positioning himself as the centrepoint I still think that there are other suspects that we can pressure and get a more informed lynch rather than basing it on Mike behaviour (because from what I can gather, this is the way he is in every game.) Â Just because 3 people agree with an opinion, and can see why someone is scum, doesn't mean they're all scum. In the last game the scum cell barely voted on the lynch, because they didn't need to. Right now there's a high enough town to scum ratio that they don't need to bandwagon a lynch. If anything I'd be more occupied by who defends Mike if he flips scum. Â 1. Nobody has said you're all scum. Just maybe 1 of you. 2. I agree with the opinion Mike is scummy, but I didn't wait until he couldn't defend himself to vote for him. 3. Just because it didn't happen in the last game doesn't mean it doesn't happen in every other game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Icon Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Also, in his last two games Mike has been in anti-town roles, so 'he's like this in every game' doesn't cut it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted December 10, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 10, 2010 Also, in his last two games Mike has been in anti-town roles, so 'he's like this in every game' doesn't cut it either. Â Well one game he was scum, the other he was 3rd party. Even in the games before those when he was Town, he acted like he does now. So with 3 different alliances all acted the same, i'd say it does cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Icon Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Trips, i'd say 'one of you may be scum' gives me enough of a mandate to clarify the validity of my argument, which is all I've tried to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Red Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Whilst I see the validity of the point, I see it's flaws as well. Whether Mike was here or not, I feel he's done the damage required to earn my vote. The fact he's not here saves me a long cyclical argument where whatever I say gets twisted out of context and I'm spoken to like I'm 5. Â Can you tell me what the flaws are? I don't see any and would like to be informed. Â And yes, while Mike does have a habit of talking down to the rest of the game and positioning himself as the centrepoint I still think that there are other suspects that we can pressure and get a more informed lynch rather than basing it on Mike behaviour (because from what I can gather, this is the way he is in every game.) Â Just because 3 people agree with an opinion, and can see why someone is scum, doesn't mean they're all scum. In the last game the scum cell barely voted on the lynch, because they didn't need to. Right now there's a high enough town to scum ratio that they don't need to bandwagon a lynch. If anything I'd be more occupied by who defends Mike if he flips scum. Â It reads like you're getting stuck on this thought that TripleA is laying accusations at all of you. He isn't. Â You say that it "doesn't mean they're all scum" when that wasn't the point that was made. That's either a mistake on your part or an attempt to subvert the original point. Â He is saying that he thinks there's a chance that 1 of the 3 of you is scum, or at the very least a wagon hopper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Icon Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I know he's not saying we're all scum, I know he's not firmly placing an accusation at my feet, but the nature of his point still highlights the fact I may be scum by the way I've voted. It's only natural i'd place a counter argument out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ron Simmons Posted December 10, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 10, 2010 No, I don't like this sudden swing at all. It seems very calculated. I think Nexus probably is scum, but unvote vote Family Guy PMSL Â This has sealed the deal for me. If you're scum - as I believe you are - I think you're a very dangerous player to the town. Much more so than Nexus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.