|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 15:14:39 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 3, 2008 15:14:39 GMT -5
NETA: It would seem story and I agree on the mmouse issue.
Listen to story people, he is more articulate than I.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 15:27:28 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 3, 2008 15:27:28 GMT -5
I just don't have the time to find someone else to vote for right now (I'm sorry - will really try to make it before Day ends) I'm don't want to vote BUFF right now and I can see the point about MM7799 being subed - so I'll Unvote MM7799 for now... I did think I would vote Peeker just for the fun of it - but I like the guy (even if he did vote for me)
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 15:37:58 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 3, 2008 15:37:58 GMT -5
Or: 1. She's [mmouse] trying to get lynched, because she's a Bomb or Jester. Or: 2. She is unable to post, by some post restriction mechanism. Anything is possible, we know nothing, and the one danger associated with not lynching her - that she'd be modkilled and we'd get no information on her alignment - has been obviated. I've had the same thoughts about DBI, at least on the bomb front. A closed game with a restriction strikes me as unlikely, but I otherwise agree with acknowledging it as a possibility. This emerging case against buff is compelling. I'd like to hear more from her before potentially changing my vote though.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 15:51:18 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 3, 2008 15:51:18 GMT -5
mmouse - 4 votes (KidV, Kat, misterblockey, Hoopy Frood) DBI - 4 votes (Flyingblankofdoom, Chucara, sinjin, Cookies) Chucara - 2 votes (Santo Rugger, miteymouse) bufftabby - 2 votes (storyteller, NAF) Mr Special Ed - 1 vote (zeriel) Total Lost - 1 vote (Peekercpa) Peekercpa - 1 vote (DBI) Pedescribe - 1 vote (Nanook) Nanook - 1 vote (Pedescribe) storyteller - 1 vote (bufftabby)
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 16:17:48 GMT -5
Post by Zeriel on Dec 3, 2008 16:17:48 GMT -5
First a long-neglected unvote Mr Special Ed. Secondly, I'm inclined to buy into this emerging case against bufftabby, but for a somewhat different reason. She says... Since when do we let quibbles, debacles, kerfluffles, or cacophonies die a good and decent death in this game? If I can't even talk about a disagreement from Day One *while still in Day One*, I suppose I sure can't bring it up Day Two or Three either. Shall we just start each Day fresh then? Each day? Please, tell me what the statute of limitations is on these things. You mention using this as a scum tactic. Scum try to pretend to be Town. Sorry if my Town behavior overlaps with your scum behavior, but that's just the way it works sometimes, and you know that. ...as though Story's hanging onto that as a big reason for voting for her...and yet, at the same time, he hasn't said word one about either of the other two voters on Special Ed (namely, Cookies and myself). That tells me you're playing with his words and intentions. That bit about scum/town WIFOM is just unnecessary confusion on top of that. Additionally, I'm not very comfortable with lynching either DBI or MMouse until we have further information--as said, to metagame a bit, we know MMouse is active elsewhere. We know DBI is reading and not saying much. We know that in recent games there have been powers that can cause people to be prohibited from speaking or have their posts restricted in various ways as well as day powers. I do not at this time see the value in lynching players based on lower-than-normal participation in what's been a very long day over a holiday. vote bufftabby
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 16:24:51 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 3, 2008 16:24:51 GMT -5
Ah. In that case, I am once again perfectly fine with a mmouse lynch. WHHHHAAAAAAATTT? Why? How does this make sense? If mmouse is not going to be mod-killed at all, but rather will be substituted if she does not rejoin the game, then voting her out with one post is the worst thing we could do. It gains us nothing. It tells us nothing. ToMorrow either she'll be here to explain herself, or her sub will be. If there is some out-of-game reason that she is not participating, then she could easily be a power role and not get to claim before the deadline. Her death would then be really stupid. If she's lurking strategically... well, I just don't understand why she'd be doing that, as Town or as Scum. She sees she's the vote leader, she sees that the second candidate is a lurker. Why wouldn't she pop in to save herself, whatever her alignment? Or: 1. She's trying to get lynched, because she's a Bomb or Jester. Or: 2. She is unable to post, by some post restriction mechanism. Anything is possible, we know nothing, and the one danger associated with not lynching her - that she'd be modkilled and we'd get no information on her alignment - has been obviated. How in the world does this make for a good lynch? AUGH! He said "If I can't find a sub, some people are going to have to stay." Do you think he can find a sub? If he does, of course, I will not be perfectly fine with a mmouse lynch again. To sum up: I found her mischaracterization of my observations regarding...coupled with a vote for me on the basis of that mischaracterization, to be scummy. It's weird, this is exactly the same reason I'm suspicious of Nanook. But I think that bufftabby, because she is guilty, interpreted this as an all-out attack. She immediately went on the defensive, accusing me of blowing things out of proportion (again, based on one mildly-worded post) and voting for me on that basis. I challenged her on that, and she couldn't really respond to it: she re-read and realized that I hadn't made a mountain out of a molehill so much as, you know, discussed a molehill. But she couldn't admit that and back down, because to do that would be tantamount to admitting she was Scum and panicked. I expect that this is why Nanook is suspicious of me. Players naturally get defensive when they are attacked, or even are perceived to be attacked. Granted, buff is way over the top here, and I'm starting to get more suspicious of her myself. However, I'm still much more suspicious of Nanook, mainly because your original point was way weak (It was a scandal. A scandal's about a step or two away from a debacle. Rugger already used it, so it was fresh in the minds of those rereading the whole thing.). If Idle finds a sub, I'll move my vote to avoid a stupid lynch. But until then, my vote stays on Nanook.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 16:29:22 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 3, 2008 16:29:22 GMT -5
WHHHHAAAAAAATTT? Why? How does this make sense? If mmouse is not going to be mod-killed at all, but rather will be substituted if she does not rejoin the game, then voting her out with one post is the worst thing we could do. It gains us nothing. It tells us nothing. ToMorrow either she'll be here to explain herself, or her sub will be. If there is some out-of-game reason that she is not participating, then she could easily be a power role and not get to claim before the deadline. Her death would then be really stupid. If she's lurking strategically... well, I just don't understand why she'd be doing that, as Town or as Scum. She sees she's the vote leader, she sees that the second candidate is a lurker. Why wouldn't she pop in to save herself, whatever her alignment? Or: 1. She's trying to get lynched, because she's a Bomb or Jester. Or: 2. She is unable to post, by some post restriction mechanism. Anything is possible, we know nothing, and the one danger associated with not lynching her - that she'd be modkilled and we'd get no information on her alignment - has been obviated. How in the world does this make for a good lynch? AUGH! He said "If I can't find a sub, some people are going to have to stay." Do you think he can find a sub? If he does, of course, I will not be perfectly fine with a mmouse lynch again. It's weird, this is exactly the same reason I'm suspicious of Nanook. But I think that bufftabby, because she is guilty, interpreted this as an all-out attack. She immediately went on the defensive, accusing me of blowing things out of proportion (again, based on one mildly-worded post) and voting for me on that basis. I challenged her on that, and she couldn't really respond to it: she re-read and realized that I hadn't made a mountain out of a molehill so much as, you know, discussed a molehill. But she couldn't admit that and back down, because to do that would be tantamount to admitting she was Scum and panicked. I expect that this is why Nanook is suspicious of me. Players naturally get defensive when they are attacked, or even are perceived to be attacked. Granted, buff is way over the top here, and I'm starting to get more suspicious of her myself. However, I'm still much more suspicious of Nanook, mainly because your original point was way weak (It was a scandal. A scandal's about a step or two away from a debacle. Rugger already used it, so it was fresh in the minds of those rereading the whole thing.). If Idle finds a sub, I'll move my vote to avoid a stupid lynch. But until then, my vote stays on Nanook. Hang on, I'm going to revise my opinion. Idle might be lazy about color, but I don't think he'd be lazy about finding subs. In which case it would be a good idea to change my vote to the player I'm second most suspicious about, which would keep mmouse from swinging. Which I will do. Unvote Nanook Vote Bufftabby
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 16:33:15 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 3, 2008 16:33:15 GMT -5
He said "If I can't find a sub, some people are going to have to stay." Do you think he can find a sub? If he does, of course, I will not be perfectly fine with a mmouse lynch again. It's weird, this is exactly the same reason I'm suspicious of Nanook. I expect that this is why Nanook is suspicious of me. Players naturally get defensive when they are attacked, or even are perceived to be attacked. Granted, buff is way over the top here, and I'm starting to get more suspicious of her myself. However, I'm still much more suspicious of Nanook, mainly because your original point was way weak (It was a scandal. A scandal's about a step or two away from a debacle. Rugger already used it, so it was fresh in the minds of those rereading the whole thing.). If Idle finds a sub, I'll move my vote to avoid a stupid lynch. But until then, my vote stays on Nanook. Hang on, I'm going to revise my opinion. Idle might be lazy about color, but I don't think he'd be lazy about finding subs. In which case it would be a good idea to change my vote to the player I'm second most suspicious about, which would keep mmouse from swinging. Which I will do. Unvote Nanook Vote Bufftabby Obviously, that should be reverse, not revise.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 16:49:10 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 3, 2008 16:49:10 GMT -5
NETA: It would seem story and I agree on the mmouse issue. Listen to story people, he is more articulate than I. Hmmmm. Okay, I'll take a look specifically at the two candidates with the most gung-ho cases against them (i.e. Nanook and Bufftabby) and see what I can glean from it.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:10:30 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Dec 3, 2008 17:10:30 GMT -5
3. I am highly suspicious of Nanook for deliberately misunderstanding something he understood properly before in an attempt to get me lynched. Seriously, are you not reading what I'm writing or what? My problem with you has little to do with you calling something anti-town. Obviously I know the difference between anti-town and pro-scum since I discussed it in some depth earlier. My problem with you is that you called something anti-town(not a problem), and then immediately and directly compared it to an action done by scum in a different game. The words you used were anti-town, the example you chose was pro-scum. This is where my problem with you is. It's a very subtle contradiction, one that is easy to overlook, but that can very easily get into people's heads if they don't think too closely about it. The leap from "This is anti-town" to "This is anti-town, and in that example was done by scum, and therefore is pro-scum" is very small. And you accuse me of trying to drum up a lynch on you? I'm more convinced than ever that you are scum. All that said, I'm going to move my vote. The case against bufftabby is interesting enough that I would rather see her swing than someone who will be force-subbed that may or may not be a power role. unvote pedescribe vote bufftabby
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:12:17 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Dec 3, 2008 17:12:17 GMT -5
Okay, I'll take a look specifically at the two candidates with the most gung-ho cases against them (i.e. Nanook and Bufftabby) and see what I can glean from it. Based on what exactly? At the last count, there were 4 people with more votes than me, and 5 people with the same number of votes. So why choose me? Because pedescribe keeps saying he thinks I'm scum? That seems like a weak reason. Perhaps you should take a look at him while you're at it.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:26:44 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 3, 2008 17:26:44 GMT -5
I'm not convinced that Tabbygate has found an actual scum, but I'm much more comfortable voting for someone who is acting slightly scummy.
I wish I was more familiar with people on here. Story is playing a different game than the one he did play on FB, but I'm left assuming it's his normal style to point out what he sees as inconsistencies and start a discussion based on them. His skills of persuasion scare me, however. I do plan on doing a re-read before coming back, but with the momentum and the odd play, I'm going to
vote bufftabby
for the time being. If nothing else, I think this lynch might give us some good information.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:29:41 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Dec 3, 2008 17:29:41 GMT -5
Nanook - you're "more convinced than ever" that Ped is scum? Then why did you unvote him in favor of an "interesting" case against Bufftabby?
What, specifically, do you find interesting about the Bufftabby case? I'm all of a sudden very interested in your take on that.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:39:21 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Dec 3, 2008 17:39:21 GMT -5
Because, as I stated, I would rather vote for someone scummy, in this case bufftabby, then allow someone to be lynched for lurking pending a force-sub by my inaction. Basically, I'm doing the opposite of what I did in Skrull.
The reason I find the case against tabby interesting is that her actions strike me as similar to pedescribe's. That is, she's taking something and twisting and reinterepreting it in such a way as to fit a pre-determined outcome.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:39:51 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 3, 2008 17:39:51 GMT -5
Okay, the Nanoook thing that pedescribe is taking issue with.
The gist of each side's arguments as I'm interpreting it:
ped: The whole FCOD thing seems suspect. It seems anti-town to me that we expose one of our power roles. And the discussion it led to reminds me of what happened between pleo and drainbead in recruitment. Something where the flames were actively being fanned by scum. However, this doesn't really tell us much about anyone's alignment, unless we seem to be loaded with vanillas.
ped: Uh, wait. I missed NAF's point about the FCOD thing being an elephant in the room that scum no doubt saw, and NAF not wanting our doctor to be the only one missing it decided to point it out for everyone so that it wouldn't end up as a magic bag. It's a good point.
nanook: As one of those involved in the FCOD thing, I disagree with your first post. You're right in that it doesn't reveal anything about alignment directly, but it provides a reference point. I made a similar slip in a previous game, so I can speak from personal experience that it can be damning. And your point about revealing the information by debating about revealing it is invalid. We came out with FCOD not being vanilla right away. The only thing held back was the specific slip. [Note: Nanook then says that scum "would be likely to miss it" if it wasn't pointed out. Based on context, I think this is a typo and he meant to say "wouldn't be likely to miss it". Especially since the general consensus was that scum already picked up on it before it was pointed out.] I don't like the way you say that those involved aren't scummy but they did things scum have done in the past. This makes me vote you.
ped: We just got done with a discussion on how anti-town does not equal pro-scum. I'm not saying you're scum, just that you were being silly with the discussion. [Note: FTR, I personally don't agree with that sentiment.] And I was wrong on my original concept of how it went down, so it's even less of an issue than before. That was my point. If I really thought it was an issue I would have done more analysis with names and power role analysis and statistics [and blackjack and hookers...ahhh forget the blackjack]. I didn't do any of that because it wasn't a big deal. I just pointed out that I think it was handled badly. And you yourself have said that anti-town does not equal pro-scum, so why are you attacking me for me pointing out this is anti-town. So I'm voting for you
nanook: You don't see a difference between "This doesn't necessarily tell us anything" and "This doesn't necessarily tell us anything, but this other time the scum did it"? To me there's a world of difference between the two.
ped: I said it was an "anti town maneuver". It was bad play. A bad play IS anti-town. Why can't you understand that when you said it earlier. You're just trying to trap me and start a train.
Hoopy Frood: Clarify please, ped, because I'm now confused as to what you consider anti-town with the FCOD reveal thing.
ped: I mean the whole not telling where the slip was thing was stupid.
So my take on it? You both weren't articulating your points very well. I can see Nanook stretching a bit with his vote, but I'm not sure if that's scummy since on Day 1 votes tend to be stretched a lot more anyway. I'm not really getting scum tells from either one of you in this interchange. (And if I've misrepresented either of you, let me know.)
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:46:16 GMT -5
Post by Almost Human on Dec 3, 2008 17:46:16 GMT -5
I made a bit of a case for BT back in post 651 but at the time didn't feel I had enough to justify a vote.
But BT's subsequent reaction makes me quite comfortable voting her.
Sorry - I'd like to say something new and mind blowing but story's pretty much covered it.
vote bufftabby
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:47:35 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 3, 2008 17:47:35 GMT -5
Okay, I'll take a look specifically at the two candidates with the most gung-ho cases against them (i.e. Nanook and Bufftabby) and see what I can glean from it. Based on what exactly? At the last count, there were 4 people with more votes than me, and 5 people with the same number of votes. So why choose me? Because pedescribe keeps saying he thinks I'm scum? That seems like a weak reason. Perhaps you should take a look at him while you're at it. Based on the fact that that pedescribe was really pushing for your lynch (before he decided that it wasn't going to go anywhere and bufftabby was a better choice). And NAF and Story are really pushing for bufftabby, who turned around and voted one of them. "Really" being a relative term here to all the other people with votes, many of whom are either votes on or by lurkers. That's what I mean by gung-ho. Or are you really trying to imply that there's a strong push toward Chucara right now? Or that peeker is campaigning for TL a lot?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:48:44 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Dec 3, 2008 17:48:44 GMT -5
Because, as I stated, I would rather vote for someone scummy, in this case bufftabby, then allow someone to be lynched for lurking pending a force-sub by my inaction. Basically, I'm doing the opposite of what I did in Skrull. The reason I find the case against tabby interesting is that her actions strike me as similar to pedescribe's. That is, she's taking something and twisting and reinterepreting it in such a way as to fit a pre-determined outcome. But... you unvoted Pedescribe, who has not been lurking, and is in no danger of being subbed or modkilled. So, again - if you're "more sure than ever" that Pedescribe is scum, why would you unvote him to vote Bufftabby? And why is your justification nothing more than a vague "he's acting like Pedescribe"? I've got to log off for a bit - I promise to examine the Storyteller-Bufftabby debabrouhakerflusterfuck later tonight.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:48:20 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 3, 2008 17:48:20 GMT -5
NETA: And as you can see, I looked at both of you. I don't look at just one side when examining a case being pushed.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:54:39 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 3, 2008 17:54:39 GMT -5
I'm not convinced that Tabbygate has found an actual scum [Fluff] FTR, I really hate the "-gate" suffix added to things. Every scandalous, clusterfucking debacle always has to have "-gate" added to it these days. [/Fluff]
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 17:58:28 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 3, 2008 17:58:28 GMT -5
I'm not convinced that Tabbygate has found an actual scum [Fluff] FTR, I really hate the "-gate" suffix added to things. Every scandalous, clusterfucking debacle always has to have "-gate" added to it these days. [/Fluff] I apologize. It was just ill-aimed humor at our newest debacle.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 18:00:32 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 3, 2008 18:00:32 GMT -5
[Fluff] FTR, I really hate the "-gate" suffix added to things. Every scandalous, clusterfucking debacle always has to have "-gate" added to it these days. [/Fluff] I apologize. It was just ill-aimed humor at our newest debacle. Actually made me laugh out loud there. Nice work.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 18:46:33 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 3, 2008 18:46:33 GMT -5
The whole thing seems strange to me. That's why I wanted to hear what tabby had to say about it. Also, I went back and looked at her post history, and she didn't vote for Special Ed durring said "debacle", which makes her comment even more odd. Actually, the only one she would have voted for based on her comments would have been story, since she said she actually agreed with Ed's original point. But she considered both their actions at the time as null tells.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 18:55:32 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Dec 3, 2008 18:55:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 19:04:00 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Dec 3, 2008 19:04:00 GMT -5
But... you unvoted Pedescribe, who has not been lurking, and is in no danger of being subbed or modkilled. So, again - if you're "more sure than ever" that Pedescribe is scum, why would you unvote him to vote Bufftabby? And why is your justification nothing more than a vague "he's acting like Pedescribe"? I've got to log off for a bit - I promise to examine the Storyteller-Bufftabby debabrouhakerflusterfuck later tonight. Do I really, REALLY need to rehash every other point made by other people regarding bufftabby? My explanation is those reasons plus the pedescribe similarity. Your first point is an interesting discussion point actually, and is somewhat theory based. When the voting is close, which it was at the time I unvoted(and might still be, I haven't redone the count), a vote for someone other than one of the vote leaders is, in effect, equivalent in many ways to voting for the person that is currently leading. Let's say I don't vote for bufftabby, and instead leave my vote on ped. If the Day ends with MMouse or DBI being lynched by 1 vote or via a tiebreaker win, then my vote for Ped might as well have been on whoever was lynched, since by not moving it to Bufftabby, I allowed the other to swing. Since in this case, there's no real sense in lurker lynching with a force-sub pending, I would rather go ahead with a lynch that would provide information than one that will not.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 19:25:07 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Dec 3, 2008 19:25:07 GMT -5
Well, based on the intent of Idle to sub the lurkers, I'm going to unvote mmouse for now.
story's made a strong case for bufftabby, but I want to go back and reread the original posts for myself (both the bufftaby/storyteller debacle!! as well as the middle of the Day (because I've already reread the beginning of the Day)) before making a new vote.
If Idle can't find a sub, I may very likely veer back to mmouse tomorrow, since it's not just a matter of a single post, but the fact that her single post causes scum-pinging bells to magically appear in the vicinity.
Rereading will occur after dinner.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 19:26:06 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Dec 3, 2008 19:26:06 GMT -5
That "tomorrow" should be "Tomorrow" (or "toMorrow?").
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 19:28:59 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 3, 2008 19:28:59 GMT -5
Some thoughts on Storyteller: Oh, I'm so glad you responded. Y'all, please, please read bufftabby's post here, and consider what you've seen and read and what she's said in the past. This is a better lead than a player with one post. Yes, please do. Usually when I'm under suspicion, I can at least see why, even if I disagree. I'm clueless as to how I've done anything scummy thus far. That's because I haven't. What have I failed to respond to? How shall I defend my repetition of a word I've previously used? Well, seeing as how I'm the one who has used the oh-so-controversial word "debacle" the most, who else's "continual references" would you be referring to? Yes, and these candidates are all lurkers, with townies waiting for anything resembling a substantial reason to justify a vote change. Oh, please. You're pretty easily convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt here that I'm scum. This reminds me of RoOsh's over-the-top scum attack on me in the endgame of Simpletown. It was all so ridiculous that there was no retort against him, and so he tried to play it as though I was a floundering scum. I never said that I was going to respond to your single post and nothing else. Seeing as how I'm voting for you, I thought it might be nice to elaborate on my case against you. The only straw grabbing I'm seeing is you and the Debacle Debacle. Please introduce me to the Reality that you are operating in, because I'm clearly not there. I'd like to hear from you other Buff voters exactly what you find so scummy about me, instead of just a bunch of "oh story you're so right" circle-jerking.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 19:32:56 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 3, 2008 19:32:56 GMT -5
Yeah, break it out, you bandwagon-jumping circle-jerkers. If this is how Town is going to play, we deserve to lose. There are not enough rolleyes smilies in the world for this weak-ass bullshit.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 3, 2008 19:47:04 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 3, 2008 19:47:04 GMT -5
Yeah, break it out, you bandwagon-jumping circle-jerkers. If this is how Town is going to play, we deserve to lose. There are not enough rolleyes smilies in the world for this weak-ass bullshit. You know, there is a tone issue here that is a bit of a problem for you, tabby. That's a lot of what I am picking up on for my vote. I don't know how exactly to explain it but, you are sort of reacting like a guilty person who has been caught and is in full denial mode, as opposed to an innocent who has been accused and is in full defensive mode. And part of the problem is the timing of when you went on the defensive. I watched you do something similar in Gastard when you got some low level heat early in the game and dance away scott free for a win. It's sort of your tell.
|
|