By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Screw it.

Vote: TheProf

I'm sorry but even if trucks winds up scum, this is no way to play a game. Calling everyone who disagrees with you noobs and trying to lynch bargain is scummy enough in my opinion.



19:44:34 Skeezer METAL GEAR ONLINE
19:44:36 Skeezer FAILURE
19:44:51 ABadClown You're right!
19:44:55 ABadClown Hur hur hur
19:45:01 Skeezer i meant
19:45:04 Skeezer YOU ARE A FAILKURE
19:45:08 Skeezer FAILURE*
Around the Network

starting to really look like this is a second faction. I cannot believe that so many people would be against that mountain of evidence.



Look prof,  I see your side of the story on this, but that in no way gives you the right to be insulting.  Remember a game awhile back where you didnt like it when some asshole insulted you for no good reason other than being him being cocky.



I'm sorry for being insulting. Vette's right. But you've all put me in an awkward position.



theprof00 said:

I'm sorry for being insulting. Vette's right. But you've all put me in an awkward position.


All you can do is present the evidence as you see it,  if others dont see it in the same light as you then there isnt anything you can do about it.   There are alot of tells out there and they arent always 100%,  but when they start to stack up like they did in those posts they make you wonder.   Which is the main reason I switched my vote



Around the Network
A Bad Clown said:

Screw it.

Vote: TheProf

I'm sorry but even if trucks winds up scum, this is no way to play a game. Calling everyone who disagrees with you noobs and trying to lynch bargain is scummy enough in my opinion.

I really think you should go back and look over what he presented,  it really starts to add up once you really notice the patterns.   

And while he had no right to be the way he was,  you have no right to abandon you game duties and just vote someone out to get rid of them instead of scum hunt like you should be doing. 



Vetteman94 said:
theprof00 said:

I'm sorry for being insulting. Vette's right. But you've all put me in an awkward position.


All you can do is present the evidence as you see it,  if others dont see it in the same light as you then there isnt anything you can do about it.   There are alot of tells out there and they arent always 100%,  but when they start to stack up like they did in those posts they make you wonder.   Which is the main reason I switched my vote

What about the fact the prof says I don't do defend/attack for people who turned out scum when in reality I did it for dsister and NotStan?

Presenting evidence as you see it is fine but omitting evidence and choosing to only see what serves your purpose is not.



Signature goes here!

One last chance, town.

Because I don't know what else to say to prove it to you.

He was the last to name-claim.

He defended scum EVERY SINGLE TIME.

He sided with dsis against heph and others.

He's implied suspicion for each and every one of you.

The only time he went against a scum, was when they were already in a pile of shit.

He's been very cautious with every post. He never really says anything with determination. It's completely wishy-washy. Now, wonk, I know you'll say, "but you did that a couple times". Yes, a couple times. Trucks has done it 90% of the time.

Look at the post list again. Most of every post is maneuvering towards mafia benefit.

 

I give up. I really do. This is the third time this game that I can't push a lynch on a mafia. I'm pathetic, I really am..



TruckOSaurus said:
Vetteman94 said:
theprof00 said:

I'm sorry for being insulting. Vette's right. But you've all put me in an awkward position.


All you can do is present the evidence as you see it,  if others dont see it in the same light as you then there isnt anything you can do about it.   There are alot of tells out there and they arent always 100%,  but when they start to stack up like they did in those posts they make you wonder.   Which is the main reason I switched my vote

What about the fact the prof says I don't do defend/attack for people who turned out scum when in reality I did it for dsister and NotStan?

Presenting evidence as you see it is fine but omitting evidence and choosing to only see what serves your purpose is not.


PROVE IT



TruckOSaurus said:
Vetteman94 said:
theprof00 said:

I'm sorry for being insulting. Vette's right. But you've all put me in an awkward position.


All you can do is present the evidence as you see it,  if others dont see it in the same light as you then there isnt anything you can do about it.   There are alot of tells out there and they arent always 100%,  but when they start to stack up like they did in those posts they make you wonder.   Which is the main reason I switched my vote

What about the fact the prof says I don't do defend/attack for people who turned out scum when in reality I did it for dsister and NotStan?

Presenting evidence as you see it is fine but omitting evidence and choosing to only see what serves your purpose is not.

Where was your rebuttal showing these posts after he presented his evidence?  I didnt see them