By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TruckOSaurus on 29 March 2011
theprof00 said:
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

Okay here's goes (again, this is copied from a post you failed to reply to):

@underlined: That's not true, I left the door opened for him to provide a reasonable explanation why a pro-town roleblocker would have acted the way he did. This is even reinforced with my post to you saying that I somehow consider roleblocker to be a pro-town role by default when I really shouldn't.

About ABC, if you looked at it with non-biased eyes, you'd see I reacted to his post because he said something like "What happens if NotStan turns out town?". I thought it could be a move from him because he knew NotStan would turn town, I attacked him on it because only scum would know how NotStan would flip. So as you see I was willing to consider the option of NotStan being town up until the point where he was revealed as scum.

Here's an example for dsister, I start by saying he does contracting himself then provide a possible explanation, once again attack/defense combo:

theprof00 said:

Can someone, anyone, anywhere, read my posts about dsis?

I feel I am making some really good posts and I haven't had one comment on either of them.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3964947

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3965024

Guess we got caught in the debate about names, we're not really good at multi-tasking it seems.

About your first link, he does contradict himself. Although I think "Look at it this way. I push a lynch on you people start suspecting me [...]" could be interpreted as "Let's suppose I push a lynch on you..." meaning this whole sentence was just theory.



Signature goes here!

Around the Network
theprof00 on 29 March 2011
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'm sorry ABC, but you run your mouth. You were about to be lynched by these very people that you are now defending by pushing for my lynch.

I mean seriously. I've given up on you. I don't know why I ever defended you.



theprof00 on 29 March 2011
TruckOSaurus said:
theprof00 said:
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

Okay here's goes (again, this is copied from a post you failed to reply to):

@underlined: That's not true, I left the door opened for him to provide a reasonable explanation why a pro-town roleblocker would have acted the way he did. This is even reinforced with my post to you saying that I somehow consider roleblocker to be a pro-town role by default when I really shouldn't.

About ABC, if you looked at it with non-biased eyes, you'd see I reacted to his post because he said something like "What happens if NotStan turns out town?". I thought it could be a move from him because he knew NotStan would turn town, I attacked him on it because only scum would know how NotStan would flip. So as you see I was willing to consider the option of NotStan being town up until the point where he was revealed as scum.

Here's an example for dsister, I start by saying he does contracting himself then provide a possible explanation, once again attack/defense combo:

theprof00 said:

Can someone, anyone, anywhere, read my posts about dsis?

I feel I am making some really good posts and I haven't had one comment on either of them.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3964947

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3965024

Guess we got caught in the debate about names, we're not really good at multi-tasking it seems.

About your first link, he does contradict himself. Although I think "Look at it this way. I push a lynch on you people start suspecting me [...]" could be interpreted as "Let's suppose I push a lynch on you..." meaning this whole sentence was just theory.

You SEE!

IT'S BACKWARDS.

Those are attack defend. I said, specifically, that your attacks on others were defend THEN attack. These are attack THEN defend.

It's clean cut. It's all there. There is not one post to prove it wrong.



A Bad Clown on 29 March 2011
theprof00 said:
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'm sorry ABC, but you run your mouth. You were about to be lynched by these very people that you are now defending by pushing for my lynch.

I mean seriously. I've given up on you. I don't know why I ever defended you.


Why would you have?



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*
theprof00 on 29 March 2011
A Bad Clown said:
theprof00 said:
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'm sorry ABC, but you run your mouth. You were about to be lynched by these very people that you are now defending by pushing for my lynch.

I mean seriously. I've given up on you. I don't know why I ever defended you.


Why would you have?

Because trucks has been against you this whole time. He's implicated you a dozen times. If he's against you, then I'm against him.

And to expound on the, "you run your mouth" thing. Your post made no sense. "Don't be surprised if you get night-killed". I mean, WHAT? How does that even make a lick of sense to any player? Why would I (in your mind assuming that I'm scum) night-kill him? Because I said HE could lynch me? Do you think I'm so stupid that I'd be like, "sorry, I said only wonk can lynch me".

How does that make sense to you, abc? HOW? It's not even a mafia tactic. It's not even an ANYONE tactic. It's such an alien idea that it's like you don't even know what game we're playing.

I just told you five minutes previously that you were undermining me, and then you go and do it again, with some bizarre nonsense.



Around the Network
theprof00 on 29 March 2011

I meant, "if he's against you, then I'm WITH you".



TruckOSaurus on 29 March 2011
theprof00 said:
TruckOSaurus said:
theprof00 said:
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

Okay here's goes (again, this is copied from a post you failed to reply to):

@underlined: That's not true, I left the door opened for him to provide a reasonable explanation why a pro-town roleblocker would have acted the way he did. This is even reinforced with my post to you saying that I somehow consider roleblocker to be a pro-town role by default when I really shouldn't.

About ABC, if you looked at it with non-biased eyes, you'd see I reacted to his post because he said something like "What happens if NotStan turns out town?". I thought it could be a move from him because he knew NotStan would turn town, I attacked him on it because only scum would know how NotStan would flip. So as you see I was willing to consider the option of NotStan being town up until the point where he was revealed as scum.

Here's an example for dsister, I start by saying he does contracting himself then provide a possible explanation, once again attack/defense combo:

theprof00 said:

Can someone, anyone, anywhere, read my posts about dsis?

I feel I am making some really good posts and I haven't had one comment on either of them.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3964947

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3965024

Guess we got caught in the debate about names, we're not really good at multi-tasking it seems.

About your first link, he does contradict himself. Although I think "Look at it this way. I push a lynch on you people start suspecting me [...]" could be interpreted as "Let's suppose I push a lynch on you..." meaning this whole sentence was just theory.

You SEE!

IT'S BACKWARDS.

Those are attack defend. I said, specifically, that your attacks on others were defend THEN attack. These are attack THEN defend.

It's clean cut. It's all there. There is not one post to prove it wrong.

If you do get your way, could you post me the picture of your face when you find out all my supposed Mafia connections were all in your head?



Signature goes here!

A Bad Clown on 29 March 2011

Can anyone in this thread give me a reason why I'm not being targeted anymore? Hatz thought I was straight up scum and he wasn't lying about his role, and no one has brought that up. Earlier in this day it was all eyes on me and Metal_Gear. Why would anyone even care to defend me if I have not even roleclaimed? All I revealed was my character's name, and a vague description.



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*
theprof00 on 29 March 2011
TruckOSaurus said:
theprof00 said:
TruckOSaurus said:
theprof00 said:
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

Okay here's goes (again, this is copied from a post you failed to reply to):

@underlined: That's not true, I left the door opened for him to provide a reasonable explanation why a pro-town roleblocker would have acted the way he did. This is even reinforced with my post to you saying that I somehow consider roleblocker to be a pro-town role by default when I really shouldn't.

About ABC, if you looked at it with non-biased eyes, you'd see I reacted to his post because he said something like "What happens if NotStan turns out town?". I thought it could be a move from him because he knew NotStan would turn town, I attacked him on it because only scum would know how NotStan would flip. So as you see I was willing to consider the option of NotStan being town up until the point where he was revealed as scum.

Here's an example for dsister, I start by saying he does contracting himself then provide a possible explanation, once again attack/defense combo:

theprof00 said:

Can someone, anyone, anywhere, read my posts about dsis?

I feel I am making some really good posts and I haven't had one comment on either of them.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3964947

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3965024

Guess we got caught in the debate about names, we're not really good at multi-tasking it seems.

About your first link, he does contradict himself. Although I think "Look at it this way. I push a lynch on you people start suspecting me [...]" could be interpreted as "Let's suppose I push a lynch on you..." meaning this whole sentence was just theory.

You SEE!

IT'S BACKWARDS.

Those are attack defend. I said, specifically, that your attacks on others were defend THEN attack. These are attack THEN defend.

It's clean cut. It's all there. There is not one post to prove it wrong.

If you do get your way, could you post me the picture of your face when you find out all my supposed Mafia connections were all in your head?

It's in my sig, LIKE A BOSS



theprof00 on 29 March 2011
A Bad Clown said:

Can anyone in this thread give me a reason why I'm not being targeted anymore? Hatz thought I was straight up scum and he wasn't lying about his role, and no one has brought that up. Earlier in this day it was all eyes on me and Metal_Gear. Why would anyone even care to defend me if I have not even roleclaimed? All I revealed was my character's name, and a vague description.


OMG FOCUS ABC. FOCUS ON THE TOPIC AT HAND.