|
Yeah sure that's fine.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Hi flerp. If you refuse to latch yourself to Mona’s airtight case involving Gene’s inexcusable confusion over fake sports leagues, is there anyone you would like us to brutally murder
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
I’m confused, YPM, why are you pushing people to look at Gene activity that is...non-existent? This is basic jokephase crap. YPM feels like he’s working really hard to get momentum on anyone he can while dismissing criticism of that as “well SOMEONE has to get the game going.” This doesn’t seem like a genuine way to start the game, tho, more like throwing a bunch of poo poo and seeing what sticks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
The initial two “offending” posts, as far as I can tell:GeneX posted:I'm jewish, why should I care about saving your goyishe holiday? GeneX posted:I already soft-claimed jesus by saying I was jewish in this christmas themed game, so yes, 100% Mona’s analysis, which even he isn’t convinced is anything: Monathin posted:But yeah Gene voted me in the middle of jokephase before I'd even spoken up and I wasnt gonna say anything about it until I was sure jokephase was over. I didnt consider it immediately shady if I'm being honest. Then YPM locks on for reasons unknown: Your Personal Muse posted:Mona you have my permission to vote the scum named gene Your Personal Muse posted:It reads to me as an awkward entrance by scum who is voting for someone that they can safely switch off of. Your Personal Muse posted:I didn’t say I wanted to make him look suspicious. I said that I want to put suspicion on him because, get this, it’s loving day 1 and I don’t know who is scum so I gotta yell a bit about nothing until something happens. You know this. What do you think about Gene? I just am not seeing the initial content warranting this kind of hound dogging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Your Personal Muse posted:Hi flerp. If you refuse to latch yourself to Mona’s airtight case involving Gene’s inexcusable confusion over fake sports leagues, is there anyone you would like us to brutally murder not sure atm maybe mona but idk i feel bad murderering a newbie
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Flerp giving me bad vibes too
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Flerp giving me bad vibes too I mean of course flerp wants to murder me because he's been defending GeneX since effortposting started and only engaged me after I pointed out a mistake that made me more suspicious of him
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
They, sorry, don' wanna assume anything here, mb
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Monathin posted:I mean of course flerp wants to murder me because he's been defending GeneX since effortposting started and only engaged me after I pointed out a mistake that made me more suspicious of him ?????? i asked if gene's vote was serious because it came at like the start of the day, during joke phase, and had no clue if it was 4 real or not. and then you decided to vote for gene (when you made a fuss about how you werent going to vote for them) because they said baseball instead of football and like that reasoning makes no sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Monathin posted:They, sorry, don' wanna assume anything here, mb he is good 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
flerp posted:?????? The reasoning being that Gene said he 'recognized me' from the Super-League thread which as a poster there I know is pretty insular by nature and not an actual 'popular' LP despite the posting volume, and if he was lurking there then calling it a byproduct of the 'Factory of Sadness' makes no sense because it's baseball and has no connection to cleveland sports, let alone cleveland football, like at all. So it read as a misguided attempt to back up his claim of having recognized me before. That's why I decided to vote him after I was holding off, because that felt like a big screw-up to me that wouldn't have gone noticed by anyone else in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Hence my big comment about how I thought he was just skimming my posting history (which is overwhelmingly that thread by my own admission) for an easy way to back down from his early vote. It didn't read to me as legitimate at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Hold up:Hal Incandenza posted:strong response, I like it Hal Incandenza posted:That's fair. A contradiction! What gives, Hal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Quid. Everyone makes everything out of nothing on day 1. You are barking up the wrong tree and it’s weird. Me not having much of a case is like surface level scummy but if you think about it for two seconds you realize that it’s day 1 and it’s either this or no lynch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
the case just feels very  for me that i cant rly understand it but idk what it says about ur alignment
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
My initial reaction with Mona was to have him take off his tinfoil hat but it is odd that Gene is claiming to both followed that thread enough to have recognized Mona and then make a fuckup like that. It is also equally weird for Gene to go randomly find his post history to back himself up, tho. What’s the deal, Gene
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Monathin, my dude, I was watching when smasher did his LP where he brought the cubs a WS title in 2003 and then abandoned the '93 phillies in favor of the goon baseball league (unless that was the first mogul LP with The Machine, I forget). I remember Bruzer, Marauder (from the doppel-bangers to the syndicate), Smasher shamefully admitting to being a Packers and Cubs fan, and Smasher's constant, played up misery...which is why I used the turn of phrase I did, since "inputs hope and outputs depression" is best summed up by Mike Polk's Browns joke. like, I get that you're trying to find a reason to vote for me, and that's fine, but don't you dare besmirch my lurking this site since mid-2010 Anyway, if this kerfuffle is giving me anything: - iffy vibes about YPM (pressure to get out of RVS is good, the case in particular is flimsy, but, again, trying to escape RVS) -good thoughts on Quid with the caveat that this is the easiest part of the game for scum to fake analysis in -good thoughts on Monathin because that feels like him trying to catch me in a lie as opposed to YPM's deep read on my claiming to be the son of god, but it's really just a start and he is going after town, so... -no real read on flerp because this could be scum buddying up to town as easily as it could be him ensuring the primacy of jokes -A desire to know whether Asiina pokes people's cases like this very often -A look of suspicion sent CCKeane's way for dropping in to ask Mona a question then dropping right back out
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
What the gently caress is an RVS
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Hold up: I left that there just for you quid! I liked his spunk when he posted that but on reflection I didnt like the feel of the post in response to what YPM had said. I definitely like his most recent posts though, the right kind of aggressive
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Your Personal Muse posted:What the gently caress is an RVS random vote stage I've been playing forums mafia for about 7 years, just...not here
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Yeah there’s no way that dude is scum Feeling YPM, maybe Hal too. Even as a joke that’s a pretty abrupt turn around that looks more reactionary than genuine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Your Personal Muse posted:What the gently caress is an RVS Jokephase
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Ok Gene's legit. It's good we cleared that up. I hate going to meta-theories. ##unvote
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
##vote Hal I don’t buy it
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Watch Gene and Mona be scum and they fabricated all of this, lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Yeah there’s no way that dude is scum There was no joke, just an immediate reaction and a considered reaction
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Watch Gene and Mona be scum and they fabricated all of this, lol hosed up if true
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:##vote Hal I don’t buy it Pffffft ok buddy
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
What had YPM said that changed your mind, exactly? Why didn’t you reference that in your initial change of heart?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Hal's initial response didn't immediately read to me like he was actually agreeing with Gene's reasoning, and more jokeposting about how it wasn't an actual defense at the time at all, personally. The change from the joke to the actual considered response is weird but not entirely unwarranted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
That's my take on it at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Yes, I agree. Alas, that’s not what he just said he was thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
What if quid is the scum how crazy
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
I’d love for you to case me instead of continuing to prove my case regarding you throwing poo poo to see what sticks 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:I’d love for you to case me instead of continuing to prove my case regarding you throwing poo poo to see what sticks Okey dokies. You know better. You know how day 1 works. You really think that I’m going to have a slam dunk case on Gene? Like do you really think that I would believe in my heart of hearts Gene is scum because he hamfistedly mentioned vanilla town? I thought it was minor evidence, but minor evidence was all I had just like every town ever on day one barring role madness games. I make a mountain out of that mole hill, someone attacks that mole hill, someone attacks that person for attacking that mole hill, and someone eventually does something of substance enough that a real case is born. I am just more open about what I’m doing than others. Same with Hal. You “caught” Hal with a limpwristed contradiction. You can look at it for two seconds and say “hmm flerp also said something positive about Gene’s response” and perhaps conclude that Hal was impressed by the temerity of Gene’s response instead of the substance, which is basically what Hal said. My point is you aren’t looking for scum. You are looking for a case, surface level scummy behavior that you, as potential scum, could hang your hat on and pretend to be scumhunting. And if you were a newbie, it would be one thing, but you’ve been part of a bunch of day ones and know how it goes. Yet you specifically and, I would say, deliberately, tried to derail the pressure on Gene while admitted that you only tangentially read the pressure on him. It demonstrates no thought in your posting or your hunting, just searching for out of context bits that you can use to pretend to case someone despite knowing their alignment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
That doesn’t even make sense. You are in the same breath defending yourself for poking at people to see how it snowballs, then calling me potential scum for doing what, by your account, seems to be the exact same behavior.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:That doesn’t even make sense. You are in the same breath defending yourself for poking at people to see how it snowballs, then calling me potential scum for doing what, by your account, seems to be the exact same behavior. If you were just doing what I was doing, and not, say, trying to find an easy target, why did you jump on me for it? If I was mirroring your behavior, I would have thrown shade at CC for casing a poor newbie
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Because I don’t see you offering any real opinions. There’s a difference between asking everyone what they think of other people while throwing out broad suspicions (what I see you doing) and asking people you are suspicious of to explain their actions (where I started) and then moving in to opinions on case. The latter is grounded in your OWN thoughts and feelings; the former just looks like faking it. What is it you feel I am doing that is different from what you are doing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Because I don’t see you offering any real opinions. There’s a difference between asking everyone what they think of other people while throwing out broad suspicions (what I see you doing) and asking people you are suspicious of to explain their actions (where I started) and then moving in to opinions on case. The latter is grounded in your OWN thoughts and feelings; the former just looks like faking it. First of all, how would I possibly have real opinions at that point? How do you possibly have real opinions at this point? You yell and complain and see how people react and the get real opinions. The idea that you expect anyone to have any hard opinions is ridiculous The difference is you didn’t show your work. You wrote down the answer (that I was being scummy) without even thoroughly reading what was going on. I don’t have hard opinions right now, and the fact that you have hard opinions doesn’t show a real conclusion on your part. Hell, the fact that you think it’s possible or good to have hard opinions right now shows you are removed from the town mindset.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Maybe we just play D1 differently? I’m having a hard time believing you are writing all this with genuine intent. I’ve never seen you get on, say, Inf for being 100% certain he was right about reading someone based on a tangential gut read, at least not in a format that caused you to write five paragraphs about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:38
|
|