Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Edosurist]

Heyyy did not realize this game had started. Reading, then posting.

[Edosurist]

Hi, folks! Call me Edos for short. I’m glad to be playing on the Bay12 forum because everywhere else, people abbreviate my name to Edo (T_T)

@Tiruin

Welcome to Bay12 Mafia, you newbie . Seeing as this is your first official game here, I suppose you've read up the BMs and know how to act, aye? How does it feel being in an unconventional Mafia game?

No different, really. Find scum, that’s what I care about.

@Toaster

I've never played with you.  How would you treat a scumbuddy differently than a player that wasn't your scumbuddy?

Never played with you because I’m new to mafia on this forum. Already seeing the start of this game, the site meta is very different than what I’m used to. (I blabber on about this at the end of the post). To answer your question, you try not to treat your scumbuddies differently. That means, you don’t overreact to their posts, but you don’t ignore them.

@NQT

How would you characterise your mafia play-style, if you've played the game before?

Do you mean my meta playing as a mafioso, or just my overall meta? For the former, I’ve never completed a game as mafia in a forum based game, so I can’t share anything there. As town, though, I use logic and processes when I can for PoE. I often consider vote placement on wagons and counter wagons that arise. I’ve been known to tell people to be more “pro-town”, or talk directly to “town” as a collective, both of which people seem to find scummy…

@obo

Edosurist: Let's assume you're mafia.  You have only one remaining ally, while there are still 3 towies and 3 masons.  You're taking a bit of heat.  Would you bus your scumbuddy to save yourself?

Generally, no. At that point, if I did successfully bus my partner, I probably wouldn’t get any towncreds. Basically, I’d still be a likely lynch, and I’d be greatly outnumbered, so no point.

@TK

Edosurist, you haven't posted yet, and I haven't seen you before. What practice do you have before this game? And, more importantly, what do you think is harder to play as, town or mason?

It’s clearly harder to play as mason. You have to look like a townie so you don’t get sniped by mafia during the day, possibly come to your partner’s aid (if you think it’s worth it), and you still have to scumhunt. That’s three duties as opposed to one. Yes, you can confirm 1/3 of the town, but you give off those relationship tells and chainsaw tells that are generally scummy, and the mafia can spot you for it.

Here comes my rant/blabbering:
As I said, this site function/meta is different than I'm used to on MafiaScum. The site is less cluttered and has better aesthetics than the Bay12 site. This alone is making it slightly harder to read rather than skim. Also, RQS is considered anti-town there, mainly because it leads to rolefishing and other assorted anti-town things, and I see that as a big problem in this game. If, through simple opening Q&A, scum finds a mason, I will be disappointed. I know you mean no harm, but I will not ask any RQS questions on of my own, and I responded to yours to keep you happy.

I would have participated in RVS, but it looks like I missed my chance. Game got started w/o me. I'll read through it again, this time for actual comprehension, and place a vote in my next post.

[Nerjin]

Nerjin:

Nerjin: Do you believe it is good to claim as a Mason if Town? What if Town as Mason - and how would you look at both if you're scum?

As town claiming mason would likely get you lynched via the masons. Claiming Town as Mason... Hm... I think that might work. Some more hot-headed scum may go after you but more likely they won't do a thing until they are forced to by bad odds.

If I were scum I wouldn't trust either claim. So to shorten all of this: Town to Mason: Bad. Mason to Town: Less Bad. Scum-thought: Don't trust.

Really? Wouldn't the masons be outing themselves if they went after you?

Not if they were intelligent.

Unvote I just did a primary re-read and something has stuck out to me. I'll post later when I'm positive.

[Edosurist]

Nerjin

NQT I have a question for you. Why so interested in scum advice?

I'm interested in hunting scum, and asking how a player would play as scum seems like a pretty good line of enquiry. Do you disagree?

^Nerjin missed this, but I’ll happily add my thoughts.
I disagree. Asking a question like that is completely pointless because it only leads to WIFOM, and it’s nullified anyways.

One of Imiknorris, Deathsword, and  Nerjin is scum for the quick wagon on NQT. Of the three, Nerjin looks the most town so far, and Imiknorris the least. I seemed to have some of the same thoughts as DS earlier, but otherwise, he looks null, leans scum.
Norris, largely because of post [post]130[/post], for his treatment of the mason claim issues.

Also, all these pointless, garbage, WIFOM inducing, playstyle speculating questions are going to drive me insane. I read absolutely nothing from them.
Other loose and brief reads I’m not going to focus on:
the Cap’n is scum, so is Phantom.
Toaster reads town.
NQT slight scum because I didn't like his answer to the question earlier in the post. Looks like he's trying to brush off a question with a BS response.

[zombie urist]

Busy do to school work for today + tomorrow.

[Toaster]

Taking my statement out of context ... really hurts. Damn it. I have an indescribable burning hatred for people that do that. It makes it very hard to have an intelligent conversation when everything you say is twisted. It makes one feel powerless, and I regard it as the most underhanded thing a person can do to someone else.

I still feel my argument is valid, and that your certainty is only justifiable if you're scum. If you think I'm wrong, explain why.

For example, this is an appeal to emotion.  You're trying to guilt him away from voting you instead of convincing him you're a bad person to vote.

Is it because you're not a bad person to vote and don't have an argument otherwise?  It just might be.

That's not the reason I brought it up. I realized that people were going to notice I was upset, and I wanted them to know why, because the reasons are immaterial to my alignment.

If you actually felt sorry for me, then I apologize. That was not my intention.

zombie urist: Let me put it another way. Unless my argument is flawed, the only way you could be certain I'm worth lynching is if you're scum.

Without an explanation from you, that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. That makes you a better lead than Deathsword by a mile.

Also, this is a knee-jerky OMGUS.  The double post makes you look just a bit panicky.

Yeah, it was. I was pissed.

And if you think I would panic because of a single vote, then you must have a very low opinion of me indeed.


Dariush:

No. Both townies and mafia have an incentive to claim mason. Masons can't tell which they are, so they should regard it as a nulltell. Masons could also claim it as a double-bluff, so a mason claim should universally be treated as a nulltell. Everyone has an incentive to claim it, and so it doesn't give anyone any new information.

On that note, I'm a mason.

Wrong answer. Anyone fakeclaiming mason will be suspected by a whole team of confirmed towns (masons, that is). Moreover, the sudden attention of those masons may incriminate them for scum. Finally, fakeclaiming while being town is just a bad idea in general.

I'm not wrong. Your argument is flawed.

You said "the sudden attention of those masons may incriminate them for scum." But if everyone simply ignores it, then that doesn't happen. Since paying attention to it hurts town, and everyone is trying to appear town, then logically everyone should ignore it. Anyone who doesn't is just playing poorly.

Let me put it another way:

1. You would have to be stupid to fakeclaim mason.
2. Both scum and town are equally likely to be stupid.
Ergo: Both scum and town are equally likely to fakeclaim mason.

If anything, town is more likely to fakeclaim mason simply because there's more of them.

That said, you haven't actually accused me of fakeclaiming. Which is smart, because you'd either be lying or stupid if you said you knew for a fact what my alignment was. (If you want me to explain that one too, just ask. It's also not wrong)

There, I just gave you three good reasons for why mason claims are bullshit and should be ignored, and your argument only helped to prove my point.

Sidenote: And even if you don't agree with it, it's what I believed when I wrote it, which means that it can only mean exactly what I said it means. If you think otherwise then you fail at thinking.

zombie urist: Let me put it another way. Unless my argument is flawed, the only way you could be certain I'm worth lynching is if you're scum.

Without an explanation from you, that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. That makes you a better lead than Deathsword by a mile.

And now you're engaging in the worst flavor of hipocrisy. You say ZU can't be certain that you are scum, but you are certain that his vote is a lynch vote and not a pressure one. Why did you disregard the latter possibility out of hand?

First off, do you scumhunt by adding, "but there might be another explanation" to the end of everything you say?

ZU didn't ask me anything, and he didn't investigate any other suspects. How the hell was I supposed to take it?

It sure looked an awful lot like he was trying to convince others to lynch me based on a misquoting of something I said.


Tolyk: I saw your question, but my brain is hurting. I'll answer it when I'm feeling better.

Deathsword: I'll get back to you too.


Now let me be clear about this:
- The mason claim was facetious. It was not made in full seriousness. You should consider my alignment unclaimed.

[Edosurist]

^Ugh, huge wall'o'text, and I think you forgot to add your input.

[Toaster]

Disregard that, it was a preview button miss.  Real post coming.

[Toaster]

Ford:

Taking my statement out of context ... really hurts. Damn it. I have an indescribable burning hatred for people that do that. It makes it very hard to have an intelligent conversation when everything you say is twisted. It makes one feel powerless, and I regard it as the most underhanded thing a person can do to someone else.

I still feel my argument is valid, and that your certainty is only justifiable if you're scum. If you think I'm wrong, explain why.

For example, this is an appeal to emotion.  You're trying to guilt him away from voting you instead of convincing him you're a bad person to vote.

Is it because you're not a bad person to vote and don't have an argument otherwise?  It just might be.

That's not the reason I brought it up. I realized that people were going to notice I was upset, and I wanted them to know why, because the reasons are immaterial to my alignment.

If you actually felt sorry for me, then I apologize. That was not my intention.

So you say, at least.  I'm not totally sold on that.

zombie urist: Let me put it another way. Unless my argument is flawed, the only way you could be certain I'm worth lynching is if you're scum.

Without an explanation from you, that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. That makes you a better lead than Deathsword by a mile.

Also, this is a knee-jerky OMGUS.  The double post makes you look just a bit panicky.

Yeah, it was. I was pissed.

And if you think I would panic because of a single vote, then you must have a very low opinion of me indeed.

I haven't played with you enough to form that kind of opinion.  I certainly have seen people completely melt down over a single vote before, though.

Noteworthy, though, is that you admit it was a knee-jerk OMGUS and yet don't do anything to change it.

Now let me be clear about this:
- The mason claim was facetious. It was not made in full seriousness. You should consider my alignment unclaimed.

Actually, I'm willing to bet you're not a mason.  Town versus scum... not decided yet.  Why not mason?  I bet you wouldn't claim mason as mason.

I'm interested to see your two "get back to you" results.


Phantom:  (I almost spelled it Phanton again)

Probably about the same as everybody else that I don't see as scum, too much grilling and I risk getting them lynched by accident, too little and it looks suspicious. 

Fair enough.  Unvote Phantom.


Edos:  I noticed you mentioned RVS and RQS separately, using both terms.  Do you see them as two different things or was that just variance in what you called it?  If they are different to you, how do your views of the two differ?

[Phantom of The Library]

Other loose and brief reads I’m not going to focus on:
the Cap’n is scum, so is Phantom.

Why?

[zombie urist]

Quick post now.
UI: At that point, I only had a gut feeling. However I disagree with many of the points Ford makes about the claim.
Dariush: Busy with school.
Phantom: Please stop using so many line breaks.
Captain Ford:

You said "the sudden attention of those masons may incriminate them for scum." But if everyone simply ignores it, then that doesn't happen. Since paying attention to it hurts town, and everyone is trying to appear town, then logically everyone should ignore it. Anyone who doesn't is just playing poorly.
Let me put it another way.
1. You would have to be stupid to fakeclaim mason.
2. Both scum and town are equally likely to be stupid.
Ergo: Both scum and town are equally likely to fakeclaim mason.
If anything, town is more likely to fakeclaim mason simply because there's more of them.
That said, you haven't actually accused me of fakeclaiming. Which is smart, because you'd either be lying or stupid if you said you knew for a fact what my alignment was. (If you want me to explain that one too, just ask. It's also not wrong)
There, I just gave you three good reasons for why mason claims are bullshit and should be ignored, and your argument only helped to prove my point.
Sidenote: And even if you don't agree with it, it's what I believed when I wrote it, which means that it can only mean exactly what I said it means. If you think otherwise then you fail at thinking.
Now let me be clear about this:
- The mason claim was facetious. It was not made in full seriousness. You should consider my alignment unclaimed.

1. First part makes no sense. People rarely act perfectly logically. Also, if everyone ignored every claim because it could be a town fakeclaiming, well... it wouldn't end up very well.
2. Scum might fake claim mason. I can't see a good reason for town to claim so. Stupidity has very little to do with it. I also think mason would be least likely to claim mason.
3. I can believe your claim was made in jest, but I will still consider it when scumhunting.

Tiruin: Explain your vote plz.

[Tiruin]

Tiruin:

On that note, I'm a mason.

You're town, aren't you, Captain Ford?

What the hell are you even doing.

Tiruin: If you were mafia, who would you least prefer to have as your teammates?

Hmm, I guess it would be those who don't favor teamplay that much. I don't carry any favor towards anyone though in the least preferable section. Err, neither would I name names. Everyone is either neutral or favorable to me. How would this knowledge help you?

It helps me in the same way the knowledge gained from my question to Phantom helps me. But why won't you name names?

@ Second: Because I don't least prefer anyone. Everyone either lies at neutral OR favorable. But if you'd want names then I'd name the newbies - I have no knowledge of teamplay with them nor do I have any sense of what they'd be doing, especially where we can't chat secretly with each other.

@First: I'm asking him a hypothetical question.

Now, detecting anyone using a smiley with shades from Captain Ford from my experiences with him tell me he's either joking, or pulling something off [when using smileys at all]. Now, he has rescinded that claim.

What I thought then? Why would anyone claim Town - Mason? Why would a Townie claim Mason? Why would a Mason claim....you get what I'm getting at.

I mean by...what? He was serious, or either playing around with his vote when he addressed the one before me who voted him (without discernible reason)

zombie urist: Let me put it another way. Unless my argument is flawed, the only way you could be certain I'm worth lynching is if you're scum.

Though he did state something jokingly to forward his idea, then judging by that he's a townie. With that attitude, I'd be surprised if he ended up scum//mason.

Thing is, if he was a townie, then his claim could be used as tracking in the following days by scum on who not to target//avoid and in itself, be a liability to his own team. If scum, then he's as bold as can be.

What I'm safe with saying though, is that he is no mason just by his words there.

Though, I'd oblige in this test of reasoning. Its a combined effort, with scum losing by [4:5]:4

Still makes no sense why he'd joke around as a Townie.

PPE: ZU: See above. You seem to be switching votes very quick, with all the brevity they hold.

Also, busy atm. Will return in posting later.

PotL: If you were mafia, who would you most prefer to have as your teammates?

You, Tiruin, Book if he was still in the game, and Toaster since he isn't. I've seen you all play and I know I can get along with all of you well and you're all fun to talk to.

Not that I would have a choice about Tir, as we already know that he's scum. 

Woo, someone prefers me! But no, I'm not scum here.

@ZU//UI//PoTL: Can you give me your reads on what you got from that one-liner on me and Ford?

[Leafsnail]

Second "Elite Hacker" Arrested
January 22nd, 2030
Another alleged member of hacking group Pseudonym has been arrested following his details being posted online, police have confirmed.  These details were distributed using the popular social media site Blather.  The post appears to have been made from the member's own computer, but the motive for doing so is unclear.

The accused, who used the name Nerjin when online, has claimed to police that he was trying to bring Pseudonym down from within as a "mafia goon".  It remains to be seen whether that story is true, but he still likely faces a lengthy jail sentence for various cybercrimes.


Nerjin has been doxxed.

He was a mafia goon.

The votecount has now been reset, and the deadline is in a week's time.

[TolyK]

BOOM rebound. Oh, and long post >.> Will likely not post for a lil' while.

Going through stuff again:
Replying "not quite" to "notquitethere" is kinda funny, but I've noticed that he didn't reply or take notice of my reply to him.

Not quite:
 Option 1's logic assumes the lynchee is a certified mason. If not, you could be either scum (who wants to even the votes to cause confusion) or just some townie who thinks the other person is more scummy.
 Option 3's "good" part also has a flipside - town move you closer to scum if you obviously bandwagon. Or, nothing can happen at all, which is basically the same as Option 2 except that you helped kill a fellow mason.
Hold on...
It's the townie who gets the passive protection, not the mason, so it wouldn't "potentially result(...) in a rebound-kill", rather "make you a higher-risk kill target, and make you a higher-payoff lynch target".

NQT, do you agree that your logic is not quite sound, as explained above? Also, forgetting "class perks" (mixing up who has protection) typically happens more to people who don't have that alignment, don't you think

Yeah, sorry- got a bit side tracked. To clarify and reply:

The scenario assumes that it's this game we're talking about and not vanilla mafia and it's near the end of the week and you are a mason and a fellow mason is about to be lynched and you can save him back voting for a second person, forcing a last-minute draw. In this game, an absolute draw is decided in secret by the mafia. You're right that if you were to even up the votes then it might make you look scummy (I think that was Ford's argument), or it might make you look like town eager to prevent someone who they don't think is scum being lynched. But I think that as masons are the only non-scum that know for sure who is a mason or not, to the scum you will look most like a mason if you try and even out the vote at the last minute. Either way, because the scum know who they are, they're most likely to choose the mason to lynch rather than the patsy you voted for.

You make a good point that option 3 is likely to make you look like a bandwagoning scum to the townies, so maybe option 2 is the best.

This is a pretty convoluted counterfactual, but hopefully I'm making myself clear enough. As for the perk mix-around, this is only the second forum-mafia game I've played, so some misunderstandings are probably to be expected. I feel a bit safer and clearer now than I did before, if that's any consolation. Thanks for setting me straight, Tolyk...

Well, although agreeing with me is nice, and the explanations seem good... well, I'll keep an eye on you.

On that note, I'm a mason.

You're town, aren't you, Captain Ford?

Uh, what.
Oh, I get it. But probably it would be good to clarify why you're voting, that is, if you're not just bandwagoning scum

Tolyk, why do you think it's worthwhile to engage in RVS on 107th reply in the thread?

It was my first post in the game, what do you want? I didn't get the reply to a question I wanted from one person, so I asked it to another person (later), partially because it interests me personally.

@TK

Edosurist, you haven't posted yet, and I haven't seen you before. What practice do you have before this game? And, more importantly, what do you think is harder to play as, town or mason?

It’s clearly harder to play as mason. You have to look like a townie so you don’t get sniped by mafia during the day, possibly come to your partner’s aid (if you think it’s worth it), and you still have to scumhunt. That’s three duties as opposed to one. Yes, you can confirm 1/3 of the town, but you give off those relationship tells and chainsaw tells that are generally scummy, and the mafia can spot you for it.

Alright, it seems that you're more or less on. Fairly expected answer though.

Tolyk: I saw your question, but my brain is hurting. I'll answer it when I'm feeling better.

Ok, I'll keep you under the crosshairs then.

Phantom: What do you think about this statement: "People tend to give examples of what they'd do if they were of a different alignment than they really are (if they are asked), and tend to ask questions that put the addressed person into their alignment. The first part is to throw people off their scent, while the second part is to get suggestions on how others would play their alignment." What part is true (if any), and what part is logically incorrect (if any)?

Depends on the person, some might do one; others might do something different. I've seen it go either way with about an even split. Although newbies do tend to try to get suggestions more often, even if it doesn't relate to their current alignment.

More or less adequate answer, though I was hoping you would find something incorrect in the reasoning here.

[Captain Ford]

Tolyk:

Since Phantom seems to be MIA, and since Capain Ford seems to be rocking in logic () I'll let him answer this question:

Phantom: What do you think about this statement: "People tend to give examples of what they'd do if they were of a different alignment than they really are (if they are asked), and tend to ask questions that put the addressed person into their alignment. The first part is to throw people off their scent, while the second part is to get suggestions on how others would play their alignment." What part is true (if any), and what part is logically incorrect (if any)?

People do both of those things, and they also do them for the reasons listed, but those are not necessarily the only reasons.


Tiruin:

On that note, I'm a mason.

You're town, aren't you, Captain Ford?

Aren't we all?

Still makes no sense why he'd joke around as a Townie.

Yeah, I can see you still don't get it.

fa·ce·tious
Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

I didn't choose that word arbitrarily to describe it. It was deliberately and blatantly inappropriate. But I was also making a point when I said.

It was not "just a joke". It was not a serious claim, but I was making a serious point.

Now, I could be wrong, but neither you nor ZU even tried to fault my argument. You both just took the claim at face value, which I found to be really personally insulting. Dariush actually did give me a counter-argument, but I think he's wrong, for the reasons I stated.

I've done a lot of thinking about this and ... you know what, I'll just post part of it.

Spoiler: Ford's Theorycraft (click to show/hide)

Cheat Sheet:
Scum want to look like townies to masons, and like masons or townies to townies.
Masons want to look like townies to scum, and like masons or townies to townies.
Townies want to look like townies to masons, and like masons to scum.
+ Masons and scum are effectively indistinguishable from each other. Unless you are on one of the teams.
 -> Townies trying to look like masons therefore run the risk of looking like scum to the actual masons.
+ Scum have no incentive to MK a person who is about to be lynched.
 -> Therefore townies trying too hard to look like a mason are being counterproductive.

Everyone has an incentive to look like a mason. Townies can kill scum (and get closer to winning the game) if they can fool scum into trying to kill them.

The only protection the masons have is the townies. The masons can only survive so long as the scum can't tell them apart. It's therefore definitely in the townie's interests to not look 'too townie'. However, townies that go too far may end up looking like scum to the actual masons.

Oh, also, one of the great things about this setup is that when a mafia performs a daykill against a townie (like Nerjin just did), nobody knows who his target was, not even his allies. They're forced to guess who he targeted. So it's entirely possible for the entire scum team to wipe themselves out on the same townie.

So logically, if the townie gets any sort of PM about it, they really shouldn't disclose it.

Ford:

Taking my statement out of context ... really hurts. Damn it. I have an indescribable burning hatred for people that do that. It makes it very hard to have an intelligent conversation when everything you say is twisted. It makes one feel powerless, and I regard it as the most underhanded thing a person can do to someone else.

I still feel my argument is valid, and that your certainty is only justifiable if you're scum. If you think I'm wrong, explain why.

For example, this is an appeal to emotion.  You're trying to guilt him away from voting you instead of convincing him you're a bad person to vote.

Is it because you're not a bad person to vote and don't have an argument otherwise?  It just might be.

That's not the reason I brought it up. I realized that people were going to notice I was upset, and I wanted them to know why, because the reasons are immaterial to my alignment.

If you actually felt sorry for me, then I apologize. That was not my intention.

So you say, at least.  I'm not totally sold on that.

I'd like to add that it was a bad decision on my part to include that.

Noteworthy, though, is that you admit it was a knee-jerk OMGUS and yet don't do anything to change it.

I don't think I did. I overreacted. But I don't think it was an OMGUS. I think I had a valid reason for suspecting him.

Obviously, it's a matter of opinion. But twisting what someone else said is a classic way of discrediting someone when they really haven't done anything wrong. It's just scummy.

In the light of day, I can clearly see he was doing it just to see what kind of reaction it would provoke.

I didn't change my vote because I had a terrible headache and couldn't finish my post. I hadn't yet decided how I was going to handle my vote, so it didn't get handled in that post.

Actually, I'm willing to bet you're not a mason.  Town versus scum... not decided yet.  Why not mason?  I bet you wouldn't claim mason as mason.

Sure I wouldn't. Because it certainly doesn't make me look like I'm not a mason. Oh wait...


Deathsword:

Deathsword: You were awfully quick to jump on the bandwagon, weren't you?

You also jumped pretty hard when notquitethere named you in one of his posts. Seems like you don't want anyone thinking you're on a team.

And you were quite quick to jump on me for attacking NQT, weren't you? And just as quick to shift your vote to do an OMGUS.

NQT made a slip. When Tiruin accused him of buddying up to me, he immediately tried to diver attention by asking you a question, and then quickly shifting that question to Tiruin. He was quick to OMGUS me for a pressure vote and a mild attack, and now he is jumpier than ever. He is scum, and you, Ford, might be too.

He copped up to making a mistake. In case you missed it. We're both players in BM 38, which is still ongoing and I'm sure he's paying close attention to.

Also ... now that I look at the definition, my vote wasn't an OMGUS. I voted him primarily for twisting my words. His voting me was incidental. I think the phrase OMGUS is overused in a lot of situations where it really doesn't apply. Also, I've never seen any reasoning for why an OMGUS is an indicator of anything.

And, um. Tiruin didn't accuse NQT of buddying. He accused him of being your buddy. Buddying is something done between people on different teams. Tiruin accused you of being on the same team.

You were the first person to accuse NQT of buddying, Deathsword. And it seemed apparent to me that NQT just picked a random name off the list. Thus his facetious reply to Tiruin's question.

So to me, accusing him of buddying is ludicrous. It's obvious your name was picked out of a hat. You'd probably only think it was buddying if you were overly sensitive to it. Which can only mean you don't want it look like you're his teammate.
I wasn't inclined to think you were on the same team, or that you were on a team at all until you reacted to it. So I'm not sure why you did.

I will admit to jumping in to protect NQT. Because that's what I did. I did it because I thought your reasons for voting him were bullshit. I still do.

Addressing this specifically:

He was quick to OMGUS me for a pressure vote and a mild attack, and now he is jumpier than ever.

I don't think it was an OMGUS. I think you looked like you were overreacting and that was a perfectly valid reason for him to investigate you. I do think that you are trying very hard to incriminate both of us with very little cause.

You seem to think he's being jumpy for ... putting your name in red twice in the same post? Are you serious? It looks completely natural to me. And I happen to think it's an effective means of applying pressure, Deathsword.

From what I can see, he's calm and collected in the way he's responding to your posts. You're the one who's jumpy and pulling crap out of nowhere.

To sum up, Deathsword:

- Do you still think NQT was buddying you?


Wow. I didn't really expect to see a [acryonym=I like this word. I'm keeping it.]dox[/acronym] this early. Let alone one that ended in dead scum.

...I want to review Nerjin's activity for leads, but I'm going to have to leave that for another post. This WoT is big enough already.



...and for good measure, Deathsword. (I hope you can see the humor in this)