Alright, back in game.
Pisskop was my...well, my primary target @D1, I guess its at rest now.
To me, he was unsure during his time in life (wherein honestly, brevity does not bode well with me here), but scummy in how I saw his earlier approaches, until later on...
> The method of his approach, while pulled from his tactics in other forums, didn't help much in this situation. I've to put that I was under the suspicion 'that scum wouldn't play like such due to...' but then was quite curious as to his ideas...
Then RL kicked me after
this.
Honestly? After reading it all (sans the flip), he's reading town. Not solely due to how he "didn't know things" [I'm translating feelings into words >_> Must learn how to provide efficient discourse here], but in his replies soon after on how he rationalized or analyzed his findings.
While I still do stand on the fact that his actions were scummy, his backing of such didn't hold up...in relation to
being actual scum.
Continuing from kick-off...
TackQuery on this pointTack: What's your opinion on the Andrew/pisskop dialog? I'll answer afterwards.
I think most good mafia won't be big talkers day 1, and I agree with Andrew there.
That being said, it's easy to get drawn into a dialogue, so that doesn't absolve him, especially if he's not particularly experienced.
A lot can be drawn from this statement but I've to ask,
why? Formatted the point of basis.
Why do I ask? It seems to bleed out here:
If I were to choose between voting Andrew or voting Pisskop, I'd choose neither. They've got less chances of being powerplay scum than one of the background people, so I'd rather take the 3/11 chance and vote someone who isn't in the forefront battle. One might still be scum, but if so, they'd need to be quite inexperienced.
That, to me would be either MyOwnWorstEnemy or Tiruin at this point. 4maskwolf was busy in the early day, and so far The Soldier and TehDarkStah have been pretty busy jumping in the diologue.
Seeing as in all of the games I've seen Tiruin play- namely, one: She doesn't usually play it this cool, I'll throw my vote there and see if it goes to good use.
Why not them? (which is connected to that question above) It leads to the purple statement that you're acting on rationale. A rationale which has its roots on something conclusive, it seems.
And from there, you angle down to...err, me.
On what basis?
On...playing 'cool'? Did you factor in RL reasons (as stated before? Or well, stated in my mind if its not there..>_<)
...
And protip: Calling out your reason for voting at times like these...doesn't generally do well to help but disillusion the power of the vote.
TDSQuery hereDistance from whonow? There's a link I'm seeing but it seems to be unlinked to anything you said in your posts before that one.
*looks at read list* Also, you judge by who is first to extend...
Why? :O
PPE: Tiruin: I still want an answer at some point.
Answer to where? I think I missed it :x
MOWECollege hit me hard for the past couple days. I'm back now though!
*college pain high-five*
How does pisskop look like to you, now?
SoldierHere, I ask. How am I hard to read?
Query on Tack: For me, he seems to be stating things too transparently in that post, but it is still under the notion of transparency. Is your suspicion on him more due to the substance of his posts over anything else?
Andrew: Given your beliefs yesterday and today--how do you see a person's votes being placed as? Are they, to you, regarded as a good sign of a tell?
What is the most scummy thing you consider in games like these?
JackI love your flavor. It is so humbling.
Forgive us.
...why me?
Why me?
I know which one of you did it, and all I have to say is: why me?
You could have killed anyone but yourself and your scumbuddy, but you killed me.
Also, Jack, I loved the flavor.
My best guess? You're active, and astute.
Though the orange part signifies that dead chat would be really active. :3