If their claims are such rubbish, why aren't you doing anything to refute them?
Because they have no bearing whatsoever other than to goad or interject assumption. They are made in brevity, with lacking idea as to any kind of substance.
But sure, as you post from your phone, let's deconstruct this.
I suppose this is kind of a moot point. I'm not trying to convince you that you're scum. You already know that. ^.^
Facetious statement.
No substance to it but a roundabout idea of saying 'What I'm doing is trying to convince them; you're scum in my eyes', with the complete problem being that me being scum or not is not even proven at all--the only 'scummy' thing I had is my absence in D1/2
And that was purely for technical reasons.
As I've said so many times before, I am judging you based on a ratio of your contributions relative to your posts. I am saying that the posts you DO have are insufficient for me to believe you have town motivations in your play.
This misses a directness of saying things. 'Insufficient' pertains to a certain expectation which states one is town, which already judges people by some kind of criteria in relation to anyone else. Instead of asking towards that kind of goal, to me he sets very little space for communication.
This deflection isn't going to work. Though I will consider it for later associative reads.
Somehow, me stating fact is considered 'deflection'. Fact, in the obvious form of 'this is what you did, Scripten. The persons I noted are whom you have judged before alongside me. Without detailing
why you judged them.'
I mean, if we go by your philosophy of 'more posts = town', then you'll falter by the wayside in every game, as scum can easily outrank posting either way; I restate my problem with you, being your level of scumhunting. I'm being used as your scapegoat, and your level of insight into this borders irritation. It's apparent that I'm already labeled by him--and its pretty obvious that he's biased so hard, by
some kind of reasoning which makes him think that way, that he becomes pretty closed-minded in his thoughts, implying malevolence in lieu of anything else.
Evident by this:
I'm noticing this, too. It's rather bothersome, especially since my questions are not exactly trivial. That being said, I'm not asking for paragraphs per question. I just want something of an answer.
Though, I should probably mention that what Tiruin is doing is not -exactly- chainsaw defense. Chainsaw defense is usually applied to a three-person interaction, where a scum's buddy attacks people for preying on his partner. Nevertheless, Tiruin's reactions are definitely scummy.
She -could- be putting my mind to ease right now, but it seems more likely that she's just trying to heap as much confusion around to avoid having to talk about other people, [glow=bl,2,300]since she might slip and reveal her partners[/glow].
A glorified excuse. I could say this downplays me as a person, and as a player, but to put into perspective; How in the world can that kind of assumption even take place, when I have significantly noted my playstyle earlier--that I omit, rather than detract; in itself, it already shows that the kind of assumption present in Scripten's words, is of a non-significant possibility.
But hey, since he likes playing metaknowledge,
Scripten: Look through the games you played with me. Tell me whenever that kind of assumption was validated. To push this aura of metaknowledge further, its unlike him to note my kind of playstyle early in game, yet later on push any kind of implicating idea as the motive
which goes perpendicularly against my kind of playstyle.So let's create some common ground.
Scripten: Back up your assumptions in blue up there. Throughout all this, you've done nothing but provide nudging and poking--no definitive case, and nothing short of direct impact. Just because the rest have a vote on me doesn't mean you're in any better position given that you've only been repeating the most superficial of reasons to cause implication, and its really gyrating on my nerves to see you as town that way; though a glance through your attitude proves...consistent.
Though the sudden jump of 'I think she's scum...' turns into 'Definitely scummy' is of very significant intrigue.
I'd forgotten that NQT had checked Jim that night. Why are you ragging on me for this? Do you expect it to distract me?
Like here. Instead of inquiring as to my tone, its taken as rage.
When I'm not in any sort of rage or anger. Just annoyance at this. While I do understand the level of suspicion onto Jim, that one bit is...amiss given Scripten's posting style.
He drifts off on a non-sequitur with his brevity that details are off in many parts at times.
I mean bloody fish. If
a certain someone could just
append the invisible 'why' at the end of his postsMeph: Are players who are killed told who did the killing? I thought I remembered the flavor being relatively ambiguous in the last Paranormal I read.
Generally not. It depends on the situation, though. If the knowledge is something that will be revealed the next day anyway, (such as a War Vet and Vig killing each other off) I will often include it in the flavor. But if there is any ambiguity as to what happened, it is not revealed.
So... it's entirely possible that someone killed Toonyman, but Mastahcheese took the bullet for them when they fired back.
UXLZ, could you see if Toonyman could pull up his flavor PM and maybe give us an idea of what happened? I'm suddenly worried about Jim...
LIKE THIS ONE, it would be a ton better to understand him.
PPE: Bloody damned net dying twice whilst I type this out. Wasted time once more.
Tiruin:
Have you tried going into your browser's settings and telling it to not show/download pictures? Yeah, it makes things look like ass, but they do tend to load pretty quickly.
No, and thanks.
You do realize that Toaster is busing you right now, right? You're not supposed to be letting yourself be associated with him.
Your goading won't work. It's this kind of
stupidity insolence that got you killed in 4mask's Operation. Your eccentricity isn't tripping my stupid-alarms here this time.
Also there's a butterfly on your left ear.