1) got a problem with fearing powered individuals?
Not if they're scum. But since they're got better odds of being town, why are you scared of them?
because they might be scum. simply enough.
2) by this point org had made some suspect posts; besides, i said acting normal for org, which is inherently suspicious anyway
No he hadn't. There were 0 Org posts between when you said Org was normal and you said you suspected Org. If Normal Org was Suspicious Org, why didn't you mention it when you said he was normal?
huh? i count at least 3 posts. also, i said that he was being suspicious with his quick 2nd vote at the time - which is a bit different to going from 'i think org is acting normal, therefore not suspicious' to 'i think org is acting normal, therefore
is suspicious', which is what has basically happened as i've seen him post more and more + read what other people have had to say. opinion has changed over time and with posts.
Nightkills are a pretty standard part of the game. You honestly didn't realize knowing what everyone's powers did would give scum an easier time choosing targets?
indeed, i honestly did not. that's what i've been saying!
the least i can say for you, toaster, is that i'm glad that there's someone out there that's getting down to the business of scumhunting. that's what i'll put this little bit of aggression down to... for the time being. even if this comes very soon after the first vote for me (won't you be following up on that vote with some questioning, breadbocks?)
How magnanimous of you to forgive Toaster's unusual aggression as probably scum hunting, for the moment. Particularly gracious given he's the second vote on you, which is terribly suspicious.
ATTN: ALL SCUMHUNTING MUST BE DONE IN THE VOICE OF A TOTAL DOUCHEWAD IN ORDER FOR IT TO EVER WORK AT ALL YUP NO OTHER POSSIBLE WAY TO DO IT MUST BE DONE IN A PREDEFINED VOICE.
honestly, this just really pisses me off. it's not even a valid point! what the fuck, man. seriously :|
The issue is not that you didn't say it like an asshole, the issue is that you condescendingly said you were "putting Toaster's behavior down as scumhunting for now," despite his vote coming "very" soon after the first person to vote you. You're trying to imply his attack wasn't reasonable and might be bandwagoning, but that you'll be so kind as to assume his unusual behavior is just scumhunting. Assuming he stops attacking you and behaves townlike again, of course.
well, yeah. is it so bad to be able to see both sides of the argument? i kind of get what you're saying that there's two conflicting ideas in a very short space of time - but then i wasn't in 'single track mind' mode then. it was suspicious in one way, but i could see the other possibility too; i don't think pointing them both out is such a terrible thing.
(and yeah, i was pretty annoyed by your post at the time, which is probably why i missed what you were getting at, hehe)
@Scatterbrain: If you could be so nice, either find and requote where you covered what you were looking to find or just retype it.
my response was:
like i said, being new to this i wasn't struck by how the question would help scum. and i can't predict what sort of answer a person would give to that question (again, that's the noob in me), so i would judge whether it was scummy or not based on what the actual answer was. which is stating the obvious, but that was the plan, didn't (couldn't) go in there with a predetermined idea of good answer/bad answer, as the concepts of goodness/badness would present themselves upon the question being answered. basically, i jumped in at the deep end; i can see now that it wasn't the best question to do so with.
Then fucking indicate it if you're using sarcasm. That was completely undetectable. If you don't, then it just looks like you're retconning a bad situation. Especially when you follow it with "that's what i'll put this little bit of aggression down to," which makes it look completely fucking serious.
sorry that i wasn't being clear enough for you.
Because you said "That's what I'll put this little bit of aggression down to... for the time being." That implies that you will eventually vote him if he doesn't stop attacking you. While it may not be an empty threat, you're effectively saying in advance that you will OMGUS him if he doesn't pick on someone else.
there's a difference between an OMGUS and having a legit reason for doing so. at the time, i felt like i was in the latter category.
<don't know if i'm done but i gotta dash, bell just went>
Author
Topic: BYOR 5 - Night 3: Under Con-Troll. (Read 72262 times)