Luna wrote:

I got a reaction, mission accomplished. (Yes, that was pretty much my only intention. It worked better than expected - that Salvage himself wouldn't react was kinda obvious but it's easy enough to provoke others like you)
But since I'm nice I'll adress your points anyway:
1) I'm not calling RVS a "great method" or anything, but it certainly helps start discussion. My vote on Salvage was basically a random vote, just disguised as a serious one and your post shows how nicely it worked. As I said before - RVS is not there to find alignments or anything, it's to start discussion which is the base of every form of day-scumhunting.
2) Just saying "RVS sucks and you are all noobs if you do it" but not presenting other discussion starters is not being ultra-offensive. It's passive. I have been posting in an attempt to get at least a few posts by others. All Salvage did was saying "RVS sucks, discussion will start anyway." You see how well that has worked so far. And btw my vote was not directed towards the "I'm going to sleep" part but towards the "I'm not the one who brought it up" part which basically says "I'm not responsible for starting discussion" after he said multiple times that someone could just start it. But honestly, it wouldn't have really mattered what he posted - I would have probably voted him anyway since it DOES start discussion. Not the nicest way imaginable but at least this thread is no longer dead.
3) Again, he is discrediting all "workaround" ways to start discussion but doesn't suggest anything himself and doesn't show any initiative to change anything in this dead thread. Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all.

So yeah, thanks for finally posting something <3 Even if I got a vote on me by doing so, it was worth it because a zero-discussion thread only benefits scum.
Btw, my vote on Salvage stays for now despite being a kind of RV because I still don't like his playstyle

Users browsing this forum: Rantai and 0 guests

Luna wrote:

I got a reaction, mission accomplished. (Yes, that was pretty much my only intention. It worked better than expected - that Salvage himself wouldn't react was kinda obvious but it's easy enough to provoke others like you) NO. That post was bad, and scummy, and you are not getting that rid with just because you say that you just wanted a reaction.

But since I'm nice I'll adress your points anyway: NO that is how the game works that's not being nice.

1) I'm not calling RVS a "great method" or anything, but it certainly helps start discussion. My vote on Salvage was basically a random vote, just disguised as a serious one and your post shows how nicely it worked. As I said before - RVS is not there to find alignments or anything, it's to start discussion which is the base of every form of day-scumhunting. The way you are considering RVS to work is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. The very sole trait about RVS is that you provide nothing but incredibly flimsy reasoning like "I don't like your hair." YOU CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE DISGUISE AN RVS VOTE AS A SERIOSU VOTE. That does not work. The moment you build up enough of a case this late in the game, it is a serious vote. You are willingly picking a target and calling them out on scummy behavior, or at least trying to. THAT IS NOT RANDOM. What you describe is a bad vote, substantiated by nothing but false arguments against Salvage, which you cannot retract just by claiming it's an RVS vote.


2) Just saying "RVS sucks and you are all noobs if you do it" but not presenting other discussion starters is not being ultra-offensive. It's passive. I have been posting in an attempt to get at least a few posts by others. All Salvage did was saying "RVS sucks, discussion will start anyway." You see how well that has worked so far. And btw my vote was not directed towards the "I'm going to sleep" part but towards the "I'm not the one who brought it up" part which basically says "I'm not responsible for starting discussion" after he said multiple times that someone could just start it. But honestly, it wouldn't have really mattered what he posted - I would have probably voted him anyway since it DOES start discussion. Not the nicest way imaginable but at least this thread is no longer dead. Salvage was pressuring everyone and anyone who waas protecting RVS as a strategy, INCLUDING YOU. He was actively playing. IF YOU WANT OTHERS TO TALK, PROD THEM. There is no reason to vote on a million miles of bullshit just to provoke posts from other people. FURTHERMORE, YOUR LOGIC IS BS. The I'm not the one who brought it up part referred to that he wasn't the one who originally slagged RVS off, and you wre pretending he was the only dissenter in the game against it with your sassback "And don't just tell us that there's no need for RVS." Maybe that's just a really fucking bad miscommunication, but you are still twisting his words to fit your case. Salvage went to bed, and said and I FUCKING QUOTE: "we'll see tomorrow" He is NOT stopping discussion, he is LOGGING OFF FROM THE INTERNET, and you act as if he's doing jack. You ask him for a topic, he says "I'm going to bed, I'll be back tomorrow." THAT IS NOT SCUMMY. THAT IS NOT A VOTABLE OFFENSE.


3) Again, he is discrediting all "workaround" ways to start discussion but doesn't suggest anything himself and doesn't show any initiative to change anything in this dead thread. Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all. NOBODY SAID RVS WAS SCUMMY. RVS is a bad way to get discussion going for the reasons I mentioned, NONE OF WHICH BY THE WAY YOU RELAYED. It is not a tactic for scum to start RVS, it's a tactic for scum to GO ALONG WITH RVS because it ALWAYS PROVIDES EASY MISLYNCHES FOR D1. I believe in unused mafia NoHItter actually got the game out of RVS really fast and we ended up lynching the mafia leader. RVS IS DEMONSTRABLY ANTI-TOWN, but that doesn't make anyone who starts it scum by definition. I am even more annoyed by the fact that YOU ARE STILL SAYING SALVAGE IS NOT CONTRIBUTING. Salvage has MORE POSTS THAN YOU, WITH MORE HANDS-ON CONTENT THAN YOURS.




Btw, my vote on Salvage stays for now despite being a kind of RV because I still don't like his playstyle FUCK YOU

Wojjan wrote:

Luna wrote:

I got a reaction, mission accomplished. (Yes, that was pretty much my only intention. It worked better than expected - that Salvage himself wouldn't react was kinda obvious but it's easy enough to provoke others like you) NO. That post was bad, and scummy, and you are not getting that rid with just because you say that you just wanted a reaction.
I don't really care, it was still worth it. Rather pull attention onto myself than accept an autoloss due to no discussion at all.

But since I'm nice I'll adress your points anyway: NO that is how the game works that's not being nice.

1) I'm not calling RVS a "great method" or anything, but it certainly helps start discussion. My vote on Salvage was basically a random vote, just disguised as a serious one and your post shows how nicely it worked. As I said before - RVS is not there to find alignments or anything, it's to start discussion which is the base of every form of day-scumhunting. The way you are considering RVS to work is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. The very sole trait about RVS is that you provide nothing but incredibly flimsy reasoning like "I don't like your hair." YOU CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE DISGUISE AN RVS VOTE AS A SERIOSU VOTE. That does not work. The moment you build up enough of a case this late in the game, it is a serious vote. You are willingly picking a target and calling them out on scummy behavior, or at least trying to. THAT IS NOT RANDOM. What you describe is a bad vote, substantiated by nothing but false arguments against Salvage, which you cannot retract just by claiming it's an RVS vote.
My vote was not meant in a serious "I want to kill you" way and I didn't expect a response out of Salvage (so it's neither a serious nor a pressure vote). Salvage was just the person something like this would be easiest to pull off with since you already know beforehand that he won't react to a vote like that. Sure, I didn't choose him "randomly" but it could have hit anybody with that playstyle so I didn't plan to vote him or anything. Even if you don't want to call the vote itself a RV, the end result is similar and that's my whole point. You might notice that I actually don't have any real case against him and just pretended to in order to get reactions from just about anybody at all.


2) Just saying "RVS sucks and you are all noobs if you do it" but not presenting other discussion starters is not being ultra-offensive. It's passive. I have been posting in an attempt to get at least a few posts by others. All Salvage did was saying "RVS sucks, discussion will start anyway." You see how well that has worked so far. And btw my vote was not directed towards the "I'm going to sleep" part but towards the "I'm not the one who brought it up" part which basically says "I'm not responsible for starting discussion" after he said multiple times that someone could just start it. But honestly, it wouldn't have really mattered what he posted - I would have probably voted him anyway since it DOES start discussion. Not the nicest way imaginable but at least this thread is no longer dead. Salvage was pressuring everyone and anyone who waas protecting RVS as a strategy, INCLUDING YOU. He was actively playing. IF YOU WANT OTHERS TO TALK, PROD THEM. There is no reason to vote on a million miles of bullshit just to provoke posts from other people. FURTHERMORE, YOUR LOGIC IS BS. The I'm not the one who brought it up part referred to that he wasn't the one who originally slagged RVS off, and you wre pretending he was the only dissenter in the game against it with your sassback "And don't just tell us that there's no need for RVS." Maybe that's just a really fucking bad miscommunication, but you are still twisting his words to fit your case. Salvage went to bed, and said and I FUCKING QUOTE: "we'll see tomorrow" He is NOT stopping discussion, he is LOGGING OFF FROM THE INTERNET, and you act as if he's doing jack. You ask him for a topic, he says "I'm going to bed, I'll be back tomorrow." THAT IS NOT SCUMMY. THAT IS NOT A VOTABLE OFFENSE.
Okay, seems like I misunderstood his statement and thought it referred to the "Why don't you do something to start discussion". Just to clear this up, I don't particularly care about RVS. I just care about discussion, if no discussion starts and nobody is making any attempts to start it, RVS is at least a viable tool no matter how much you may choose to deny it. Oh, and "we'll see tomorrow" is not necessarily the best idea when we have deadlines and stuff. And Salvage wasn't really pressuring people who wanted to do a RVS, he was just attacking the concept of RVS itself. he could very well have chosen someone in particular and voted him/whatever. Following youtr logic that would not have been a RV since he had a reason, so it would have definitely been an option for him. Instead, he decided to just hate on the RVS and do nothing else to actually spark discussion. Just posting "RVS sucks and you shopuld be ashamed if you like it" is not pressuring.


3) Again, he is discrediting all "workaround" ways to start discussion but doesn't suggest anything himself and doesn't show any initiative to change anything in this dead thread. Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all. NOBODY SAID RVS WAS SCUMMY. RVS is a bad way to get discussion going for the reasons I mentioned, NONE OF WHICH BY THE WAY YOU RELAYED. It is not a tactic for scum to start RVS, it's a tactic for scum to GO ALONG WITH RVS because it ALWAYS PROVIDES EASY MISLYNCHES FOR D1. I believe in unused mafia NoHItter actually got the game out of RVS really fast and we ended up lynching the mafia leader. RVS IS DEMONSTRABLY ANTI-TOWN, but that doesn't make anyone who starts it scum by definition. I am even more annoyed by the fact that YOU ARE STILL SAYING SALVAGE IS NOT CONTRIBUTING. Salvage has MORE POSTS THAN YOU, WITH MORE HANDS-ON CONTENT THAN YOURS.
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't claim anybody said RVS was scummy. It was directed towards your post where you suggested that instead of what he is currently doing, Salvage would have more/bigger advantages by RVing someone. I just stated that RVing may help scum in some circumstances, but not doing anything to start discussion is just as good.




Btw, my vote on Salvage stays for now despite being a kind of RV because I still don't like his playstyle FUCK YOU
U mad?

Luna wrote:

1) I'm not calling RVS a "great method" or anything, but it certainly helps start discussion. My vote on Salvage was basically a random vote, just disguised as a serious one and your post shows how nicely it worked. As I said before - RVS is not there to find alignments or anything, it's to start discussion which is the base of every form of day-scumhunting. The way you are considering RVS to work is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. The very sole trait about RVS is that you provide nothing but incredibly flimsy reasoning like "I don't like your hair." YOU CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE DISGUISE AN RVS VOTE AS A SERIOSU VOTE. That does not work. The moment you build up enough of a case this late in the game, it is a serious vote. You are willingly picking a target and calling them out on scummy behavior, or at least trying to. THAT IS NOT RANDOM. What you describe is a bad vote, substantiated by nothing but false arguments against Salvage, which you cannot retract just by claiming it's an RVS vote.

My vote was not meant in a serious "I want to kill you" way and I didn't expect a response out of Salvage (so it's neither a serious nor a pressure vote). Salvage was just the person something like this would be easiest to pull off with since you already know beforehand that he won't react to a vote like that. Sure, I didn't choose him "randomly" but it could have hit anybody with that playstyle so I didn't plan to vote him or anything. Even if you don't want to call the vote itself a RV, the end result is similar and that's my whole point. You might notice that I actually don't have any real case against him and just pretended to in order to get reactions from just about anybody at all.

Luna wrote:

2) Just saying "RVS sucks and you are all noobs if you do it" but not presenting other discussion starters is not being ultra-offensive. It's passive. I have been posting in an attempt to get at least a few posts by others. All Salvage did was saying "RVS sucks, discussion will start anyway." You see how well that has worked so far. And btw my vote was not directed towards the "I'm going to sleep" part but towards the "I'm not the one who brought it up" part which basically says "I'm not responsible for starting discussion" after he said multiple times that someone could just start it. But honestly, it wouldn't have really mattered what he posted - I would have probably voted him anyway since it DOES start discussion. Not the nicest way imaginable but at least this thread is no longer dead. Salvage was pressuring everyone and anyone who waas protecting RVS as a strategy, INCLUDING YOU. He was actively playing. IF YOU WANT OTHERS TO TALK, PROD THEM. There is no reason to vote on a million miles of bullshit just to provoke posts from other people. FURTHERMORE, YOUR LOGIC IS BS. The I'm not the one who brought it up part referred to that he wasn't the one who originally slagged RVS off, and you wre pretending he was the only dissenter in the game against it with your sassback "And don't just tell us that there's no need for RVS." Maybe that's just a really fucking bad miscommunication, but you are still twisting his words to fit your case. Salvage went to bed, and said and I FUCKING QUOTE: "we'll see tomorrow" He is NOT stopping discussion, he is LOGGING OFF FROM THE INTERNET, and you act as if he's doing jack. You ask him for a topic, he says "I'm going to bed, I'll be back tomorrow." THAT IS NOT SCUMMY. THAT IS NOT A VOTABLE OFFENSE.

Okay, seems like I misunderstood his statement and thought it referred to the "Why don't you do something to start discussion". Just to clear this up, I don't particularly care about RVS. I just care about discussion, if no discussion starts and nobody is making any attempts to start it, RVS is at least a viable tool no matter how much you may choose to deny it. Oh, and "we'll see tomorrow" is not necessarily the best idea when we have deadlines and stuff. And Salvage wasn't really pressuring people who wanted to do a RVS, he was just attacking the concept of RVS itself. he could very well have chosen someone in particular and voted him/whatever. Following youtr logic that would not have been a RV since he had a reason, so it would have definitely been an option for him. Instead, he decided to just hate on the RVS and do nothing else to actually spark discussion. Just posting "RVS sucks and you shopuld be ashamed if you like it" is not pressuring.

Luna wrote:

3) Again, he is discrediting all "workaround" ways to start discussion but doesn't suggest anything himself and doesn't show any initiative to change anything in this dead thread. Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all. NOBODY SAID RVS WAS SCUMMY. RVS is a bad way to get discussion going for the reasons I mentioned, NONE OF WHICH BY THE WAY YOU RELAYED. It is not a tactic for scum to start RVS, it's a tactic for scum to GO ALONG WITH RVS because it ALWAYS PROVIDES EASY MISLYNCHES FOR D1. I believe in unused mafia NoHItter actually got the game out of RVS really fast and we ended up lynching the mafia leader. RVS IS DEMONSTRABLY ANTI-TOWN, but that doesn't make anyone who starts it scum by definition. I am even more annoyed by the fact that YOU ARE STILL SAYING SALVAGE IS NOT CONTRIBUTING. Salvage has MORE POSTS THAN YOU, WITH MORE HANDS-ON CONTENT THAN YOURS.
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't claim anybody said RVS was scummy. It was directed towards your post where you suggested that instead of what he is currently doing, Salvage would have more/bigger advantages by RVing someone. I just stated that RVing may help scum in some circumstances, but not doing anything to start discussion is just as good.

I didn't claim anybody said RVS was scummy.

Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all.

Luna wrote:

Btw, my vote on Salvage stays for now despite being a kind of RV because I still don't like his playstyle FUCK YOU U mad? YES VERY.

Luna wrote:

I said that lurking/doing nothing is AT LEAST as scummy as pushing a random lynch. So how exactly do you read that as "lurking is a good town strat"?

THIRD, what would be the point of shoving responsibility off him and not onto anyone else? If salvage were scum, wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to actually accuse someone of being a dipshit (ample opportunities) instead of just calling everyone dipshits? Why would he not wrist a lynch out of it while he's going?

Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all.

Luna wrote:

But just doing nothing and leaving town without discussion (again, what I accused him of) would be at least as good

Luna wrote:

And votes do not only say "I want you dead", they are also a tool for scumhunting. Ever heard of pressure voting etc? Hell, your beloved Salvage does it all the time. Or look at any game with Two - I can almost guarantee he'll vote for about half the players on D1, does that mean he wants all of them dead or that he is awful?

your beloved Salvage

Wojjan wrote:

I am pretty sure that JUST NOW you admitted that you didn't want to pressure but just wanted conversation and that alone.

Luna wrote:

Wojjan wrote:

I am pretty sure that JUST NOW you admitted that you didn't want to pressure but just wanted conversation and that alone.

I've said that pretty clearly since the beginning. If you want to re-read some of my posts, I rather clearly state that I just wanted a reaction from someone so we can have a starting point for some discussion (or "conversation" as you choose to call it) and I also said at multiple points that I didn't expect a reaction from Salvage himself, so I didn't really pressure him.

Salvage wrote:

also before i go i wanna say that everything wojjan said it's pretty logic, still the way she reacted seems weird but way more logic than luna whose trying to like cover himself over and over with things that are getting more dumb with every post

Sync wrote:

Salvage wrote:

also before i go i wanna say that everything wojjan said it's pretty logic, still the way she reacted seems weird but way more logic than luna whose trying to like cover himself over and over with things that are getting more dumb with every post

foulcoon wrote:

Vote: Sync

Wojjan wrote:

Luna was pushing for a lynch

Rantai wrote:

Nope. I'm questioning the haste by which this vote is moving.

Oh and pointing out hypocrisy of sorts.

Rantai wrote:

Though I'm still adamant on hearing everyone's opinion first.

please be more concise

Wojjan wrote:

who specifically are you waiting on or do you absolutely want to be the one to hammer Luna?

1. Salvage*
2. NoHItter*
3. JInxyjem*
4. Luna*
5. Hernan*
6. DeathxShinigami*
7. foulcoon*
8. pieguy1372*
9. Sync*
10. palion*
11. Rantai*
12. Lilac*
13. Wojjan*
14. bmin11*
15. TBTE*

Rantai wrote:

she (he?)

Luna wrote:

Salvage discredits RVS all the time but does not actively try to start discussion himself in any discernable way.

Lilac wrote:

Unvote, Vote: Wojjan. I don't want someone aggressive like you in the further days ahead. Plus, lynching you is probably the key to determining whether you defended Salvage and attacked Luna for the right reasons.

Lilac wrote:

Unvote, Vote: Wojjan. I don't want someone aggressive like you in the further days ahead. Plus, lynching you is probably the key to determining whether you defended Salvage and attacked Luna for the right reasons.

Luna wrote:

please be more concise

I know that you don't want me to post a long post to defend myself because you'll be on me regardless; but I don't want to be mislynched so, to quote you, "Fuck You".
It's still quite a bit shorter because I didn't have the nerve to post everything again...

Wojjan, your reasons for wanting me lynched so bad are kind of ridiculous. You base all your agression on my vote on Salvage which, as has been made clear several times, would NEVER have led to his lynch. Even I agree that the attack/vote was super-weak, baseless and wouldn't have done anything, but that was not its intention. Yet you insist that I was "pushing for his lynch"? Sure, next thing you'll claim that RVs are pushing for someone's lynch?
I did expect someone to call me out for voting Salvage in such an obviously bad way, but when that first post consists mostly of Capslock and ad hominem (I can't even count the number of "Fuck you"s and "You suck"s), that's blowing it way out of proportion don't you think? If you think that I'm scum, you could calmly convince town with arguments and if they make sense, town would follow you. Instead you decide to intimidate everyone into voting me no matter what. Again, this is because of a single vote that wouldn't have done ANYTHING to Salvage in the long run. Salvage had even already reacted to it, by posting a reply with pretty much no reaction which is the right thing to do. Yet you still think he would have died if you didn't flame me to death with a huge wall of capslock? Your main complaint with my strategy-claim (forcing a reaction to get discussion started) was that "something like that doesn't exist" or "bait-votes don't exist". Just because it isn't called like that on mafiascum doesn't mean it can't exist. It certainly baited a reaction out of you, so how can you deny its existence? How is it impossible that that was my intention?
Instead of looking at all the possibilities (you know, like town should. To avoid mislynches and stuff) you decided to make this thread 100% about "Luna is scum" and deny any kind of further discussion with your over-the-top agression that will make sure that anyone who thinks differently will feel your wrath next. You even made it very easy for you to just continue like that by saying that you'd continue voting for me every day if I don't die now.
All that because of a single vote that wouldn't have killed anyone. Talk about blowing stuff out of proportion. The only real explaination I can see for your overexaggerated behaviour is that you need to kill me and feel like this is your only/best chance. Are you a lyncher? (inb4 "Calling your attacker a lyncher to escape a lynch? scumscumscumscumscum")

Sync, your reason for voting me is basically that I was trying to "force reactions" and you call that scummy. That is not at all true. I did fish for reactions, but that's not a scummy thing to do - sure, it can be used in a scummy way by making someone look scummy in their reaction and then jumping on them. But in general, reactions are good for town. It's where reads come from: No reactions means no discussions or reads. Without discussion or reads, scum wins. So it's in town's best interest to get reactions and analyze them. Scumhunting (= the most pro-town thing you can do) relies a lot on forcing reactions, so if your only reason for voting me is "you were trying to force reactions", then I can't understand you. If you have different reasons, that's okay.

And just for the record, this is what I do/do not want and think because people seem to be confused by the way Wojjan posts my quotes out of context and think actually want Salvage dead or something.
1) I did not like how Salvage discredits RVS all the time but does not actively try to start discussion himself in any discernable way.
2) I do NOT however want him lynched for that. He does exactly the same thing every game, so it's hardly a scumtell. Duh
3) I wanted to force a reaction from someone
4) I did NOT want to force a scummy reaction to bandwagon someone. That Wojjan's post turned out to be so ridiculously strange is a coincidence.

Just in case it helps you believe my claimed strategy, go look at my posts before my vote on Salvage. they are all about how we need to get discussion going. Then Salvage says that he isn't responsible for starting discussion (or at least that's how I understood the post) so after nothing had happened so far I felt like I should do it. Because, you know, no discussion = scum win. Easiest way to generate discussion is with a controversial vote, so I did just that. And as you can see, it worked. The thread is no longer dead. The only reason that we are only talking about me being scum is because Wojjan decided to post a huge wall of Capslock which is hard for anyone to ignore.

What's the votecount? I didn't really want to claim but it looks like I'm not given a choice.

vote: Wojjan (inb4 "OMGUS-vote??? scumscumscumscumscum")

Hernan wrote:

[...] but I can't tell for sure if he was really trying to get a reaction from Salvage or he made a mistake.

Hernan wrote:

Salvage is being too suspicious to me, but seeing as things are going I want to see his reaction to this:
Vote: Wojjan

Luna wrote:

please be more concise

I know that you don't want me to post a long post to defend myself because you'll be on me regardless; but I don't want to be mislynched so, to quote you, "Fuck You".
It's still quite a bit shorter because I didn't have the nerve to post everything again...

Wojjan, your reasons for wanting me lynched so bad are kind of ridiculous. You base all your agression on my vote on Salvage which, as has been made clear several times, would NEVER have led to his lynch. Even I agree that the attack/vote was super-weak, baseless and wouldn't have done anything, but that was not its intention. Yet you insist that I was "pushing for his lynch"? Sure, next thing you'll claim that RVs are pushing for someone's lynch?

I did expect someone to call me out for voting Salvage in such an obviously bad way, but when that first post consists mostly of Capslock and ad hominem (I can't even count the number of "Fuck you"s and "You suck"s), that's blowing it way out of proportion don't you think? If you think that I'm scum, you could calmly convince town with arguments and if they make sense, town would follow you. Instead you decide to intimidate everyone into voting me no matter what. Again, this is because of a single vote that wouldn't have done ANYTHING to Salvage in the long run.

Salvage had even already reacted to it, by posting a reply with pretty much no reaction which is the right thing to do.

Yet you still think he would have died if you didn't flame me to death with a huge wall of capslock?

Your main complaint with my strategy-claim (forcing a reaction to get discussion started) was that "something like that doesn't exist" or "bait-votes don't exist". Just because it isn't called like that on mafiascum doesn't mean it can't exist. It certainly baited a reaction out of you, so how can you deny its existence? How is it impossible that that was my intention?

Instead of looking at all the possibilities (you know, like town should. To avoid mislynches and stuff) you decided to make this thread 100% about "Luna is scum" and deny any kind of further discussion with your over-the-top agression that will make sure that anyone who thinks differently will feel your wrath next. You even made it very easy for you to just continue like that by saying that you'd continue voting for me every day if I don't die now.

All that because of a single vote that wouldn't have killed anyone. Talk about blowing stuff out of proportion. The only real explaination I can see for your overexaggerated behaviour is that you need to kill me and feel like this is your only/best chance. Are you a lyncher? (inb4 "Calling your attacker a lyncher to escape a lynch? scumscumscumscumscum")

And just for the record, this is what I do/do not want and think because people seem to be confused by the way Wojjan posts my quotes out of context and think actually want Salvage dead or something.

1) I did not like how Salvage discredits RVS all the time but does not actively try to start discussion himself in any discernable way.
2) I do NOT however want him lynched for that. He does exactly the same thing every game, so it's hardly a scumtell. Duh
3) I wanted to force a reaction from someone
4) I did NOT want to force a scummy reaction to bandwagon someone. That Wojjan's post turned out to be so ridiculously strange is a coincidence.

Just in case it helps you believe my claimed strategy, go look at my posts before my vote on Salvage. they are all about how we need to get discussion going. Then Salvage says that he isn't responsible for starting discussion (or at least that's how I understood the post)

so after nothing had happened so far I felt like I should do it. Because, you know, no discussion = scum win. Easiest way to generate discussion is with a controversial vote, so I did just that. And as you can see, it worked. The thread is no longer dead. The only reason that we are only talking about me being scum is because Wojjan decided to post a huge wall of Capslock which is hard for anyone to ignore.

vote: Wojjan (inb4 "OMGUS-vote??? scumscumscumscumscum")

Hernan wrote:

The only thing I know for sure is that Wojjan and Salvage are working together

bmin11 wrote:

Wojjan wrote:

Luna was pushing for a lynch

Don't we all have to do that? And what's the problem with pushing a lynch against a good player? And why are you aggressively defending for it while Salvage could have dealt by himself (and you are calling him the ONLY good player, which means you agree Salvage could have dealt with it) ?

You also don't have a clear evidence on why Salvage is pro-town. You said we need a proof when we are pushing for a lynch. I agree with you. However, defense should also have a proof on why the person is a town if you are going to play with "you need proof" game. Without that, it's really hard for me to understand why you aggressively defended Salvage like that at all.

Hernan wrote:

Salvage is being too suspicious to me, but seeing as things are going I want to see his reaction to this:
Vote: Wojjan

Lilac wrote:

I meant aggression as in coloured text and caps lock spam. Sure, I've been aggressive through my other games and I know policy lynches are bad but you just really hit the nail in the coffin with your posts in page 6 or 7 or w/e.

Salvage, please use the word "logical" and not "logic". Logic is a noun, logical is an adjective.

Unvote. Vote: Hernan. I'll unvote. Plus, I did not like the way Hernan worded his voting.

Hernan wrote:

So what, you think I'm defending Luna or something?

Salvage wrote:

Hernan wrote:

So what, you think I'm defending Luna or something?

idk to who you directed that post, but i'd like you to elaborate why you vote wojjan pls

Hernan wrote:

Salvage knows I didn't take any side yet, so I don't see you he would he vote me knowing that something like that would put me against him.

Hernan wrote:

Salvage is being too suspicious to me, but seeing as things are going I want to see his reaction to this:

Lilac wrote:

Salvage's vote for obviously for Hernan to contribute and/or post on thread, I even told him explicitly it was for that reason. For him to interpret that as something hostile is an overreaction.

Lilac wrote:

Salvage's vote for Hernan was for him to contribute and/or post on thread, I even told him explicitly it was for that reason. For him to interpret that as something hostile is an overreaction.