And this was like 2 weeks ago BTW.Ekaru wrote:
Furthermore, it is not ludicrous to claim that you do not know the point of RVS because in a Newbie Game on mafiascum.net you claimed that you were not that experienced.
And this was like 2 weeks ago BTW.Ekaru wrote:
Furthermore, it is not ludicrous to claim that you do not know the point of RVS because in a Newbie Game on mafiascum.net you claimed that you were not that experienced.
You were being inconsistent.Rantai wrote:
I NEED CONSISTENCY
Now you are indeed putting words into my mouth. Go read the thread again. I never said that I thought it was RVS because of what Rantai said. I said I thought it was still in RVS because at the time that I posted there was not much discussion. You are in fact making shit up now.Sync wrote:
so you say you thought it was still RVS because of what Rantai did...
I'm laughing at the fact that you saw that and you are using it to your advantage in this gameIt's called meta.
FYI, the definition of experienced is subjective.The definition of what is "semi-random" is also subjective. I only partially voted because of that post. I also voted for the hell of it, which is what people do in RVS.
Your vote was not "semi-random" because you voted him because of a post he madeI voted partially because of a post he made and, again, partially for the hell of it. "for the hell of it" typically qualifies as "random"; ex. If you, say, suddenly start singing for the hell of it, people will call it "random behavior".
you aren't making any senseMy argument makes more sense than your claiming that I thought it was RVS because of what Rantai did. I was clearly using it to show that your argument is flawed. My argument is that claiming that somebody is scum just because they voted without explanation is fucking retarded.
Also, you agree that Rantai's vote was not random... okay...Exactly. You claim my post isn't random in the slightest and, therefore, the same logic would apply to Rantai because his vote isn't random.
2. I already told you the meaning of experienced is completely subjective. Your meta is bullshit: are you trying to say that I don't know what RVS is? Are you telling me that everything I am saying now is null because I said I was inexperienced on a completely different website?Ekaru wrote:
All I did was do what I have seen other people do in mafia games; vote without much explanation because the reasoning behind their vote is implied. Ex. What Rantai did just now, what I've seen other people do in other games, etc. Am I supposed to not do what I've seen others do? Because that really makes no sense.
...Sync wrote:
Ekaru wrote:
All I did was do what I have seen other people do in mafia games; vote without much explanation because the reasoning behind their vote is implied. Ex. What Rantai did just now, what I've seen other people do in other games, etc. Am I supposed to not do what I've seen others do? Because that really makes no sense.
2. I already told you the meaning of experienced is completely subjective.And I already told you that whether or not the game is still in RVS at the exact point in time that I posted my vote is subjective. Both things are subjective. What is subjective is both ways. Whether or not somebody's action is semi-random is also subjective because, as I've said, semi-random is an extremely vague term; if an action is 0.001% random, then it's semi-random, and if an action is 99.99% random then it is STILL semi-random. Or at least, that's the way it's commonly used. It could technically mean something else, but that is irrelevant.
Ekaru is digging himself a grave lolThis scenario is extremely similar to what happened in Themeless Mafia. EXTREMELY similar. Sync, you're once again scum. You're taking something that isn't really a scum tell and trying to start a bandwagon on me. As we've seen from that game and other games, scum try to get bandwagons going on D1. I never tried to start a bandwagon, but you are. You're scum, scum, scum. You're taking things that are subjective and claiming that they aren't subjective when, in fact, they are.
this is awesome
I never said the former. At all. I'm not sure if you knew this, but in English if someone says "Ex." in front of something, that means it's an example. Rantai is an example of somebody who voted without an explanation, and I said that because of that and because his vote was clearly not random, your argument would also apply to him. That is all I said. I never said it looked semi-random; in fact, I even said the opposite. I never said what you're claiming me to say. Are you really that desperate that you have to twist what I'm saying so severely?Sync wrote:
"I saw Rantai post a vote that seemed 'semi-random', am I not supposed to do what other people do?"
"I didn't vote because of Rantai! I never said that!"
To make it even worse, it's completely irrelevant! I didn't even start a bandwagon on you and I unvoted.Uh, yes it is relevant? It's a really similar situation. You unvoted after you realized that the bandwagon was not going to work in an attempt to not look scummy; therefore, the unvote is irrelevant. You did in fact start the bandwagon by being the one who attacked me and claimed I was acting scummy over and over again, just like you are now. Who made the first vote is irrelevant because you planned on voting for me in the first place as clearly proven by the quicktopic. You are using the same strategy you used in another game where you were scum. It's relevant because it's some of the most solid meta out there - similar situation, same people, etc.
Whoever has the most votes at the deadline will be lynched.Sync wrote:
mod: Do you need a hammer to lynch somebody or is it majority?