446 replies to this topic

[Euclid of Alexandria]

As I said nobody agrees with you on this one. I may be ESL but I'm still pretty sure you're in the wrong here. The reason I didn't want to discuss semantics with you in the previous game was that you just go on and on even when it is completely irrelevant to the game. Nothing has changed.

[Commander Shepard]

Nobody agreeing with me is irrelevant.

I don't need worthless opinions to concern me in that regard, I only deal with facts.

It is only irrelevant if it adds nothing to the game, it added quite a lot for me to the game.

If doesn't add anything for anyone else then it again is not a concern of mine. 

[Chaplain of death]

Vote: Chaplain of Death

 

For being somewhat ignorant, but to me.

 

What is this I don't even? For being correct in my usage of the language I am ignorant...... mkay..... You sure made some great points there bro!

 

 

So let me ask just one question here before I continue to hold my vote on you for your scummy behavior. Is English your second language? I don't mean that as an insult believe me, but I have to ask.

 

No, but clearly it must be in the process of being your second. 

 

 

I clearly stated that I wasn't trying to insult you. I honestly was asking because if English was your second language than your mistakes would be written off as nothing more than the fact that English is a very difficult language to learn. However, you made it clear that it isn't your second language and than insult me by saying that I am clearly in the process of learning English (no offense, but I have a better understanding of the language than you.) 

 

So I was the one who started the personal insults? by asking a question and by pointing out poor word choice?

 

I was going to make this post earlier but nobody challenged that my desire to lynch Imran would carry over into this reality.

People seem to be confusing two very different sentences.

 

Below is what I said

 

Personally I'd lynch you right now on the spot,

 

Below is what people seem to be interpreting what I said 

 Personally, I would vote you right now on the spot,

 

 

Two very different sentences, the second sentence implies heavily I will try to lynch Imran even if others are involved as my vote belongs to me and no other person can decide my vote.

In that case me wanting to lynch Imran is very strong and I would probably be voting him if I said that.

 

However in the first sentence which is what I wrote.

Lynching is not a decision that belongs to me in this game and hence it is an alternate reality scenario that doesn't exist for us.

Would that wanting to lynch Imran carry over to this reality where the group picks a target to lynch, it is questionable and certainly possible as it is not ruled out.

Evidently it did not cross over for me wanting to lynch Imran today as I made no effort to do so and did not vote to lynch him.

KevinH was confused about the voting for one reason or another and thought I was voting Imran, that shows why he thought I wanted to lynch Imran today.

 

That sentence doesn't really need the word "personally", as anyone who thought about it would know that I do hold the power to lynch and that I did not have a desire to try to lynch Imran today, from the following posts that I made.

The word "personally" only really highlights what the following words state.

But it also highlights that it would be an individual decision from me to lynch Imran in that scenario. 

 

I hate to burst your bubble again on the whole English language thing..... however...... 

 

For one, saying you would lynch someone on the spot is much more aggressive than saying you would vote someone on the spot. Yes, you can make the whole argument that technically the decision isn't up to you and blah blah blah. The point remains that you wish to seem him dead, meaning the given the opportunity you would join a wagon on him, regardless of the wagons reasoning.  

 

In the first case, the word personally actually doesn't add anything to the sentence, you are already making a statement without casting your vote which means that we all understand that you would lynch him if you could but knowing that you can't you won't bother voting. That may or may not have been what you meant, but that is the meaning of that sentence the way it is written. 

 

In the second case, the sentence doesn't even make sense. If you don't cast your vote when you are saying that you would cast your vote, than there is no point to the post at all. Saying that you want to vote someone without voting for them is like trying to hide among the other players so you don't stick out and don't scum hunt, but still sticking your head out and getting noticed taking a stance on the issue. That post literally would have accomplished nothing more than to truly incriminate you more as someone who is trying to lay low. 

[Commander Shepard]

 

I clearly stated that I wasn't trying to insult you. I honestly was asking because if English was your second language than your mistakes would be written off as nothing more than the fact that English is a very difficult language to learn. However, you made it clear that it isn't your second language and than insult me by saying that I am clearly in the process of learning English (no offense, but I have a better understanding of the language than you.) 

 

Your opinion on the level of your understanding of English isn't of my concern.

 

 I hate to burst your bubble again on the whole English language thing..... however...... 

 

For one, saying you would lynch someone on the spot is much more aggressive than saying you would vote someone on the spot. Yes, you can make the whole argument that technically the decision isn't up to you and blah blah blah. The point remains that you wish to seem him dead, meaning the given the opportunity you would join a wagon on him, regardless of the wagons reasoning.  

 

 

There is never an opportunity as people who claim are given immunity, unless of course someone was to counterclaim 

There is no guarantee I would join the wagon if a wagon was created.

 

 

In the first case, the word personally actually doesn't add anything to the sentence, you are already making a statement without casting your vote which means that we all understand that you would lynch him if you could but knowing that you can't you won't bother voting. That may or may not have been what you meant, but that is the meaning of that sentence the way it is written. 

 

Personally gives emphasis to the fact that it is not involving others, there is no guarantee I would want to lynch Imran if there was others.

 

 

We already had that discussion and it did not reach a satisfactory conclusion, you just argued the meaning of the word rather than explaining the change of heart.

 

You were in league with KevinH that I wanted to lynch Imran today which is impossible for you to know unless I made an effort to do so, which I did not.

 

 

In the second case, the sentence doesn't even make sense. If you don't cast your vote when you are saying that you would cast your vote, than there is no point to the post at all. Saying that you want to vote someone without voting for them is like trying to hide among the other players so you don't stick out and don't scum hunt, but still sticking your head out and getting noticed taking a stance on the issue. That post literally would have accomplished nothing more than to truly incriminate you more as someone who is trying to lay low. 

 

The second case is assuming that I did/would vote Imran, players seemed to think I did.

[KevinH]

I have no ill will toward anybody here.

 

I might make a few posts with some subtle or not-so-subtle humor intended. 

 

Nevertheless, I love this game and can't wait to see what happens next.

 

[Euclid of Alexandria]

@KevinH

I know you want a group hug now but this ain't no Care Bear mafia.

[Chaplain of death]

 

 

I clearly stated that I wasn't trying to insult you. I honestly was asking because if English was your second language than your mistakes would be written off as nothing more than the fact that English is a very difficult language to learn. However, you made it clear that it isn't your second language and than insult me by saying that I am clearly in the process of learning English (no offense, but I have a better understanding of the language than you.) 

 

1) Your opinion on the level of your understanding of English isn't of my concern.

 

 I hate to burst your bubble again on the whole English language thing..... however...... 

 

For one, saying you would lynch someone on the spot is much more aggressive than saying you would vote someone on the spot. Yes, you can make the whole argument that technically the decision isn't up to you and blah blah blah. The point remains that you wish to seem him dead, meaning the given the opportunity you would join a wagon on him, regardless of the wagons reasoning.  

 

 

2) There is never an opportunity as people who claim are given immunity, unless of course someone was to counterclaim 

There is no guarantee I would join the wagon if a wagon was created.

 

 

In the first case, the word personally actually doesn't add anything to the sentence, you are already making a statement without casting your vote which means that we all understand that you would lynch him if you could but knowing that you can't you won't bother voting. That may or may not have been what you meant, but that is the meaning of that sentence the way it is written. 

 

3) Personally gives emphasis to the fact that it is not involving others, there is no guarantee I would want to lynch Imran if there was others.

 

 

We already had that discussion and it did not reach a satisfactory conclusion, you just argued the meaning of the word rather than explaining the change of heart.

 

4) You were in league with KevinH that I wanted to lynch Imran today which is impossible for you to know unless I made an effort to do so, which I did not.

 

 

In the second case, the sentence doesn't even make sense. If you don't cast your vote when you are saying that you would cast your vote, than there is no point to the post at all. Saying that you want to vote someone without voting for them is like trying to hide among the other players so you don't stick out and don't scum hunt, but still sticking your head out and getting noticed taking a stance on the issue. That post literally would have accomplished nothing more than to truly incriminate you more as someone who is trying to lay low. 

 

The second case is assuming that I did/would vote Imran, players seemed to think I did.

 

 

Lets see here.......

 

1) not even an attempt at hiding the, once again, insults.

 

2) not true, not everyone who claims is given immunity. However we made it fairly clear that it would have been stupid for someone to role claim if it were a lie in this scenario. 

 

3) again misuse of the word personally. Personally in this context just reinforces the fact that it is your own desire to see him lynched because you don't believe him.

 

4)  You said you wanted to lynch him. You LITERALLY said it.

[Commander Shepard]

1) Is not an insult, I'm not sure why you think it is.

    Because you think it is tells me everything I need to know about your understanding of English. 

[Kaziocore]

Votecount 2.06

Alternate_Tree (0) -
ccabal86 (0) -
Chaplain of death (1) - Commander Shepard
Commander Shepard (7) - killgor, iSocialism, Imran Ehsan, Alternate_Tree, Chaplain of death, Lyner, Euclid of Alexandria
d3mon (0) -
DarkIceDragon (1) - KevinH
Euclid of Alexandria (0) -
Imran Ehsan (0) -
iSocialism (0) -
KevinH (0) -
killgor (0) -
Lyner (0) -

Not Voting (3) - ccabal86, d3mon, DarkIceDragon

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.
Commander Shepard is the current wagon leader at L-0
Imran Ehsan is V/LA until the 5th of July
Deadline is Sunday, July 7th, 2013 @ 13:50 EDT

 
Commander Shepard, Vanilla Townie, was lynched
 
It's now Night 2. Night actions to me by Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 @ 05:10 EDT

[Kaziocore]

Chaplain of death, Vanilla Townie, was shot in the head
DarkIceDragon, Vanilla Townie, was shot in the head
 
Votecount 3.00

Alternate_Tree (0) -
ccabal86 (0) -
d3mon (0) -
Euclid of Alexandria (0) -
Imran Ehsan (0) -
iSocialism (0) -
KevinH (0) -
killgor (0) -
Lyner (0) -

Not Voting (9) - Alternate_Tree, ccabal86, d3mon, Euclid of Alexandria, Imran Ehsan, iSocialism, KevinH, killgor, Lyner

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch.
No one is the current wagon leader at L-5
Deadline is Wednesday, July 24th, 2013 @ 09:30 EDT

[Euclid of Alexandria]

Two more townies dead. Which one was your doing Imran?

[KevinH]

The good news is that all the deceased townies were vanilla.

 

The bad news is that it's 6 townies left vs 3 scum.

[Alternate_Tree]

So, what we know from last night.  There are 3 scum still at large.  Imran is trustworthy as the vigilante, but he has no more shots so is just a confirmed townie.  There are 2 other power roles in play, probably a jailkeeper from the single kill in the first night, and the third is most likely an innocent child or the 1-shot cop because they are pretty weak roles to have.  I don't really know who to vote for, and I want to hear who was killed by Imran before voting.

[Imran Ehsan]

I killed DarkIceDragon. After CS turned out innocent, i had a thorough look through the Day1 and day 2 posts and no one really was sticking up as acting scummy. I did not want to target one of the active players and kill a guy who may be a PR or an active townie who will contribute to scum hunting. we however have a large portion of players being inactive. so i took out the next most inactive after nerau...ccabal will be replaced and hopefully with an active player.

[Euclid of Alexandria]

The inactives that died so far, Nerau and DarkIce, both turned out to be VT. So did the two more active deceased though, CoD and CS. So maybe we should try someone in the middle region now.

 

Vote: iSoc

 

He's been posting just enough to stay under the radar for those that hunt inactives but not so much that anything can really stick to him.

[iSocialism]

That description fits a lot of people. You got to also look at what their posts are about, and for that reason my vote is for

Vote kilgor

I would like to hear more from him as well.

[KevinH]

Vote: d3mon

 

I don't believe we know anything for sure.  We might as well kill an inactive so that the remaining players can make a difference in the end game.

[Lyner]

^ We would lose lynching power if they're still floating around and the actives keep getting lynched

 

vote: d3mon

[Alternate_Tree]

We should lynch someone with a better reason then they're idle.  We have 6 townies left, and if we lynch another one the scum will get a night kill and it will be 4 to 3, so lynching inactives is not an option

[killgor]

i completely agree. sadly though we wasted the first day and the only thing we know so far is who the vig is, even though he is now a regular townie. i must say though, i was expecting Imran to be killed this night.