[FNZ] Role Madness Round 11: Covid - 19
- Thread starter Reborn
- Start date
- Status
timing of the post noctis.
your response to rej came after he starting sussing you for a rather stupid reason.
this was also your initial response to why drago's question wasnt answered.
oddly enough you did quote drago and that isnt the response I got when I asked you the same question. now you use an interaction with rej to defend yourself which came a page or two later.
your response to rej came after he starting sussing you for a rather stupid reason.
this was also your initial response to why drago's question wasnt answered.
oddly enough you did quote drago and that isnt the response I got when I asked you the same question. now you use an interaction with rej to defend yourself which came a page or two later.
N
If I wanted to put pressure on Drago I wouldn't have used such tactic... I am more than capable of giving a convincing reason as to why I suspect others but my discussion wouldn't have given us any conclusion hence backing down was fair... you don't always have to throw yourself in a pit hole to prove your worth as town. How exactly delaying or avoiding the question? I'm prodding and confronting my scum reads directly if you can't see that then you're trying to find forest without trees. My playstyle is simple, if I think you're town I wouldn't waste my time on yu just to prove my worth in the argument, what will you gain beside argument there?
I don't think this matter much who susoect who first but in reality I suspected Rej and then he voted me for it
I am not defending myself with my case on Rej... I am simply presenting that he's my scum read therefore he's my intial focus... I don't have to state that for nat to let her know, my question, me making posts is enough to tell I suspect rej.
Post automatically merged:
I don't think this matter much who susoect who first but in reality I suspected Rej and then he voted me for it
Post automatically merged:
I am not defending myself with my case on Rej... I am simply presenting that he's my scum read therefore he's my intial focus... I don't have to state that for nat to let her know, my question, me making posts is enough to tell I suspect rej.
not you putting pressure on drago
him on you .
you quoted him complained about his skeptiscm, asked how he plans on generating or sparking discussions. he asked you the same and your initial response was to get off it.
the next time you said you didnt quote him which you did specifically (page 4)
and now its your activity with rej that came later
very inconsistent. and yes , I dont see many towns backing off from a chance to engage or invite pressure like you did. clearly avoiding too much attention.
unrelated , if you ask others for reads, and their response is like yours (look at who am questioning), would you accept that or when you ask for ours you expect us to tell you what we think of certain players.
a lot of dictating to other players without you doing much of the same .
him on you .
you quoted him complained about his skeptiscm, asked how he plans on generating or sparking discussions. he asked you the same and your initial response was to get off it.
the next time you said you didnt quote him which you did specifically (page 4)
and now its your activity with rej that came later
very inconsistent. and yes , I dont see many towns backing off from a chance to engage or invite pressure like you did. clearly avoiding too much attention.
unrelated , if you ask others for reads, and their response is like yours (look at who am questioning), would you accept that or when you ask for ours you expect us to tell you what we think of certain players.
a lot of dictating to other players without you doing much of the same .
D
Anything is possible, but such passives wouldn't really fit the theme of this game. If you're trying to conclude that Rej's erratic posting has to deal with him having a post restriction, then I say no to that. The only post restriction that would fit Rej here is for him to act crazy. That is too vague of a description to be a post restriction. You're gonna need something more specific to make a valid post restricting ability.
you mate are satisfied to a response to your question that was logically inconsistent.
noctis said he didnt quote you but you just happened to quote him first
on pg4
that seems like a lie
and you dont even seem interested in pushing that further.
irc I was a lot more laid back in the tokyo ghoul game and planned on doing that now
am afraid cant do that at this point
noctis said he didnt quote you but you just happened to quote him first
on pg4
that seems like a lie
and you dont even seem interested in pushing that further.
Post automatically merged:
irc I was a lot more laid back in the tokyo ghoul game and planned on doing that now
am afraid cant do that at this point
N
Phew... there is too much wrong with this post.
Let's start with this, posting my thoughts on someone's alignment or a certain incident might only cause confusion if I didn't validate it in any shape or way first, so I'm usually very considerate in what I'm saying. Sometimes I can present a conclusion without evidence in hand because it might be counterproductive. I can't blindly give you reads when I'm not either sure about them or I think it's a good time to present them.
I'm not sure why you're trying to see things with only one angle. There isn't one way of engaging and trying to find scum. Generating reads early on based little posts, and ending the argument when you feel like it's not necessary to do is not scum inductive, it's about generating content from what you got or engage in things the way you desire, everyone doesn't like doing debates for the sake of debate. I don't see why you can't see that, and focusing on nonsense like "You back down from that discussion". It's such a contrived reason to suspect someone.
Not only do scum rarely try to back down from arguments, but scum also loves to bus people and never try to back down from their argument... because their main agenda is to appear "consistent"
I am not sure how I am avoiding attention when I have the highest post count in this thread and clearly asking questions that I want to ask.
Also, I have said it before I will say it again. As long as we can't lynch two scums in one DP, there's no need to focus on more than one, especially if it's Rej like a case where he's obvious scum. Right I will do is look other players gameplay and if something strikes me bad I will address that if either my mind change on Rej or he's lynched since doing any sooner than that is usless
Lmao, why are being no fun? You can engage me on that, feel free to do that. Honestly, if I ask you your reads(Which I rarely do) you're allowed to say you can't right now, I don't really expect people to actually provide me reads because I am kinda stick to my own cases until the bitter end
How do you plan to generate reads? You do that by asking questions, while the same tactic could be used to appear as town therefore I didn't like Drago one-liner questions there because they were hardly worth it.
However, and more importantly, for another reason, i just want to take a break here to underline the fact that your
alone is filled with many misconceptions - in bold - that someone like me would call convenient reasonings. You can go back and read the page I suspected Rej way before and Rej was not even on me in any form way or shape before that.
Honestly, I don't have a single idea what you're trying to say here
Let's start with this, posting my thoughts on someone's alignment or a certain incident might only cause confusion if I didn't validate it in any shape or way first, so I'm usually very considerate in what I'm saying. Sometimes I can present a conclusion without evidence in hand because it might be counterproductive. I can't blindly give you reads when I'm not either sure about them or I think it's a good time to present them.
I'm not sure why you're trying to see things with only one angle. There isn't one way of engaging and trying to find scum. Generating reads early on based little posts, and ending the argument when you feel like it's not necessary to do is not scum inductive, it's about generating content from what you got or engage in things the way you desire, everyone doesn't like doing debates for the sake of debate. I don't see why you can't see that, and focusing on nonsense like "You back down from that discussion". It's such a contrived reason to suspect someone.
Not only do scum rarely try to back down from arguments, but scum also loves to bus people and never try to back down from their argument... because their main agenda is to appear "consistent"
I am not sure how I am avoiding attention when I have the highest post count in this thread and clearly asking questions that I want to ask.
Also, I have said it before I will say it again. As long as we can't lynch two scums in one DP, there's no need to focus on more than one, especially if it's Rej like a case where he's obvious scum. Right I will do is look other players gameplay and if something strikes me bad I will address that if either my mind change on Rej or he's lynched since doing any sooner than that is usless
Lmao, why are being no fun? You can engage me on that, feel free to do that. Honestly, if I ask you your reads(Which I rarely do) you're allowed to say you can't right now, I don't really expect people to actually provide me reads because I am kinda stick to my own cases until the bitter end
How do you plan to generate reads? You do that by asking questions, while the same tactic could be used to appear as town therefore I didn't like Drago one-liner questions there because they were hardly worth it.
However, and more importantly, for another reason, i just want to take a break here to underline the fact that your
alone is filled with many misconceptions - in bold - that someone like me would call convenient reasonings. You can go back and read the page I suspected Rej way before and Rej was not even on me in any form way or shape before that.
Post automatically merged:
Honestly, I don't have a single idea what you're trying to say here
- Status