[FNZ] Role Madness Breaking Bad Role Madness
- Thread starter Yo Tan Wa
- Start date
- Tags behave or i'll release waifu punishment upon you farewell nana jewnicorn fitness will never die kekko delete ur account and do us a favor kekko u are the worst for gods sake kekko you are a curse ffs kekkoberg kekkologix kill all spammers lynch all law fans lynch all the dudebros lynch kekko meme game only pussys are not policylynching pein goated avy townlocked ratchet and flower are scum together return of the king who stole my muffins wkots
- Status
expected reply
i have called u scum, as have i called other players scum. and lots of other players also called others scum
this in itself does not mean we are reaching a conclusion. calling someone scum just to see how they react to it is far from reaching a conclusion. you can even just call someone scum for fun or for the sake of it. there is no agenda behind calling someone scum alone. do you think me saying so and so is scum is reaching a conclusion? is this not something i do as town. u have to define all of these. you are taking something NAI at best and making it look scummy. generic town traits do not apply for everyone.
there is no agenda behind calling someone scum. lots of players did it. do they all have agenda? they are all not playing according to your "town trait". the agenda comes in with the explainations that follow the scum read. you are saying i reached a conclusion that you are scum, then tried to solve you backward. lets see:
do you think me calling u scum is me reaching a conclusion? is this actually the position u wanna lool at me from? u have to define what reaching a conclusion is. this is me making a statement. however you are attaching a scum agenda/motive behind it from thin air when there was none.
our first actual interaction came when u made the weird comment about the setup composition based on only 3 people speculating it differently. i did not force u to make that comment. its something u did on ur own and i read it as scummy. i cannot have came in with a conclusion because before that post i did not display any actual intentionual scum read of u.
in the post you quoted previously, i clearly said "reaching a conclusion" which implies i am currently on the process of doing so. ofcourse you ignored that. why?
i have called u scum, as have i called other players scum. and lots of other players also called others scum
this in itself does not mean we are reaching a conclusion. calling someone scum just to see how they react to it is far from reaching a conclusion. you can even just call someone scum for fun or for the sake of it. there is no agenda behind calling someone scum alone. do you think me saying so and so is scum is reaching a conclusion? is this not something i do as town. u have to define all of these. you are taking something NAI at best and making it look scummy. generic town traits do not apply for everyone.
there is no agenda behind calling someone scum. lots of players did it. do they all have agenda? they are all not playing according to your "town trait". the agenda comes in with the explainations that follow the scum read. you are saying i reached a conclusion that you are scum, then tried to solve you backward. lets see:
do you think me calling u scum is me reaching a conclusion? is this actually the position u wanna lool at me from? u have to define what reaching a conclusion is. this is me making a statement. however you are attaching a scum agenda/motive behind it from thin air when there was none.
our first actual interaction came when u made the weird comment about the setup composition based on only 3 people speculating it differently. i did not force u to make that comment. its something u did on ur own and i read it as scummy. i cannot have came in with a conclusion because before that post i did not display any actual intentionual scum read of u.
in the post you quoted previously, i clearly said "reaching a conclusion" which implies i am currently on the process of doing so. ofcourse you ignored that. why?
Don't need to, i catch scum by doing at votes, you know that damn well after hosting me last game. Besides the obvious that my whole convo with pot was a joke.
You voted for me assuming i was finding an excuse to kill him later but 1: You're assuming he's town here.
But the truth is he's either your scum mate or you needed a good excuse to shade someone for town to mislynch.
You voted for me assuming i was finding an excuse to kill him later but 1: You're assuming he's town here.
But the truth is he's either your scum mate or you needed a good excuse to shade someone for town to mislynch.
im gna need elaborate quotes
based on?
the trait itself is towny, however i am still waiting on you to tell me
1. where did i break it. and give me a proper response with evidence from my posts.
2. how does me breaking it (if i did) constitutes me being scum? bring me games as town where i didnt call others scum.
go on
lol
imagine treating the kekkoberg on a general level
based on?
the trait itself is towny, however i am still waiting on you to tell me
1. where did i break it. and give me a proper response with evidence from my posts.
2. how does me breaking it (if i did) constitutes me being scum? bring me games as town where i didnt call others scum.
go on
lol
imagine treating the kekkoberg on a general level
You've restated the same point over and over in that post, so I'll trim the fat:
It, by definition, is reaching a conclusion. You even later go on to say that you did have evidence for it, so this defence seems weird. What you're saying is that you don't follow the town process of using evidence to inform conclusions, and that I can't hld you to that, and you can just call anyone scum for any reason. And then you say you called me scum because of an isolated post I made you didn't like. So in other words, you're claiming to have followed the town process I laid out, despite also saying that you don't follow that process at all.
This in turn indicates that you're merely contesting my arguments for the sake of them being arguments, which is fairly defensive in its own right. If it's a reaction test, then sure, but you've then gone on to say it's not a reaction test, so I'm even more confused as to where you are exactly on this than I was before your post.
There is, *usually*, a line of thought that can be traced when you're town. Appealing to self meta does little for me.
It, by definition, is reaching a conclusion. You even later go on to say that you did have evidence for it, so this defence seems weird. What you're saying is that you don't follow the town process of using evidence to inform conclusions, and that I can't hld you to that, and you can just call anyone scum for any reason. And then you say you called me scum because of an isolated post I made you didn't like. So in other words, you're claiming to have followed the town process I laid out, despite also saying that you don't follow that process at all.
This in turn indicates that you're merely contesting my arguments for the sake of them being arguments, which is fairly defensive in its own right. If it's a reaction test, then sure, but you've then gone on to say it's not a reaction test, so I'm even more confused as to where you are exactly on this than I was before your post.
There is, *usually*, a line of thought that can be traced when you're town. Appealing to self meta does little for me.
.- Status