Posted May 14, 2016
babark: I think you misread what I said. I said that "deviant behaviour that doesn't provide any (non-evil) benefit" would be considered suspect by my. I didn't say that their deviant behaviour had any evil benefit (that I had sussed out, at least), just that it was deviant behaviour, and it didn't have any non-evil benefit. It might have some evil benefit, probably does, but that wasn't my point.
[...]
I guess then you need to define "deviant" and "non-deviant" behaviour for me. [...]
babark: [...]
Picked someone who may have provided some new information about a new situation rather than someone who probably said everything new they were going to say. But I realise that since spectres still have a vote, I guess in that regard the choice was right.
[...]
What new information on a new situation would HijacK be able to provide that Bookwyrm627 wouldn't? They've both died, and lost any abilities they may have had before, if you believe HijacK"s claim, he already said what he did N1, so...? Picked someone who may have provided some new information about a new situation rather than someone who probably said everything new they were going to say. But I realise that since spectres still have a vote, I guess in that regard the choice was right.
[...]
babark: [...]
You make it sound so insidious. Cristi is a spectre now- cannot be lynched, cannot be night-killed, cannot be harmed in any way, and can only be removed by the exorcist's choice. So if there was any new information that could be provided, what is so insidious about seeking it out?
Not thinking that it may well tell Scum how close to winning they are, thus allow them to strategise and plan accordingly, is what bothers me here. And yes, I didn't like how you followed the, otherwise fine, inquiry about any insights from her with that "were you something?". You make it sound so insidious. Cristi is a spectre now- cannot be lynched, cannot be night-killed, cannot be harmed in any way, and can only be removed by the exorcist's choice. So if there was any new information that could be provided, what is so insidious about seeking it out?
a4plz: It doesn't make me look good, but I'm just going to Vote HijacK because I probably won't have time to deep-read the last few pages before the day ends.
[emphasis added] I don't know which is worse - claiming that you've deep-read everything but the last few pages, yet had absolutely nth to comment on, or that you hammered HijacK, thus ending D2, and innocently proclaiming that you won't have time to continue your deep-reading before D2 ends.
I hope you realise that when you post in other threads it shows when you were on here, and says that you do devote time to the happenings of this forum. Nth against participating in other threads, it just makes me not buy your "lack of time" argument as a reason for staying away from this thread for days.
a4plz: See? Nothing interesting ever happens unless you take a few blind risks. Now we actually have something concrete to talk about.
Unvote HijacK
That's not how things work - rule #5 [emphasis added]: Unvote HijacK
[...] Once a player has more than 50% of the vote, they will be lynched and the game will go to Night. No amount of unvoting can prevent lynch once majority has been reached. [...]
Did you read the rules? Do you understand how the game works? In post #725 you say that you do understand. You also know that nth that's been discussed will probably make a difference to you. Without actually reading any of it. Because nth you’ve read so far caught your attention. Even though you practice deep-reading. Well then, that would mean that you deliberately and consciously ended the D2 early.
So, which is it – do you understand how the game works, or not?
Care to explain why it doesn't matter now?
I'm having a little trouble reconciling that you don't find him scummy, and at the same time find him scummy but others scummier than him.