Battle of the Bulge - CLOSED

[pmchugh]

PMC for being part of jak directing the doc prior to his soft claim.

I have explained this a few times but I will do it again.

Directing the doc is not scummy and is a viable town move. It works as follows:

1. Ask the doctor to protect player A.
2. The mafia do not want to risk killing player A in case he is protected, so they choose someone else.
3. The doctor protects player B.

You have successfully protected both player A and player B in one move. Of course mafia could see through this but it is a considerable risk for them to take. I agree with ngs assessment of your list as well, though I find it strange he then also listed jg after criticising you for it.

fastposted.
ok i suppose your right. hmmm hold on....o wow your right he did it even on mine to "make doom happy"
and i do qualify it as a reason ..do you not?

Of course not! The only reason he said "make doom happy" was because he was no longer voting him! How is that a reason to vote you! He just said you were the scummiest, he didn't say why.

[jgordon1111]

/ has stolen my thunder a little but my top choices (listed in order of scumminess) are

1- JGordon: I don't buy his survivor claim. Something fishy about claiming when there were only 3 people voting him. And even if I am wrong we would be lynching a survivor which I still feel is no real loss for the town. If I am right then I think town steamrolls to a win.

2 - Jak: He has been ultra-defensive of JGordon, he would rather no-lynch than lose him plus I don't like the doctor soft claim. What purpose does it serve? I don't see a town doctor claiming unless a lynch was imminent. The only reason I see for somebody to claim doc otherwise is if they are mafia and are trying to bait the real doctor for a counter-claim. Anybody associated with the claim is suspect to me, which brings me too...

3 - NewGuy1: Real quick to support named claims by JGordon and Jak. Also would rather no-lynch than lose JGordon. He was in on the doc soft claim stuff as well.

4&5 - Doom & PMC are suspicious by association for being involved in the doc soft claim. Doom for "outing" it to everybody, PMC for being part of jak directing the doc prior to his soft claim.

fastposted x a bunch

Ah the dreaded second post. Chuck play a couple of games with me you will know why I will claim fast.

only been mafia 2 times,died quick first one. second one well a different story.

But every game it seems I pull the bandwagon D1,so I have come to the conclusion its just easier to claim as soon as it starts,nobody is happy until I do. Even when I am the doc or have a power role,trying to drop hints or warn them off doesn't work.

ergo I made the comment that some who have played with me before might have knew what I was going to do.

But again you supported you post with viable reasons,your trying. reason it out, see what you think if you forget me for a minute and look at what some of the others are doing and saying.

fastposted by NG1,remember chuck is new or he is scum blatantly pushing the bosses agenda under the guise of new,havent decided yet,been giving him every benefit of the doubt.

Fastposted by pmc,doesnt that seem odd to you pmc that he is not giving a reason for voting a player?

[thechuck51]

/ has stolen my thunder a little but my top choices (listed in order of scumminess) are

1- JGordon: I don't buy his survivor claim. Something fishy about claiming when there were only 3 people voting him. And even if I am wrong we would be lynching a survivor which I still feel is no real loss for the town. If I am right then I think town steamrolls to a win.

2 - Jak: He has been ultra-defensive of JGordon, he would rather no-lynch than lose him plus I don't like the doctor soft claim. What purpose does it serve? I don't see a town doctor claiming unless a lynch was imminent. The only reason I see for somebody to claim doc otherwise is if they are mafia and are trying to bait the real doctor for a counter-claim. Anybody associated with the claim is suspect to me, which brings me too...

3 - NewGuy1: Real quick to support named claims by JGordon and Jak. Also would rather no-lynch than lose JGordon. He was in on the doc soft claim stuff as well.

4&5 - Doom & PMC are suspicious by association for being involved in the doc soft claim. Doom for "outing" it to everybody, PMC for being part of jak directing the doc prior to his soft claim.

fastposted x a bunch

Chuck. I know I shouldnt critisize, but this list spells crap to me. You have a survivor at the top of your list (we are looking for scum, not a survivor), our claimed doctor second, and then third you have me in which I have been defending the claimed doc and survivor and you find that scummy? My list probably right now, in no particular order would have to be:

Doomyoshi- Im getting vibes from him, plus when he is town he is usually alot more proactive and helpful towards town. This game he seemed silent till he was called out and from my viewpoint hasnt added alot of useful information.

Chuck- Wants to lynch our claimed doc and a survivor instead of searching for scum, which to me just rings mafia.

JG- Even though I support him and believe that he will honestly help town, theres always a chance that it is a very good fake claim and that I could be defending scum.

I don't believe the survivor claim nor the doc claim so I think they are both scum which is why they are at the top of my list.

I think JGordon and Jak go hand in hand. If JG pops scum then I think Jak will as well.

But if I am forced to eliminate those two from my list I would bump you up to the top.

fastposted by jgordon

[pmchugh]

jgordon: Chucks play has been a little off but he is new so I am going to give him a bit more leeway than players like doom and saf who know what they are doing.

Also at the risk of going off topic I don't think that claiming early is smart at all. I will fight to the bitter end no matter what my role to not claim and if you are survivor then it is even more silly.

[new guy1]

Go ahead man, bump me to the top of the list. As you have a crap arguement so I can kick it off with a crap defense. Your whole case on me is based on me defending the other two, so wouldnt it cancel out the point if you put me at the top of the list? How would it help your case in other words? Also, pmc, I critisized chuck for saying JG because he used the reasoning that hes a survivor and even if its a real claim it doesnt matter cause hes a survivor. I put him on my list because he could be fake claiming and I cant mark it off the list.

fastposted- I have to disagree, if you do that and you know that you will have to claim one way or the other then its better to claim and let town pressure someone else as to prevent wasted time and give more discussion on the claim. Yes, if it is at the beginning of the day dont do it as you can get out of pressure (possibly), but if it is nearing the end of the day, then I would claim if I knew it was going to happen to spare time for discussion of the claim.

[Some7hingCLEVER]

survivor and doctor are both decently easy fake claims.
if you do it right. the real survivor wont say anything if he wants to win and the doc wont say anything if he is smart.

[new guy1]

survivor and doctor are both decently easy fake claims.
if you do it right. the real survivor wont say anything if he wants to win and the doc wont say anything if he is smart.

There can be two survivors and obviously the doc wont say anything but you have to have balls to fake claim a doctor role and expect to get away with it for any length of time.

[jak111]

survivor and doctor are both decently easy fake claims.
if you do it right. the real survivor wont say anything if he wants to win and the doc wont say anything if he is smart.

The funny thing you all miss is that I soft claimed Doctor because I did not want to out right claim it.
FOS Clever, and Chuck, not because they question if I'm the doctor, but because they are now making things up. I wouldn't of claimed if Doom kept his mouth shut. So don't go around saying "Oh he claimed this and that" Well I soft claimed and was forced to fully claim when I got outed publicly. Go back and reread, also Clever, stop copying what the person above you says, I don't know about anyone else but it's actually sort of drawing my attention.

[thechuck51]

Go ahead man, bump me to the top of the list. As you have a crap arguement so I can kick it off with a crap defense. Your whole case on me is based on me defending the other two, so wouldnt it cancel out the point if you put me at the top of the list? How would it help your case in other words? Also, pmc, I critisized chuck for saying JG because he used the reasoning that hes a survivor and even if its a real claim it doesnt matter cause hes a survivor. I put him on my list because he could be fake claiming and I cant mark it off the list.

fastposted- I have to disagree, if you do that and you know that you will have to claim one way or the other then its better to claim and let town pressure someone else as to prevent wasted time and give more discussion on the claim. Yes, if it is at the beginning of the day dont do it as you can get out of pressure (possibly), but if it is nearing the end of the day, then I would claim if I knew it was going to happen to spare time for discussion of the claim.

admittedly my argument against you as posted is fairly weak but the point of the post was more to provide a list of names than to argue any case. I think if necessary I could provide a stronger case.

fastposted by jak

[new guy1]

Go ahead man, bump me to the top of the list. As you have a crap arguement so I can kick it off with a crap defense. Your whole case on me is based on me defending the other two, so wouldnt it cancel out the point if you put me at the top of the list? How would it help your case in other words? Also, pmc, I critisized chuck for saying JG because he used the reasoning that hes a survivor and even if its a real claim it doesnt matter cause hes a survivor. I put him on my list because he could be fake claiming and I cant mark it off the list.

fastposted- I have to disagree, if you do that and you know that you will have to claim one way or the other then its better to claim and let town pressure someone else as to prevent wasted time and give more discussion on the claim. Yes, if it is at the beginning of the day dont do it as you can get out of pressure (possibly), but if it is nearing the end of the day, then I would claim if I knew it was going to happen to spare time for discussion of the claim.

admittedly my argument against you as posted is fairly weak but the point of the post was more to provide a list of names than to argue any case. I think if necessary I could provide a stronger case.

fastposted by jak

Well it was a good attempt, and with a little more evidence and a little more leads, you probably could have made something with it. Keep trying, it had potential to me at least

[Some7hingCLEVER]

survivor and doctor are both decently easy fake claims.
if you do it right. the real survivor wont say anything if he wants to win and the doc wont say anything if he is smart.

The funny thing you all miss is that I soft claimed Doctor because I did not want to out right claim it.
FOS Clever, and Chuck, not because they question if I'm the doctor, but because they are now making things up. I wouldn't of claimed if Doom kept his mouth shut. So don't go around saying "Oh he claimed this and that" Well I soft claimed and was forced to fully claim when I got outed publicly. Go back and reread, also Clever, stop copying what the person above you says, I don't know about anyone else but it's actually sort of drawing my attention.

you soft claimed it. meaning it had the chance to be outed. which would mean you knew the risks so to me its the same as fully claiming. so, what am i making up? i said you claimed it. and you did. as highlighted in red. and is it not easy for mafia to post one line making it seem like your doc so you can say "oh im not fake claiming i dropped hints seee" ? im just pointed out posibilites im not voting or anything cause for now i believe you i just like to point out all the possibilities.

[jgordon1111]

jgordon: Chucks play has been a little off but he is new so I am going to give him a bit more leeway than players like doom and saf who know what they are doing.

Also at the risk of going off topic I don't think that claiming early is smart at all. I will fight to the bitter end no matter what my role to not claim and if you are survivor then it is even more silly.

I tried the bitter end strat once and it caused alot of problems pmc, got called a bunch of nasty stuff for my effort,dropped hints all over the place, I was the vig and tried to keep it from coming out. it ended up with skill lynched and saf night vigged. thats why I claim quick when it starts,better to let those that just have to know, have what they want lol.

And each time I have found that scum either backs it repeatedly or pushes the hardest for it.

fastposted by NG1, I suspect there are more than me in this game as a survivor. have from the minute I read my role alot of roles to fill,figure 3 mafia,2 survivors and the rest town with possibly 1 VT. If I am right town has a good chance with the survivors making it to day 3. The odds will be heavy in their favor as long as at least one mafia gets tagged. If town can get one of them then it will most likely easy to pick the others out.

Super balls to fakeclaim doc, especially that early in the game. way to much can go wrong with that play. Who outed the docs claim for all to know?

and if the claim was fake,at this point the real doc would know that the fake one was screwed and claim knowing that those that were protecting him were scum. GAME OVER. So with that in mind I am still going to back jak,he is the doc.

Damn fastposted by almost everyone.

[thechuck51]

But again you supported you post with viable reasons,your trying. reason it out, see what you think if you forget me for a minute and look at what some of the others are doing and saying.

I will do that. Though I don't believe you or jak I am realizing that there will not be any breakthroughs on that front today. And in the event that I am wrong I need to make sure I have another trail to follow.

[safariguy5]

jgordon: Chucks play has been a little off but he is new so I am going to give him a bit more leeway than players like doom and saf who know what they are doing.

Also at the risk of going off topic I don't think that claiming early is smart at all. I will fight to the bitter end no matter what my role to not claim and if you are survivor then it is even more silly.

I tried the bitter end strat once and it caused alot of problems pmc, got called a bunch of nasty stuff for my effort,dropped hints all over the place, I was the vig and tried to keep it from coming out. it ended up with skill lynched and saf night vigged. thats why I claim quick when it starts,better to let those that just have to know, have what they want lol.

And each time I have found that scum either backs it repeatedly or pushes the hardest for it.

fastposted by NG1, I suspect there are more than me in this game as a survivor. have from the minute I read my role alot of roles to fill,figure 3 mafia,2 survivors and the rest town with possibly 1 VT. If I am right town has a good chance with the survivors making it to day 3. The odds will be heavy in their favor as long as at least one mafia gets tagged. If town can get one of them then it will most likely easy to pick the others out.

Super balls to fakeclaim doc, especially that early in the game. way to much can go wrong with that play. Who outed the docs claim for all to know?

and if the claim was fake,at this point the real doc would know that the fake one was screwed and claim knowing that those that were protecting him were scum. GAME OVER. So with that in mind I am still going to back jak,he is the doc.

Damn fastposted by almost everyone.

I disagree with that reasoning. People are going to protect a claimed doc unless it's really poorly executed. Plenty of people are protecting the claimed doc here, and I doubt all of them would be scum. Doc and cop are those roles which both town and mafia will protect because questioning them (like chuck) will draw attention and possible vote heat.

[chapcrap]

jgordon, you're still waiting? Really? You mean, since I asked you and you hadn't answered yet, I didn't respond yet? What were you expecting? This:

1. jgordon asks question
2. chap asks for clarification of false accusation
3. chap answers without clarification

Obviously you were going to be waiting!! Think about it!

pmc,

Finally lets move on to chap, who has now changed his tune to say that he does have good reasons behind his waggoning. So lets take a look at him and some of the things I pointed out earlier that he never addressed.

Well, first of all, I never changed my tune. When did I ever say that I mindlessly bandwagoned or didn't have reasons for my votes? The answer is never. Boom, point 1 shot down.

Gi..give me till tomorrow afternoon to post guys. My friend just.. I'll be a day or two...

Is this trying to make fun of someone? I don't know.

However, I agree with was saf said about jak. More than anything, I think it's ridiculous that jak tries to guide the doctor for absolutely no reason. Guiding the doctor to a specific person is scummy in itself, because you need to guide the doctor on day 1 by giving them information to go on in general.

Not only is it ridiculous to guide the doctor to a specific person, it's even more ridiculous when the person in question is in no way proven to be town or be helpful to town.

AND, the reason given for saving him is even more absurd. If you have no idea what pmc's role is, how can you say that you need him to answer question about night intel? The whole thing is preposterous and makes me think that you are scum who is trying to guide the doctor into doing something predictable.

unvote vote jak

Through IMO faulty logic and repeating safs point three or four times he forms part of his first BW.

It was faulty because guiding the doctor can end in a double protection AND it wasn't even his own original thought he just copied sarifguy.

It was faulty logic because jak's idea might work sometimes... That doesn't make it faulty logic. That means what jak did isn't completely dumb all of the time. And just because someone said the same thing before doesn't mean my thought isn't my own thought or isn't valid. Boom, points 2 and 3 shot down.

On to jgordon, the case seems ok, but not overwhelming to me. I do agree that his activity has been scummy though. After looking back at it, he seems to be waffling back and forth about everything and being very non-committal. That is scummy. For now, my vote stays on jak until he responds to my questions.

The bold and underlined part here shows how poor his reasoning has been. You can say a great number of things about jgordon but "non-committal" is the one thing he is not.

Umm, at that point jgordon was being non-committal. You can go back and look. I wasn't the only one who said it. Of course then you would have to admit that others don't agree with this awful point. Number 4 bites the dust!!

I want to get more information for town to work with, but if we don't have someone who is inherently scummy at the end of this day, I will say that we need to lynch jgordon.

This seems reasonable, but in reality it is just copying other peoples reasoning again. For example:

If we really don't have anything else by the end of this day, then I'm willing to follow a survivor lynch over a town lynch.

Still, lynching someone who we believe to be scum is better than lynching the survivor, so I won't vote for jg yet. After all, we have a week left.

So, if you aren't the first to say something, it's scummy and doesn't count. Sounds like you're just trying to repeat point number 3 again. And I think I already shot that down.

As far as my vote goes, I don't really see that Doom pointing out the soft claim was all that scummy. However, I will pressure him because someone needs pressured for more information. If he wasn't already being pressured, I would pressure Rodion. I don't like his level of activity in this game. I have played a few with him and this behavior on Day 1, I don't like from him. vote DoomYoshi

My vote will stay on Doom. Yes, I agreed with what you had to say about you fully exposing jak's claim. However, that doesn't mean you can't be pressured. As stated, at that time, I didn't see anyone else compelling and as I am still looking for scum, I went ahead and pressured someone for information, not for a lynch. My vote will stay until you claim.

One case that was not mentioned in jaks vote summary was dooms. At one point he looked like a decent BW target due to his outing of jaks soft claim. This for me stands out as the most scummy one he was involved in because he openly admits that he thinks doom is not scummy and he can even explain why, but he votes him anyway just because other people are pressuring him... BW much?

I see chap offered no defense to one of my central points, I clearly stated here that he appeared to be bandwaggoning on someone with no good reason.

I defend this my making my arguments in posts that I already made. It's easy to make people look scummy if you don't read everything they say. And you help people skim by only making large the parts you want people to see.

You basically have no case. You are just trying to manipulate my words when they aren't even bad. I'm like a freaking pyrotechnical expert with all of these points of yours that I just blew up.

[everywhere116]

Ok, top 3 lynches. (Note: Very subjective and loose, not confident in analysis at all)

jgordon: claim survivor, could be scum. Hasn't really acted like a survivor.
new guy, jak: Don't really like the case on chap. Doesn't make much sense, seem to be pursuing it with gusto that would make more sens ein later stages of the game.

[Ragian]

If we are to get another claim, it might also be worth considering players that haven't posted for a very long time... Of course that would push any presented case in the background. Still, I don't see any case on the background of which I feel comfortable voting.

Rodion's last post was:
- by Rodion
Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:25 am

Dazza's last post was:
- by dazza2008
Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:10 am

While that's a long time to go without saying anything, I do sometimes catch myself reading everything and still not posting. Often, it's because I don't feel like I have anything new to add to the conversation, and I've seen players accusing other players of not contributing when they agreed with others. It's a double-edged sword:
- You suck if you don't post.
- You suck if you just agree with others without bringing anything new to the table even if you haven't got anything new to bring to the table.

(And I think someone even said this too )

[pmchugh]

Oh wow chap, you totally blew my argument out of the water... KABLAM.

Finally lets move on to chap, who has now changed his tune to say that he does have good reasons behind his waggoning. So lets take a look at him and some of the things I pointed out earlier that he never addressed.

Well, first of all, I never changed my tune. When did I ever say that I mindlessly bandwagoned or didn't have reasons for my votes? The answer is never. Boom, point 1 shot down.

I didn't say that your original tune was that you had no reasoning behind your votes, you just put words in my mouth. Your original defence was that you like to BW on day 1, which is a whole different defence than that you had good reasons for all of your votes.

It was faulty logic because jak's idea might work sometimes... That doesn't make it faulty logic. That means what jak did isn't completely dumb all of the time.

Actually yes it does. You FOSd him for using a "ridiculous" tactic, making it sound like it could never work and would only benefit scum. If you admit the tactic is viable, which the above post does then your logic was indeed faulty.

I defend this my making my arguments in posts that I already made. It's easy to make people look scummy if you don't read everything they say. And you help people skim by only making large the parts you want people to see.

No you didn't. Why did you vote clever? You have given no reason. The only reason you gave for voting and asking for a claim off of doom was that "someone needs to be pressured". Please quote where you have defended these points. I highlighted the large parts because it seems some people are too lazy to actually read how poor your voting reasons have been.

You basically have no case. You are just trying to manipulate my words when they aren't even bad. I'm like a freaking pyrotechnical expert with all of these points of yours that I just blew up.

You should be a politician. You are so good at squirming away from explaining why you made your votes. For all the points I have made against you, you have not once explained how any of your votes reasoning was good.

[Ragian]

Alright, so I read your argument as a dispute of why chap voted for various players.

- pmc says there is no reason behind the votes.
- chap says there is.

It seems pmc has brought forward quotes that indicate what in his eyes are lacks of arguments behind chap's votings. He is, however, dissatisfied with chap's response.

Wouldn't it be easily solved if we just ask: "Chap, what were your reasons for voting x, z, and y?" If he doesn't answer, the case is easy. If he does answer...well...we should decide if those answers are adequate.

@chap, what were your reasons for voting for the players, you voted for?

(And I do apologise if you have already stated this clearly. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time arranging all the various posts and quotes and what not. If you already answered, could you just link to the post?)

[dazza2008]

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

[Some7hingCLEVER]

Alright, so I read your argument as a dispute of why chap voted for various players.

- pmc says there is no reason behind the votes.
- chap says there is.

It seems pmc has brought forward quotes that indicate what in his eyes are lacks of arguments behind chap's votings. He is, however, dissatisfied with chap's response.

Wouldn't it be easily solved if we just ask: "Chap, what were your reasons for voting x, z, and y?" If he doesn't answer, the case is easy. If he does answer...well...we should decide if those answers are adequate.

@chap, what were your reasons for voting for the players, you voted for?

(And I do apologise if you have already stated this clearly. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time arranging all the various posts and quotes and what not. If you already answered, could you just link to the post?)

dude you took the words right out of my brain.
chap every person you (serious) voted for can you give a reason? if you can and there good i wont vote you.

[jgordon1111]

Alright, so I read your argument as a dispute of why chap voted for various players.

- pmc says there is no reason behind the votes.
- chap says there is.

It seems pmc has brought forward quotes that indicate what in his eyes are lacks of arguments behind chap's votings. He is, however, dissatisfied with chap's response.

Wouldn't it be easily solved if we just ask: "Chap, what were your reasons for voting x, z, and y?" If he doesn't answer, the case is easy. If he does answer...well...we should decide if those answers are adequate.

@chap, what were your reasons for voting for the players, you voted for?

Guys I have already asked chap twice what criteria he is using for his votes and he hasnt given a reason as of yet.

(And I do apologise if you have already stated this clearly. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time arranging all the various posts and quotes and what not. If you already answered, could you just link to the post?)

[jgordon1111]

sorry for double,put my answer in the wrong place when i quoted raigan.

I have already asked chap twice what criteria he is using for his votes,so far no response as to what it is exactly.

[chapcrap]

So, the only point you still contend in your case against me is that you think I should list reasons for all my votes? This case is looking more and more like swiss cheese every minute.

First of all, it's Day 1. You don't need scummy reasons to vote someone. If you do have a scummy reason, then it's a plus, but it's not necessary. All you are looking for is information, which I have already stated. I'm looking for people to claim and make scum slips.

Who do you want me to explain? These votes:

• jak: He tried to direct the doctor. To me, that shouldn't happen. Already explained why.
• jgordon: He was acting scummy. Everyone thought so. He continued acting scummy even after his claim. He claims survivor and then votes himself and says he wants town to win. The whole thing doesn't make any sense. He should be lynched if no one else is definitely scummy. That looks more and more like what will happen today and I am fine with that.
• Doom: He was already being pressured and I was trying to force more pressure.
• newguy1: It seemed like he was trying to deflect pressure very quickly. He hadn't been posting a lot and then after Leehar voted him following jak's list, he all of sudden was available for a lot of defensive posting very quickly. Seemed a little strange to me that all of a sudden he was paying extra attention to the thread.

To those who were trying to agree with voting me if I don't give a great reason for all of my votes: After pmc made a giant post for a case, the only thing he really has left is that I have to have a 100% awesome reason for every vote I've made on Day 1. Please. If that's the basis of why you are voting, then whoever votes needs to get with it.

Moving on...

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

So, as soon as Ragian posts something about you being inactive, this is what you come back with? Weak.

And I agree about Rodion being inactive and it being odd for him. I already posted about that.

[jgordon1111]

So, the only point you still contend in your case against me is that you think I should list reasons for all my votes? This case is looking more and more like swiss cheese every minute.

First of all, it's Day 1. You don't need scummy reasons to vote someone. If you do have a scummy reason, then it's a plus, but it's not necessary. All you are looking for is information, which I have already stated. I'm looking for people to claim and make scum slips.

Who do you want me to explain? These votes:

• jak: He tried to direct the doctor. To me, that shouldn't happen. Already explained why.
• jgordon: He was acting scummy. Everyone thought so. He continued acting scummy even after his claim. He claims survivor and then votes himself and says he wants town to win. The whole thing doesn't make any sense. He should be lynched if no one else is definitely scummy. That looks more and more like what will happen today and I am fine with that.
• Doom: He was already being pressured and I was trying to force more pressure.
• newguy1: It seemed like he was trying to deflect pressure very quickly. He hadn't been posting a lot and then after Leehar voted him following jak's list, he all of sudden was available for a lot of defensive posting very quickly. Seemed a little strange to me that all of a sudden he was paying extra attention to the thread.

To those who were trying to agree with voting me if I don't give a great reason for all of my votes: After pmc made a giant post for a case, the only thing he really has left is that I have to have a 100% awesome reason for every vote I've made on Day 1. Please. If that's the basis of why you are voting, then whoever votes needs to get with it.

Moving on...

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

So, as soon as Ragian posts something about you being inactive, this is what you come back with? Weak.

And I agree about Rodion being inactive and it being odd for him. I already posted about that.

So in essence you are just voting and commenting on peoples playing. You tried to claim I was scum because I was commenting on playstyles and not contributing. hmmmm chap you keep contradicting yourself,just a few more please. UNVOTE VOTE CHAP for consistently contradicting himself when he is feeling pressure.