You'd have to be more specific. I don't like looking too much into mod hits, especially when they involve references to a game I haven't played in over 10 years.
Mafia 106: Pokemafia
- Thread starter Piranha86
- Start date
I'm not sure how often he's innocent. Don't care...he's always and easy D1 vote. The nine times out of ten referred to the coin flip not AAF.
You are playing the WIFOM game right now.
The WIFOM answer is "because then you could say that you wouldn't do that."
I'm done playing. It wont ever end in anything but a stalemate.
I don't think I ever overtly said you were hiding on a single vote. Coler may have, but I didn't. I only brought YOUR vote up because 1) you did and 2) you said MY vote was easy. I originally referred to joke votes in general as being easy, which would simply imply your vote was easy.
I suppose that the sarcasm was lost...
My point is that you go into the game with the mindset that no one but yourself is innocent. AAF is just as likely to be given a scum role as the rest of us. Unless your case is that AAF is a much more careful player when scum (in which case, I'd like to see your evidence), you really have no case at all.
It's not outside the realm of possibility (as much as Dawg would like to object) that there is a connection, but it is a rather simplistic view on the game's events.
That is correct unless you are scum or a PR. But we also learned that just because they say something stupid doesn't mean they are scum and that unfortunately needs to play into your decision to vote for them.
No I don't think AAF is a careful player.
That goes for every player, not just those we carelessly lump in with AAF. I don't understand the special treatment.
I'm not a player who takes much stock into gut feel or a player's posting history anyways. I base my votes on what has been said in the thread...errors, discrepancies, etc. The fact that it was AAF made no difference in my decision to vote for him.
OK I'll start here. First, I didn't say that the rule question was scummy, I said it was superfluous. I accept that the tenor of what I posted was to suggest that superfluous posting is suspicious in terms of giving the impression of activity but ultimately contributing nothing. I still say it was superfluous.
Your second question. How did Neph promote what you said into something you didn't. Easily answered by reference to the actual posts :-
That is your post.
That is Nepherael complimenting you, in distinctly deliberate terms.
That is my query on what Neph had said - I quoted him/her.
The bit in bold is Neph promoting what you said into something it wasn't/putting words in your mouth. You asked a question. Neph has articulated a 'possible relationship' and said that you put that out there.
My post in response. Judge for yourself as to whether it was a fair question.
