probably more given how borked my sleep schedule is atm.
You better take care, ok?
You too Chuggs, saw you posting until late last night and super early today in my catch-up.
he wasnt calling out Faddy on the Wee fund he was using it as an example of Faddy trying to appear more engaged than he really was, not a point i think i agree with but still not what your accusing him of there.
I'm not following this last part. It doesn't seem inconsistent to me. Can you clarify?
He wasn't in that post, Stan. But he did, earlier. Let me recount stuff so we can all get a clearer picture, myself included;
1. Faddy goes "Let's give someone all the money" in
#95 half an hour into the game. He volunteers to receive it at
#102.
2. Chuggs shares doubts on
#107. He doesn't seem on board because we don't know the alignment of folks yet.
3. He expands on it by saying, on #142 and #146;
Oh something that I was thinking about when I saw the rules, bets are probably a really good way for scum to transfer money to one another so we should be on the lookout for that.
Yeah, but if we end up giving it to scum they can just lie about it and scum can end up with something useful. I dunno. Not a fan of it at this stage
4. wee sets up a money-transferring bet in
#145, Faddy accepts "as a goodwill gesture" at
#166, and recommends that a lot of people contribute "a small amount" to the Lightning fund.
5. Ambulance is on board too at
#169. Honestly forgot this happened at all.
6. Some other folks don't like the idea, me included. Won't pick up these, they're a bunch of posts scattered through the last day and a half.
7. Fast forward hundreds of posts.
8. Faddy brings up again something he said in
#306 with #651;
So uhh the Get wee Lightning fund doesn't seem to have taken off. Remember you (yes YOU) need to contribute some Don Bucks so we can get the cool item.
I would prefer wee gets it with pooled money and a coming together of a community and not chuggs who has tried to gain money through gambling and exploiting people.
9. Then Faddy says "conning" in
#694, which seems to upset Chuggs and kickstarts his vote and reaction, already quoted in my previous post.
To me it looked like Chuggs got a strong reaction against it first - "Lmao okay. Keep on trying to make what I did sound worse than it actually was." in
#701 - and
then he votes and later brings up Faddy's posts that looked like he was disengaged. That's why it felt like there was OMGUS in there.
Is Faddy exaggerating and throwing unfair shade? Yes, Chuggs wasn't tricking people to get that money - although a sided bet goes against the L&R spirit, but whatever -.
Was Chuggs against moving money to one random person? Yes, at the start of the game.
Can we suspect Chuggs for this?
You were the person who was initially against pooling money for items. So when you do a 180 and decide to collect money to buy a big item I find that is not the towniest thing.
Yes. He goes "I know I'm town.", but we don't and as such we can be suspicious of him getting money and items so it's hardly a good defense.
Did Chuggs contradict himself by strongly reacting to Faddy calling him out for the amount of money he made? I think so. He made a point about the language Faddy used being at the core of his case, but let's remember this;
I think Faddy's idea is not great, but it's also a very town Faddy thing to do
If Chuggs really want to go for people that are disengaged from the game, there're a bunch of folks with barely any presence that could fit that criteria too. It's a bit weird to change an early town-lean just because someone threw a disingenuous adjective and some shade your way but hey, maybe it's as you said, Stan, and Chuggs is just trying to get something, anything, on D1, as most townfolks usually do.
(By the way I do appreciate both of you chiming in, really. Thanks!)
Okay Stan pretty much said why the rest of this doesn't work but I wanted to address this part specifically. Maybe there's a disconnect here, but why on earth would Faddy's argument swaying people or not factor into my scum read of him? One of the reasons I'm scum reading him is because I think he was purposely misrepresenting what I was doing, but weather he's actually persuasive about that doesn't really matter to me
You're right in that it shouldn't matter to your suspicion on him. You suspect whoever you want to. But I do think it makes for an interesting point considering I read your posts as a strong reaction to someone that's not even casing you. It's all about the tone. Does that make sense? (not trying to be snarky there, it really does seem like I'm explaining it poorly).
Like, this;
Honestly there's enough side eyeing of me where I don't think scum is going to touch me tonight. They wouldn't dare anyway. Would rather Kyan get it.
If memory serves me right, it's me, Faddy, Conditional-Pancakes and a passing comment from Stan who have mentioned a doubt or two either about you or the protection votes you've got. That's it. No meanie-reads, no actual cases, nothing.
This is what I mean by you overreacting.
Also I'm gonna be real. I would straight claim neutral at this point if I was it. Town isn't killing a money machine and scum isn't killing someone that can exit the game on their own. I'm not a neutral lol
Hating - due to flavor implications - that this rings genuine at first glance.
LET'S PLAY SOME NINTENDO 64 TONIGHT!
YES I pick Kirb...
I only have Donkey Kong 64
...
oh.
Fun item, I've seen folks loving it in the community.
Can we have a gentleperson's agreement that it's the weekend and constrain ourselves a bit?
Yes, please and thank you.
The narrative around her is she was scum 3 games in a row, is opening like she did in those games and is hard to read so would make people sleep easier if she was gone.
This happens all the time though. Lunching folks not because we're so sure they're meanies, but to clear the slot just in case.
Blarg is that kind of vote most of the time too.
But i know how this is going to turnout so i will stay with my current vote :P
Of course not man, look at that. Your agument is Weaker than Bloodworth Bench Pressing abilities ( I love him )
Like i said earlier its a nothing burger in my eyes
nin, could I ask you for a favor? Pleeease, could you make a more developed case on Launch? With all the arguments/posts/whatever you can think of. What else does ping you other than the weak Hawthorn vote?
It would help me immensely since I've been agreeing a lot with Launch and don't trust myself not to be pocketed by seasoned baddie!him.
Also, from my pov, you've come to the thread to throw shade around here and there with short posts and, if you're asking for him to justify and make a case for Hawthorn - which he put the effort into, even if you dislike it - you could write one too! Sounds fair?
The bet itself - "exactly six items from the store will be sold by the end of Day 1". It's a strangely specific thing to bet on. By her own admission, Hawthorn created a bet criteria which would make accepting the bet appealing to whoever she was proposing it to, something that would make it very difficult for her to win. This tells us a few things - one, that she was very intent on the recipient accepting the bet; and two, in her mind, she was effectively forfeiting the money.
If she was so intent on having someone accept the bet, my next question would be why? Hawthorn claims she was " eager to take part in the betting system and see how it works" (post #155), but she could have simply observed others performing bets to see how it works instead of placing $500 out of [a supposed] $1500 down on a bet to test it. Seeing how it works is a strange motivation, since she already had a good enough grasp on the logic behind the betting to make the criteria appealing to the recipient. I think the reality here is that Hawthorn had an ulterior motive for proposing a bet - either to add to the narrative that she is acting recklessly and therefore town, or some other unseen goal.
Agreed with this point in particular, except for the forfeit part for the W/W scenario Kyan brought up.
What's curious is that she says Chugg has not had much opposition, but actually does not raise any opposition herself; what she does is just point out that there is little opposition, which reads as light shade throwing, and puts a protection vote elsewhere.
Hawthorn does not actually have any issue with Chugg and has not raised any suspicion about him, so it's weird she would throw shade like this.
To be fair to her, not many folks have raised suspicion of Chuggs. Like, I'm in an argument with him but don't think this is meanie!Chuggs and had people disagree, Hawthorn included.
(Yes, "Can you explain this better?" is a nice way to say you don't agree with something.)
I guess scum could also just PM Fanto every item on the item shop list and see what comes back as out of stock. They might have realized that later and that's why there was no follow-up from Hawthorn on the bet?
While this may be true, I'd guess the "You don't have enough money for that." - or whatever it's phrased - error message would take precedence specifically to avoid folks gaming the system like that.
I'd be inclined to believe the current stock is hidden for a reason, and as such there're ways to prevent people from knowing it.
It means nothing to me, someone earlier said that was par for the course for turm d1, plus I've moved on from blarg for now, and I don't think a blarg train was ever gonna happen d1
Are you expecting it to happen in the future?
I agree. It really seems that that the only real argument against Hawthorn here is "but she was mean to me in other games :( "
Look, if you saw her punching someone in the face until killing them while saying "Trust me I'll explain later." and then a ridiculous Cop claim you trusted for all of 30 seconds before seeing the flip, you'd be hurt too.
I need to see some votes down.
I'll get there, just give me some time.
