Ragnarok Game Thread - Game Over, Town Wins!

[John Snow]

So let me get this straight. 

 

There's nothing game related to comment on, but you're 60% wolf on two people?

[Sili Quirrels]

I didnt read ocicats post until a moment ago.

 

Already commented on lenlo and further commentary would be redundent.

 

I dont get the sense youve rd my posts.

[Sili Quirrels]

Yeah. Youve latched onto a notion and aspect of my posts and generalized i think.

[John Snow]

  On 8/28/2015 at 5:54 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

After a lot of consideration: [v]Lenlo[/v]

 

Because he booked it after his first post and I don't like that. =(

 

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 5:57 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

That is considering the content of his first post, I mean... Two exclamation marks, encouraging cory... then he goes... grr.

 

This reads joke vote, not a serious one. 

[Sili Quirrels]

  On 8/28/2015 at 8:45 AM, John Snow said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 5:54 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

After a lot of consideration: [v]Lenlo[/v]

 

Because he booked it after his first post and I don't like that. =(

  On 8/28/2015 at 5:57 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

That is considering the content of his first post, I mean... Two exclamation marks, encouraging cory... then he goes... grr.

This reads joke vote, not a serious one.

It can be both.

[John Snow]

  On 8/28/2015 at 8:48 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 8:45 AM, John Snow said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 5:54 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

After a lot of consideration: [v]Lenlo[/v]

 

Because he booked it after his first post and I don't like that. =(

  On 8/28/2015 at 5:57 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

That is considering the content of his first post, I mean... Two exclamation marks, encouraging cory... then he goes... grr.

This reads joke vote, not a serious one.

It can be both.

 

 

This reads as "it was a joke vote that turned serious."

 

This was the last time you mentioned Lenlo until recently. Nowhere did you indicate it was a serious vote. Deciding he was a serious scum candidate is worthy of further commentary, especially when you FoS someone else and don't vote them. 

[Sili Quirrels]

  On 8/28/2015 at 8:52 AM, John Snow said:

 

 

This reads as "it was a joke vote that turned serious."

 

This was the last time you mentioned Lenlo until recently. Nowhere did you indicate it was a serious vote. Deciding he was a serious scum candidate is worthy of further commentary, especially when you FoS someone else and don't vote them. 

 

 

It was a vote expressed in a light, mildly good humor tone.  Anymore than that about one post at this point in the game would be superfluous. Even now we are only 5 pages in. There is very little of significance, therefore reads have a lot of variance.

[Sili Quirrels]

In a more general way, I am not inclined to rigorously apply my reads and follow-up on reads with so little information.

[Sili Quirrels]

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:17 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 8:52 AM, John Snow said:

 

 

This reads as "it was a joke vote that turned serious."

 

This was the last time you mentioned Lenlo until recently. Nowhere did you indicate it was a serious vote. Deciding he was a serious scum candidate is worthy of further commentary, especially when you FoS someone else and don't vote them. 

 

 

It was a vote expressed in a light, mildly good humor tone.  Anymore than that about one post at this point in the game would be superfluous. Even now we are only 5 pages in. There is very little of significance, therefore reads have a lot of variance.

 

I wish to highlight this, since it can easily be missed.

 

Lenlo had one post. Ocicat had four and had made a trend, therefore further commentary about ocicat was necessitated.

[John Snow]

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:17 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 8:52 AM, John Snow said:

 

 

This reads as "it was a joke vote that turned serious."

 

This was the last time you mentioned Lenlo until recently. Nowhere did you indicate it was a serious vote. Deciding he was a serious scum candidate is worthy of further commentary, especially when you FoS someone else and don't vote them. 

 

 

It was a vote expressed in a light, mildly good humor tone.  Anymore than that about one post at this point in the game would be superfluous. Even now we are only 5 pages in. There is very little of significance, therefore reads have a lot of variance.

 

 

Again, you seem to agree that it could easily be read as a joke vote. I feel like that should have been clarified in light of your later comments on Ocicat. 

[John Snow]

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:25 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:17 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 8:52 AM, John Snow said:

 

 

This reads as "it was a joke vote that turned serious."

 

This was the last time you mentioned Lenlo until recently. Nowhere did you indicate it was a serious vote. Deciding he was a serious scum candidate is worthy of further commentary, especially when you FoS someone else and don't vote them. 

 

 

It was a vote expressed in a light, mildly good humor tone.  Anymore than that about one post at this point in the game would be superfluous. Even now we are only 5 pages in. There is very little of significance, therefore reads have a lot of variance.

 

I wish to highlight this, since it can easily be missed.

 

Lenlo had one post. Ocicat had four and had made a trend, therefore further commentary about ocicat was necessitated.

 

 

 

So why do you think Lenlo merits your vote more than Ocicat, if Ocicat's scumminess is bred of a pattern?

[Sili Quirrels]

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:34 AM, John Snow said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:17 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 8:52 AM, John Snow said:

 

 

This reads as "it was a joke vote that turned serious."

 

This was the last time you mentioned Lenlo until recently. Nowhere did you indicate it was a serious vote. Deciding he was a serious scum candidate is worthy of further commentary, especially when you FoS someone else and don't vote them. 

 

 

It was a vote expressed in a light, mildly good humor tone.  Anymore than that about one post at this point in the game would be superfluous. Even now we are only 5 pages in. There is very little of significance, therefore reads have a lot of variance.

 

 

Again, you seem to agree that it could easily be read as a joke vote. I feel like that should have been clarified in light of your later comments on Ocicat. 

 

I can appreciate your perspective, however I have no desire to convince anyone to follow me on lenlo yet. My reason is self-explanatory to anyone who has seen a pop-in wolf or read the subsequent arguments.

 

Here is a guide:

 

1. Early game means reads, no matter the confidence attributed to them, vary a lot.

2. Not all leads are important to follow-up on. Therefore sometimes a serious vote need not be expressed to compel responses.

3. Not all reads are equally informed.

[Sili Quirrels]

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:36 AM, John Snow said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:25 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:17 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 8:52 AM, John Snow said:

 

 

This reads as "it was a joke vote that turned serious."

 

This was the last time you mentioned Lenlo until recently. Nowhere did you indicate it was a serious vote. Deciding he was a serious scum candidate is worthy of further commentary, especially when you FoS someone else and don't vote them. 

 

 

It was a vote expressed in a light, mildly good humor tone.  Anymore than that about one post at this point in the game would be superfluous. Even now we are only 5 pages in. There is very little of significance, therefore reads have a lot of variance.

 

I wish to highlight this, since it can easily be missed.

 

Lenlo had one post. Ocicat had four and had made a trend, therefore further commentary about ocicat was necessitated.

 

 

 

So why do you think Lenlo merits your vote more than Ocicat, if Ocicat's scumminess is bred of a pattern?

 

 

I am about as confident in both, overall.

[Sili Quirrels]

Addendum: -_-

[dicetosser1]

  On 8/28/2015 at 6:19 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 6:13 AM, Celeste said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 6:11 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

Are you kidding? You don't feed your pets chocolate, it's bad for them!

So your Tress' pet?

 

 

I am the thread's pet. A rampaging squirrel of justice that natters unending.

 

Tress probably wouldn't take very good care of me.

 

 

I think we should put the Threads pet down for picking on my Tress

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 7:44 AM, John Snow said:

Well Sili's way off his norm. [v]Sili[/v]

 

 

You don't even know what his norm is.  Didnt like this

 

vote John Snow

[Sili Quirrels]

Apparently he has played with me D1 thrice, not that I recall any specific interaction with him.

 

Anyway, JS, you are nit-picking. It feels like a witch hunt. The thread has no 'substance' therefore why would you expect anyone, even me, to have a lot of 'content'?

[John Snow]

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:40 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:34 AM, John Snow said:

-snip-

Again, you seem to agree that it could easily be read as a joke vote. I feel like that should have been clarified in light of your later comments on Ocicat. 

 

I can appreciate your perspective, however I have no desire to convince anyone to follow me on lenlo yet. My reason is self-explanatory to anyone who has seen a pop-in wolf or read the subsequent arguments.

 

Here is a guide:

 

1. Early game means reads, no matter the confidence attributed to them, vary a lot.

2. Not all leads are important to follow-up on. Therefore sometimes a serious vote need not be expressed to compel responses.

3. Not all reads are equally informed.

 

 

Okay, I can buy into this. 

[John Snow]

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:51 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

Apparently he has played with me D1 thrice, not that I recall any specific interaction with him.

 

Anyway, JS, you are nit-picking. It feels like a witch hunt. The thread has no 'substance' therefore why would you expect anyone, even me, to have a lot of 'content'?

 

LotR, AG, and tUS off the top of my head. None of them were my best games, I'll give you that. 

[Sili Quirrels]

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:51 AM, John Snow said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:40 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

 

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:34 AM, John Snow said:

-snip-

Again, you seem to agree that it could easily be read as a joke vote. I feel like that should have been clarified in light of your later comments on Ocicat. 

 

I can appreciate your perspective, however I have no desire to convince anyone to follow me on lenlo yet. My reason is self-explanatory to anyone who has seen a pop-in wolf or read the subsequent arguments.

 

Here is a guide:

 

1. Early game means reads, no matter the confidence attributed to them, vary a lot.

2. Not all leads are important to follow-up on. Therefore sometimes a serious vote need not be expressed to compel responses.

3. Not all reads are equally informed.

 

 

Okay, I can buy into this. 

 

Okay.

[John Snow]

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:51 AM, Sili Quirrels said:

Apparently he has played with me D1 thrice, not that I recall any specific interaction with him.

 

Anyway, JS, you are nit-picking. It feels like a witch hunt. The thread has no 'substance' therefore why would you expect anyone, even me, to have a lot of 'content'?

 

How else is content started except for people looking for it?

 

I didn't like your entry. I decided to vote and pressure you and see what follows. I'm satisfied with your reaction for the time being. Don't like it, rule 14. 

 

[unvote] [v]Sooh[/v]

[Sili Quirrels]

good response.

[Sili Quirrels]

I got no clue what rule 14 is though.

[John Snow]

GFY

[Sili Quirrels]

meh response then.

[Sili Quirrels]

Going to sleep.