Help
Emurlahn, on Apr 27 2009, 04:31 PM, said:
Fener, on Apr 27 2009, 11:22 AM, said:
Emurlahn, on Apr 27 2009, 04:14 PM, said:
Oh, and btw Fener:
You're right......Fener's vote wasn't counted by Path-Shaper. Seems when Emurlahn voted Liosan was already technically lynched.
Shadow made this post, and Mockra apparently thought Shadow was saying that Fener was the hammer. Hell, the way it's worded, I thought the same thing until I rechecked the lynch train, but I'm fairly sure your vote was before D'riss's.
Also, P-S later confirmed Shadow's observation.
So Mockra thought it was ironic that you were attacking me for hammering when he thought that, in light of P-S's mistake, you were the hammer. (Who, in reality, is D'riss. What do you know?)
Shadow, on Apr 25 2009, 11:31 AM, said:
D'riss, on Apr 25 2009, 03:35 PM, said:
@Shadow - I don't understand, unless I can't count, according to your figures there were 13 votes. What am I missing?
You're right......Fener's vote wasn't counted by Path-Shaper. Seems when Emurlahn voted Liosan was already technically lynched.
Shadow made this post, and Mockra apparently thought Shadow was saying that Fener was the hammer. Hell, the way it's worded, I thought the same thing until I rechecked the lynch train, but I'm fairly sure your vote was before D'riss's.
Also, P-S later confirmed Shadow's observation.
So Mockra thought it was ironic that you were attacking me for hammering when he thought that, in light of P-S's mistake, you were the hammer. (Who, in reality, is D'riss. What do you know?)
The main point is that my case against you was based on your behaviour when we all thought the vote count was right. That it subsequently turned out to be wrong is irrelevant. And Mockra missed that aspect of it, choosing to defend you with an irrelevancy.
Fener, the other half of your defense case revolved around two posts in which Mockra "reviewed" the active cases. You quoted both, with comments, in rapid succession despite the fact that they were on entirely different game days while implying that they were very close in proximity time-wise.
Mockra was doing nothing in the way of "defending" me, unless pointing out something you think is funny/ironic/hypocritical constitutes defenses. You've been bandying cases around like they're going out of style, and frankly, while you've been PI'ed if not CI'ed it still shouts SYMP! to me. But it's apparent that's not the case.
To recap:
I hammer Liosan, who as at L-1 with 1 hour or so left on the day timer
Fener votes me immediately after night resolves, claiming that I ruined Liosan's opportunity to reveal himself (really? Any reveal made at L-1 like that is bullshit without backup)
Shadow makes a post indicating that I was not the hammer, while implying (based on the wording, whether intentional or not I can't say) that Fener hammered
Mockra picks up on this, realizes that Fener had attacked him earlier, and thinks it's funny. He then makes a post about it with an amused "lol" appended at the end.
Fener decides that Mockra's "defense" right there and the fact that he didn't add me to his case review when I had 2-3 RP joke votes on me (when I said, "last call!") constitutes a scummy defense.
I mean, WTF? :Surprise:
It was a defence of you. Yes, he pointed out that my case was (in his view) hypocritical. Yes, he used an amused "lol". Those things defended you. It's not like he's going to come out and say "this post is a defence". I don't see how it can be interpreted in any way. Ridicule is a very powerful weapon for defence or attack.
And if you claim that Mockra was being honest in thinking my case was rubbish, people need to consider that Mockra was, in fact evil. And had an ulterior motive by definition.
The idea that any claim at L-1 is bullshit is ridiculous. Claimants should be given opportunity to prove their claims, and the finder can have a look at them too. If it's day 1 i'd rather not take out anyone who claims. If they're evil they'll be caught out eventually.
