18th February 2011, 05:22 AM
|
 |
Prince of Darkness, etc.
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell
Posts: 3,155
|
|
So, these three ( Idle Thoughts, Romanic and Red Skeezix) are setting up Day 1 a lot like Special Ed got the ball rolling in the Dr. Suess game.
In this Dr. Suess Mafia Day 1 post, I correctly identify 3 of the 4 scum in that game. I was wrong about Romola, but 75% accuracy on Day 1 is pretty goddamned good by any measure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Romola
Lucifer asks me why I see a connection between Renata's case against him and Soundly Paranoid's. The connection is that Renata's was posted second and it is to be assumed that she had read SP's comprehensive case and agreed with it. I don't see why she would have been expected to repeat points already made.
[/vote].
|
Romola, this is preposterous. You're saying that it's not necessary to post any reason for a vote, provided you place that vote some time after someone else states their case? And, furthermore, it's not even necessary to cite that case (that the other player made), nor cite the post, the post number, the ideas contained therein, or refer (in any way) to that post? But it's perfectly reasonable to presume that the rest of us will recognize that it is, indeed, that case, which sures up the vote?
Here are the players I think most likely to be scum...
Special Ed (for reasons previously stated
Renata (I just think Ed's bussing you to build townie cred later)
Romola (for the ludicrous line of reasoning you are promoting above)
Moody Mitchy (for the comment you made in Post 78) |
|