[SFoL] SFoL 63 - Triple Threat: Virtuous - Game Over (4/26) - Blue Dragon (evils) win!

[EliThePsycho]

ok
/vote Leafia
parking my vote here for now

[Zone_Q11]

@ash4fun

@Zone_Q11

I am curious. Now that Intensify has also claimed to be bled, what do you think of it?

@ash4fun

ftr I read intensify bleed as 99% always true–BD read them as HoB or vice versa

Ah… I must’ve not seen this before. Thank you for answering.
Hm… so you believe that Intensify is a scum then?

[Leafia]

@Zone_Q11

@Leafia

@Zone_Q11

Why would you expect everyone to get as serious as you are?
[/quote]

Some people actually want to win you know.

What does that have to do with you wanting everyone to be as serious as you are?
Why are we not allowed to play in a lax manner?

You do kind of have a point here actually.[quote=“Zone_Q11, post:661, topic:83266”]

@Leafia

I hadn’t even been that wolfy

Do you think that if you think that someone is wolfy, that others have to agree with you?
If something isn’t wolfy to you, but it is wolfy to others, are they never correct?
Are we never allowed to have a free will to choose what is towny and what is wolfy?

That’s not my point. Everyone has their own way of viewing things and that’s the way things should be. But they never even explained how they found me wolfy and if they did, I must’ve missed it the short time I was a bit distracted by RL.[quote=“Zone_Q11, post:661, topic:83266”]
Regarding “it is too early”: Where I come from (NovelUpdates Forum), people do jack **** during D1 because nobody died. Does this mean that nobody was supposed to read anyone during D1?
The answer is “no”, it is never too early to read people.
[/quote]

You shouldn’t be going hard on your initial reads in case they’re wrong. Putting someone in your scumlock category less than an hour into D1 is stupid.[quote=“Zone_Q11, post:661, topic:83266”]

@Leafia

No. The case against me is BS.

If it was BS, then how come other people are making a fuss about it? There are “only” six (6) scum in this game, yet I see more than six people be against you.
[/quote]

If I knew this, I’d be less confused. I think they’re letting themselves be swayed and not using good judgement.

[Zone_Q11]

@Frostwolf103

@Zone_Q11

Did you read further than her 10th post?

Discouraged to read any further, and honestly I dont do meta reads.

Then how come you choose to push for Derps’ death, but not Leafia’s death?

[Wazza]

@Alice

Your highest TRs effectively boil down to “They claimed they were bled.” Also how tf does one of your three highest TRs is just there for lacking WiM?

Ah yes, because SDA claimed they were bled, also I’m finding a reason to find people I can trust currently. It’s not my fault they are the players I trust that were mentioned in the post.

@Alice

Why do you think my TR on Vulgard is a pocket?

Already stated this, can you actually read my posts instead of doing what Wiisp did in Joat^2.

@Alice

Give examples?

My examples were literally for you to look at the ISO for, and surely you haven’t not-noticed it.

@Alice

How are them weird this game?

If I knew what was sensing me off about them I would’ve said. Clearly I’m unsure what’s weird about them it’s just rubbing me the wrong way nonetheless.

[Centuries]

/unvote

/vote Whysper

cause why the hell not

[Alice]

@Intensify

I’m not faking the bleed and that’s it.
I don’t do RTs like this, I hate RTs.

I laughed so hard at this post.

[Intensify]

@Wazza

@Alice

Your highest TRs effectively boil down to “They claimed they were bled.” Also how tf does one of your three highest TRs is just there for lacking WiM?

Ah yes, because SDA claimed they were bled, also I’m finding a reason to find people I can trust currently. It’s not my fault they are the players I trust that were mentioned in the post .

Hold on, SDA claimed a bleed?

[Frostwolf103]

@Zone_Q11

but not Leafia’s death?

Why exactly? SDA is not read through meta either.

[Frostwolf103]

@Intensify

Hold on, SDA claimed a bleed?

Wait what?

[EliThePsycho]

i’d have to agree here
SDA CLAIMED BLEED???
can u like quote that post

[Intensify]

Ok yeh I’m rereading this entire thread, I’ve definitely missed a lot of things

[Leafia]

While I don’t agree with the second part, I don’t think you’d be like this as scum.

[Alice]

@Wazza

Ah yes, because SDA claimed they were bled, also I’m finding a reason to find people I can trust currently. It’s not my fault they are the players I trust that were mentioned in the post .

Stop dodging the question.

The point is that you’re TR’ing two players mostly because of how they claimed to be bleeding. How does this make them a villager?

[Intensify]

@Wazza

because SDA claimed they were bled

Literally Wazza saying SDA claimed a bleed, I don’t recall it tho.

[Alice]

No, he’s mocking because I pointed out that his TR’s were players who claimed to be bled while he gave SDA, the only non-bled player, as a counterexample.

Point is, his reads feel fairly fake as a villager would be able to get more villa pings in almost 700 posts rather than using bleed claims as a basis.

[Wazza]

@Intensify

Hold on, SDA claimed a bleed?

You can’t sense sarcasm can you?

@Alice

The point is that you’re TR’ing two players mostly because of how they claimed to be bleeding. How does this make them a villager?

What are you on about? That’s just part of my read towards them and the read I stated in the post.

You’re acting like I’m not missing out things despite the fact I literally put 7/25 other players in my ‘readslist’

[Intensify]

@Wazza

You can’t sense sarcasm can you?

This is the internet, sarcasm is almost unable to be detected sometimes.

[Frostwolf103]

@Wazza

You can’t sense sarcasm can you?

A little worked up for moment, but nah once I did ISO quick there’s none of that.

[Alice]

@Wazza

You’re acting like I’m not missing out things despite the fact I literally put 7/25 other players in my ‘readslist’

And yet the reasons why they’re there are fairly vague.