lol Ojanen, you want to see a holier-than-thou post? Brace yourself. I went ahead and took a closer look at the charlie bandwagon from SC's perspective:
Clergyman's first suspicion
He voted VPB initially to join in on the fun. Vote became serious. Switched to charlatan on
page 10 whilst claiming that he feels like he's on the wrong track with VPB despite the good reasons he has against VPB.
His only mention of charlatan before the aforementioned vote is in
post 234, claiming that he doesn't like charlie suspecting both VPB and myself in an argument of VPB against myself.
In
post 304, he elaborates on this.
Break to Charlatan's early attacks
So now we have to look at charlatan's attacks on myself and VPB. Let there be no mistake, Charlatan attacks me because he agrees with VPB:
charlatan wrote:VP Baltar wrote:It wasn't that. My ass can be the center point of multi-page discussion for all I care. I was more focusing on why he would transition from an RVS vote on me to legitimately accusing me of being scum after I said he was such. Could be a mountain out of a molehill, but it's early game.
Ah, yes, I do agree with that. Actually, it's even a stretch to call it "legitimately" accusing you of being scum, since there has never been any indication from Ramp as to
why
you're scum aside from the fact that you like drugs, and I think we all know that drugs appeal to those from all walks of life regardless of criminal persuasion. I wouldn't think twice about it if he hadn't called for others to pile on votes. Come to think of it:
Unvote
Vote: Albert B. Rampage
Ramp: Please argue with me about this.
Charlatan launches a surprise attack on VPB for the LAL argument (that he later retracted):
charlatan wrote:VP Baltar wrote:
I NEVER SAID HE LIED ABOUT ANYTHING, NOR DID I SAY LYNCH ALL LIARS.
Oh ho, but you definitely did. This is the funniest thing in the game so far, because it's far closer to an outright lie than ABR's fuzzy logic was. I'm going to go ahead and be the fourth person to mention it since you still haven't addressed it in your last few posts.
There's so much shadiness on both sides of the ABR-VP back and forth that it's starting to feel more like scum distancing than a legit argument.
Now in
post 271, he makes a glaring mistake:
Charlatan wrote:Well, that's convenient for you. So, two players I find particularly scummy early in the game are arguing, and I also think
the points they are raising against each other are largely weak
(which I believe to be a more or less reliable scumtell early in the game). What, specifically, about that is troublesome to you? Is it just that they're arguing that somehow makes it illegitimate? Do you feel that I have no basis to say that I find one or both of them scummy?
He forgot that he followed VPB to attack me when he says that VPB's points against me are weak.
His whole stance against me is to his own admission, weak. But he keeps his vote on me for another dozen posts, which is ridiculous.
He later claims it to be a pressure vote to get a better read on me. Which makes sense, because he never had a real reason to attack me. But later on, he says I'm his top suspect. Facepalm.
Back to clergyman's main case
SC wrote:1) His early positions were vague and weak. Fence sat on VP vs ABR, when called to had very little challenging VP at all, including some things that were arguably flat out contradictions. Tried to use the LAL point after it was obviously null and others had seen it come and go.
2) His attacks have been terrible. The case against me was always bad and a bizarre choice no doubt inspired by the position he was in and the pressure he was under. He then moved to VP for no paritcular reason (I mean come on - if we're voting based on urgency I don't have to move my vote at all!)
3) Shenanigans! Little things I don't like. Unvoting for a re-read and then voting a third party with nothing really instigating the change. The tone of his posts, his choice of targets, how difficult it is to get people who suspect him to vote him, the hyperbole..
1) True, as I have just proved.
2) True again, but is linked to 1) that his positions are vague, weak and contradictory.
3) Agreed with his poor choice of targets. He tried to pour suspicion on me and got burned.
Still, after all this, charlatan is more of a bad player than scummy to me. Maybe he wanted to prove to himself that he's a good player, so he tried to compete with me. Try to attack me for no reason like I usually do. Imitating me. Maybe I'm just flattering myself, I don't know; but there's something off with his behavior.
He could also be scum. Anyway, as of this post, I consider him too much luggage to keep around. Whatever hope I had of drawing out his scumbuddies is now compromised.
Charlie, I hope you realize how poor your play was here. You have so much to work on...stay the course, my friend.
And like Ramsey always says, if you can't handle the heat, don't enter the kitchen pretending to be a cook. There's a world of difference between you and me, you simply can't copy my techniques with the level you are at. I'm sorry if I gave you any false hopes.
Unvote, vote charlatan
