Papa Zito wrote:Missed it, but I'll stand by my statement. Four days, five posts: 1 confirm, 1 random vote, 1 roll vs role post, and 2 that had something to do with what's going on.
Yep, we've called him inactive before. But its not really lurking if you are not around.
Papa Zito wrote:That's a lot just to talk about a throwaway vote.
Maybe. But I needed to be satisfied that his defense was legit. I was not willing to take it at face value. He needed to explain why he used that tactic, it was not typical. It is however a tactic that under a different light could be scummy. I pressed because I had not considered that a tactic like that would be used by a townie. I continued because I was getting a feel for it, and trying to determine if Mastin's claim of using it from a townie perspective could hold water.
Papa Zito wrote:It looks like you're:
a. Desperately trying to start a bandwagon;
b. Stifling discussion;
c. Trying to lead/control the town
Perhaps, but there are other possibilities of what I was trying to do by examining the people that are around to talk to. I've already said the one that I am doing. You can buy it or not, but it is to look at the people who are posting and to examine if what they are posting makes sense. Examining motives.
Papa Zito wrote:1. The majority of Mastin's posts were defensive. The majority of yours are offensive.
Yep that would be the tactic that I was examining when I was questioning Mastin. It's not typical for a townie to try and encourage people to pursue them in order to try and weed out scum. At least in a newbie game. It might be more prevalent in other games, I frankly don't know.
Papa Zito wrote:You, OTOH, immediately jump onto opening statements or other conversations.
And then examine what is said, to determine if it fits right in my mind with the said player's mindset, and claimed goals.
Papa Zito wrote:This conversation is kinda my argument in microcosm. Your defense to my points is basically offense.
Well, ok. I don't really know where to start on this so I'll just dump my few thoughts. Sorry if they are incoherent.
Quite frankly I am not 'defending defensively' because I don't know how to defend against 'You look at too many people and ask too many questions'. Yes you are right, I suppose it can look like I am looking for the easiest target. I can tell you I'm not, but I can not prove it. I have already said if someone's play doesn't make sense to me, I ask about it and will continue asking until I think I know where the person is coming from. I don't know how to say it more clearly than that.
I have defended people as well, but only when I believe people are mistaking others words. I have got called out for defending Mastin. I have reworded questions for Ubaten when neither party seemed to understand the confusion. I did not push for a lynch when it was easy. This is because I am currently examining, and not 'attacking'.
I still don't know why you think it would be better if I examined people through defense as opposed to offense. I believe both generate discussion.
I don't know why you think that desperately trying to start a bandwagon. If this was the case I would have had a few good opportunities.
I don't know why you think that I am stifling conversation by getting people to explain their actions. On the contrary here I think I am promoting it, even if the party has to defend.
I don't have the vaguest of how I could be controlling anyone here. I have never once tried to force anyone's opinion.
I am looking at the explanations and reactions to my questions for my benefit mainly. The fact that they are in print for the town to read is also a perk, but you have to make the judgments on your own. I won't tell you how to think.