Of course not. But then, you didn't mention that fact after someone hammered as a prelude to some probing questions. ekiM did. Now, the context and timing of his remark may have just been a grand coincidence, but I find it more likely that ekiM intended to raise a bit of suspicion. Maybe not a lot, but enough to override a random vote, I'm sure---so it's worth pointing out that his actions don't match with what he seems to be doing, at least at this point.Zorblag wrote:Last time Troll saw someone hammer it was scum. That no makes hammering something Troll finds scummy.Raskol wrote:Last time I caught someone doing something I found scummy in the RVS, I voted for them.ekiM wrote:Last time I saw someone get worked up over an obvious joke in RVS, they were scum.
I'm going to ask you a similar question---your vote on SerialClergyman was placed, you said, because bandwagons are good. (I agree with that, btw). Don't you think bandwagons on people who've made plays you find irrational are even better, though?ekiM wrote:So you're voting him because he made an action, and all actions have motives, and some motives are scummy motives? Do you not see the problem here?
Your vote could easily have been placed on Scien right now to bring him up to 2 votes, which is as high a threat level as SerialClergyman is now at, giving you your early game bandwagon just as surely as your SC vote does now---why wasn't it?
Here's hoping for some answers.
Vote: ekiM