Really? So when VP and Ramp were arguing, and you voted one and said "this is fun" and did not remark on it, that created that situation through content and argument?SerialClergyman wrote:And then as for opportunism, I think both times I voted someone I was placing the first vote on that person. So if the action is centered around me, it's because I made it via, you know, content and arguments.
I'm not making that attack now, I'm explaining why I didn't take your stated reason seriously. Honestly, go back and re-read your own post in question and see which reason seems more likely. As for this:Zorblag wrote: The foundation of the vote aside (I didn't have a particularly strong reason to cast it but this early in the game it was strong enough and it's cute that you make that attack now that I've said it was what I was initially expecting) I play a fair amount of newbie games.
That's because I think you're capable of making mistakes, having knee-jerk reactions to things, and generally being human in a town capacity, and perfectly capable of manufacturing a reason as scum. Not complicated.I also don't know why you think I wouldn't simply give that as my reason for voting for you if that was it. It's just not an assumption I see any reason for you to be making unless you think that I'm trying to pull one over you you.
You didn't. I did. For him to scum hunt I expect him to do things that get reactions and then identify/pursue scum based on those reactions, which he is not doing. If he is trying to get reactions, that is a different thing from demonstrating how those reactions indicate scum. I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring up the fact that Ramp's reputation is largely of his own creation, but I guess I'll be the first this game. For instance:charlatan wrote:I don't recall saying anything about him actively scum hunting but I am a bit curious as to what you expect active scum hunting from Albert B. Rampage looks like.
"Your case is bad", basically. Zorblag, what part of that shows that he's actively engaged and following along? Is it the "LOL"? And would this be an example of him "impacting the game in a way that helps players get reads?" (313).Albert B. Rampage wrote: So he basically pulled us out of the RVS LOL. Your case is so bad it looks like distancing my friend.
This is the same sort of thing with SC. When anyone says "I don't like X" I think it's pretty reasonable to expect them to explain why they don't, and what about X is beneficial from a scum standpoint.
I invite you to re-read 294. You can replace "incorrect assertions" with "factual inaccuracies", if you'd like.Albert B. Rampage wrote: Point out the "incorrect assertions" so we know what we're talking about.
I do not have people conveniently numbered at this time. He's certainly in the top two or three.Vi wrote:@charlatan: Is ABR #1 on your scumlist, #2, or something else?
Two parts. Firstly, I intended to vote within a few hours, but got sidetracked, so didn't think much it, really. As it is, my vote was "up in the air" for about half a page.PorkchopExpress wrote:Even pending a reread and moving your vote, why leave said vote up in the air rather than moving it to VP, your other suspect at the time?
More importantly, you incorrectly assume that VP was still the only other person I was more interested in. As I said before, as more people started to become more involved in the game, my interests were shifting.