Sotty7 wrote:What isn't convincing about my defense? What don't you like in particular about it? What points needed elaboration in your mind?
Could you elaborate more on this particular point:
Sotty7 #79 point no. 2 wrote:Pretty sure I haven't complained about the pressure on me. But I am surprised by the negative reaction some pressure on you considering the silly rolefishing claim you made that is now all but forgotten.
Regarding this:
Sotty7 #79 point no. 3 wrote:If I really wanted to shift pressure I would have voted him. I wanted his scum meta in this thread so if I die and he lurks there is some reference that should provide pressure.
That is a 'what if...' scenario and I feel that lacks credibility. Sorry, but I can't take your word for it.
Sotty7 wrote:
You've come in, slapped a vote on me for what seems like a general criticism of my defense without asking me any questions to clarify my position which is what your post seems to beg for. If you are going to vote me, I'd like to know why. You are being very vague with your accusations here. I don't like it.
^This is good counter-point/defence. That's how we keep the discussion going. I've decided to place my vote where my mouth is; I find that it generally produces results. Solid reasoning may or may not follow and go ahead and criticize me for that.
MagnaofIllusion wrote:
I take it from this post you find Jack’s points convincing. I myself don’t find them overwhelmingly powerful evidence that Sotty is acting scummy. Please elaborate on why you find Jack’s points (especially the third and fourth points) convincing.
I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I do not find them convincing. I'd like to think that Jack's actions in that post is like a fisherman throwing cheap bait on the ocean to get reactions from people; like a catalyst for discussion. I like that action. I'm not too fond of cheap bait. I voted based on my point in #101. As an added extra, I've decided to not hold back on votes this game (I'm trying a playstyle shift; trying to play more aggressive).
MagnaofIllusion wrote:Someone else asked what the effect of said pressure would be. You never answered. Are you satisfied with Sando’s statements since this post?
Odd. I did answer in #48, but you don't seem to find it adequate or you missed it completely. Here it is:
ChannelDelibird wrote:Keeping my vote on Charlie, saying "this vote is to increase pressure" ensures that you add exactly no pressure.
Charlie wrote:This is true but when a wagon forms quickly and largely enough, then reactions are gained. These are analyzed to form conclusions.
Magna, instead of asking the question that you did, how about you offer some analysis on the subject matter itself? (Or a brief recap, if you already did)
Sotty7 wrote:He needs to get in here and answer my questions to him.
Your 'vote prod' has been received!
@Farside22: What, you just defended me with what i just said above in your #121. I'm not going to erase the above just because I took the time to type it out.
MagnaofIllusion #124 on a bunch of Charlie issues wrote:
Responding to a question does not automatically make it a response.
Emphasis added. The bolded portion, as you originally noted, clearly states he is looking for a specific response to his ‘pressure’.
That’s clearly not in line with his original statement. He didn’t say ‘I believe Jack’s opinion is valid, and thus I’ve voting for Sando’. The answer he gave was a non-answer and I want to know what he was looking for from Sando.
Charlie’s vote is not well reasoned as follows –
His stated reason for voting Sotty is that he doesn’t feel Sotty’s responses to Jack are strong. Not that Sotty’s been scummy. He even says that he feels Jack has accepted the reasoning. As I stated in my questions to Charlie – I want to know why he feels Jack’s reasons are compelling.
I'd like to dismiss this off as you overthinking things. But I'll go along with it. My response is: I've just explained above that my reasoning was in my
#101. If you are looking for solid reasons (I assume you're going to say my reasons are poor), I'll tell you what I said to Sotty7: that they may follow later. D1 is rife with accusations flying around.
Keeping in line with decision to be more aggressive, I'm going to place MagnaofIllsuion at L-1 now.
UNVOTE: Sotty7
VOTE: MagnaofIllusion
I have a divided opinion on him, but there are so many instances that I hesitated to place someone at L-1 for fear of a quickhammer by scum. I'm over that.
I ask that none of you hammer him without first stating intention to hammer.