Jason wrote: My point is though, he made it seem that I had no reason what so ever to vote Jack. in response to you saying I voted Jack just because he demanded me to vote... well I strongly disgree...In fact, my vote came MANY posts after he demanded I voted. It was not right away. It was 2 pages and 2 days later I voted from the point Jack demanded..So no, it was not a vote because I was being demanded to vote.
(Kudos to Sotty for finding the flaw in this)
Jason, the above is nothing short of misleading. It was two pages later (not "MANY posts" by any stretch of the imagination). But, moreover, you yourself hadn't made a single substantive post in that period of time. And when you did post, the entirety of your post was the response to Jack. I've already attacked your vote itself before,
farside22 wrote:Vollkan wrote:His post said he had "caught up", but he also said he didn't have scumreads. In a situation where you know as a matter of FACT that he is busy, it is ridiculous to think that he should therefore have proper suspicions formed. It's very easy to read a game, without having all the benefits that come from being an active player, and not be able to find anybody scummy, particularly where, as was clearly the case with Prozac, you are otherwse busy
FOS: Volkan
I don't like you giving Porzac a pass here and excusing his behavior in such a way.
No one I know is that RL busy that they do a reread and have no scum suspect that's just BS.
I'm not giving him a 'pass' at all.
The point was that Prozac had just come of VLA and, while he'd set he'd caught up, the very fact that he didn't have anything meaningful to say spoke for itself in terms of the extent to which he had truly caught up. In short, attacking him was wrong.
That is not AT ALL to say that if he continued to play in that vein I would have a problem with anybody attacking him for failing to participate. To the contrary, I'd start doing it myself.
Or, in short form:
1) Is it reasonable for Prozac not to have a scumread after a read on return from VLA?
Yes
2) Is it reasonable for somebody to attack Prozac for what happens in 1)
No
3) Is it reasonable for Prozac not to have a scumread/s after playing the game for some time?
No
4) Is it reasonable for somebody to attack Prozac for what happens in 3)
Yes
Addressing Jason's vote for me directly, since he has reiterated in even after my explanation of my points system:
Jason wrote: I also notice, he makes no points towards (scum?) sotty after post 79 of his catchup yet has her at 2nd most likely scum....
I don't see what your point here is.
If you are suggesting that the system is flawed because it doesn't take into account scumminess over time then, assuming for argument's sake that that is a flaw, then I agree with you.
BUT, I don't think that it is a flaw. Do you? If so, why?
Jason wrote:
and only makes mention of me/zach after Sotty pushes Zachs lurking. I feel his vote is opertunistic.
in fact it is not until his 2nd catch up post he even makes reference to Zach.
Huh? My read of your post (and I may be wrong) is that you are insinuating I followed Sotty's attack on you for lurking? The very same attack that I criticised in my first post?
I also can't see why the fact I didn't refer to Zach directly before my second post (remember, my first post only covered posts 0-70 anyway) is in any way a bad thing. All it means is that I didn't find any of Zach's very early posts scummy.
My catchup posts identify very clearly what I objected to in yours and Zach's play, so rather than raising amorphous and unfalsifiable (and frankly nonsensical) accusations of opportunism against me, why don't you actually identify which other parts of my case against you/Zach you find objectionable?
Cross-posted with:
Prozac wrote:
As you may or may not know I have a problem retaining information, now I don't like using it as an excuse and will try my best to play regardless, my usual play is to delve into day 1 and make my mark and find a "hook", obviously due to my exam period I couldn't do that so when I read back over the past pages, in my opinion, to be quite frank, I read some of the most mind numbingly dull and pointless stuff that was absolutely useless to me, which made reading up a real drag. So I didn't have much opinion beyond the blatant OMGUS earlier on. Im not sure thats much to base a case on, but I am basically running on empty on this game. Hence why I'm not posting much - (beyond still being busy IRL and over extending myself slightly) - once I get time to look over the game a bit more I will get back to you, which will hopefully be after Ive written an email about uni.
First off, while Prozac evidently has a individual information retention issue, this is a perfect example of what I meant when I said that people can read but still not end up with a scumread.
Secondly, I personally often experience the sort of "mafia block" that Prozac is referring to (and I'd actually describe it in similar terms), so I am prepared to accept this explanation.
...and I just cross-posted with MOI who pre-empted my defence against Jason.
@MOI:
Thanks for making me redundant
Jason wrote:
If you read my whole post.. I also had issues with how he never mentioned Sotty after post 79 yet had her second highest scum. And how I felt he was opertunistic jumping on my wagon with the vote.
See above on Sotty. Her early play was very scummy. Her later play hasn't been (ie. null). I'm not going to clear her record because she hasn't been scummy.
And see above on "opportunism". If the best you can raise against me is a vague catch-all like "opportunism", I'm happy with my vote.
