Okay.
Sevei wrote:You quote Singer out of order and then dismiss her calling you out about it; I have read and reread that post of yours and it still looks like a deliberate misrep.
I fail to see the deliberate misrepresentation. Antihero's post made perfect sense to me when I read it; the first quote from singersigner is the most recent post to which he's responding, and his response consisted of two quotes from singersigner. Those two quotes were in chronological order.
Nexus wrote:I always thought that every rule set had "No spoilers" and suchlike?
Some do; some don't. It's one of those things players need to check prior to doing it.
singersigner wrote:I stand by what I said. I wasn't insisting. I made an RVS vote for the random reason that Equinox hadn't answered her own questions yet. Then in response to her saying
why
she hadn't answered her questions, I said "why not?" Then I said ^this.
If I were to compare your response to the other responses I've seen in other games (including my own) to that particular RQS procedure, yes, you were pressing the issue. I don't think that's scummy, though.
Antihero wrote:That was an
honest
copy/paste mistake
, and that should be obvious from the post. You are really not building a case off of THAT are you?
Well, now
I
am.
This cannot be a copying and pasting mistake. The order in which you pasted the three quotes from singersigner was not entirely chronological, but it was perfectly logical. (See above.)
I can accept claiming that it was a "fail" because it resulted in two players misunderstanding your intention. However, now you say it was an "honest mistake." Really?
Zed wrote:I like to watch how things play out without my intervention, because that gives me more to go on.
On the other hand, we don't have much to go on when we're reading you if you go with this tactic. Transparency is pro-town.
Also, if you actively intervene, you not only get more to go on, but you also can trust the results of your efforts because you know your own alignment.
[/soapbox]
springlullaby wrote:- Equinox is not getting town points for her over defensive reaction to people not liking her questions. Why are you not content with your questionnaire getting reaction since it is what you were apparently aiming for?
Overly defensive?
Seriously?
You also seem to be under the impression I was reaction fishing with the questions. I was, to an extent. All of that was explained already, and I'm happy with the responses I've gotten so far. What I neither wanted nor expected were the noobish "OMG SCUM" responses to what I thought was a standard RQS.
springlullaby wrote:FOS Equinox
, I haven't counted, but seems there is plenty of votes already there.
Record-breaking two votes. Too scared to pile on?
Are you in the habit of making multiple FoSes like that, springlullaby?
a2rudeboy wrote:Equi for me is getting town points, even though the exchange over the questions rifled me a little bit. I will say however, that that is the first time i have seen someone rationalize their thoughts behind their RQS, which is refreshing in my mind.
Question: You don't think it's strange that someone went to the trouble of explaining each RQS question? You even gave me town points!
Let's start with this:
SCUM
: Antihero > quadz08 > Pomegranate > Nexus
Antihero: Backpedaling.
quadz08: Stretching a case on me based on my RQS questions. This may just be due to a difference in opinion about theory (which would make his attack a null tell), but I'm not happy with how he chose to tag-team with singersigner (which is a possible scum tell). He's disappeared, though I saw him post elsewhere on the site that he was busy IRL at the moment.
Pomegranate and Nexus: To steal from Sevei, they're "commenting from the peanut gallery." Nexus has been slightly more helpful than Pomegranate... but only slightly. Need more comments on the past 5 pages.
I'm either null or leaning town on the rest.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Antihero
.
