Sorry about doing yet another wall. Apparently, I have regressed in more ways than one.
MOD: What is your policy on allowing players to search for replacements for flakers?
I'm thinking of
Mini 1027, where Super Smash Bros. Fan personally PMed several players to replace two slots about to be modkilled.
Shattered Viewpoint wrote:He hadn't; I was cautioning him not to glom onto me and pursue something that, in the long run, would be unproductive.
...and you thought a vote on ICEninja would accomplish this how?
Llamarble wrote:The Perardua situation is really strange.
Maybe he didn't think we'd notice he's logged in recently?
I see no reason for town to act like that.
To be fair, his post on Wednesday was from a phone, so his access on Thursday may have been similarly limited. What irks me more, though, is that he replaced into a game, which implies that he has the time to dedicate to this game. Given that we're on a BaM ruleset, there's no reason to skimp on activity here, and I'm not letting scum coast by just because the days are "too short."
Llamarble wrote:In fact, most reasonable actions can have a scum motive or a town motive.
Would you elaborate on this, please?
Zinive wrote:ICEninja wrote:Zinive, you don't have your vote on anyone yet you've made a few statements suggesting you suspect people. Are you waiting for an opportunistic time to vote?
Interesting question and if you mean if I would vote for them when a bandwagon starts then yes if the deadline draws close.
Three questions:
- If there is no bandwagon, but you find the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?
- If the deadline is not drawing close, but you find the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?
- If there was neither bandwagon nor looming deadline, but you found the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?
I find your response to ICEninja more interesting than the question itself.
Forming quote pyramid for convenience:
Zinive wrote:Equinox wrote:Zinive wrote:I think we still don't have a good reason to start moving a bandwagon to already make a lynch but assuming the short deadline and the low amount of content we have right now I don't think your vote on me is too suspicious Llamarble.
The wording in this post really, really bothers me. Why aren't you even trying to refute Llamarble's vote? You've just validated it instead, which... really irks me.
The logic Llama used was partly one I have stated previously against him. This simply means I can understand why it appeared this way.
I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around this. Just because Llamarble happened to use the same logic you'd used against him before doesn't necessarily make his logic correct, and if you're town, you know for a fact he's just wrong, regardless of appearances. Why did you accept Llamarble's vote just like that?
In fact, why did you feel the need to validate Llamarble at all? Simply conveying that you "understand why it appeared this way" was an unnecessary step. Smells like buddying to me.
Zinive wrote:I could vote for him based on a policy to vote for players that actively try to confuse/annoy the town.
Why would this be a policy lynch?
Me=Weird wrote:Me and PA were the first to people I thought of who'd barely posted. I don't get why it's odd.
Odd because the reason Llamarble singled out Zinive was not the same reason you brought up yourself and PerArdua.
I thought the pairing was strange, but your explanation seems reasonable.
I still have a rain check out for my commentary on ICEninja's case against Netlava and Netlava's rebuttal. I'm renewing said rain check for tomorrow, as I'd like to take care of some IRL issues now.
Re: Oso's case against Llamarble - Uninteresting. Well, it was interesting, but the points in which I was interested were refuted by Llamarble to my satisfaction. Having double standards is a null tell.
I think I've covered everything.