First thing you said: so you're saying if person A makes 100 posts and 10 with good scumhunting, and person B makes 10 posts all of which contain good scumhunting, person A is better or the same? It isn't a game of quantity, it's a game of quality; I've done just as much as podium or more in much fewer posts. Hence, the number of posts is relevant. This would essentially be the difference between an active lurk (many posts, little content) versus a non-active lurk (few posts, but there is content within those posts). The first is scummy. The second is not.Zdenek wrote:The number of posts is mostly irrelevant.implosion wrote:Not requoting to avoid giant textblocks.
I hold him to a higher standard because he's made oh... 7-8 times as many posts as me? And yet he's only given opinions on a few people, and only after being prodded to.
And what the hell do you mean by me just "posting for fun?" It's amafia game.how the hell am I posting for fun? I'm not unvoting because my suspicion that he's jester isn't strong enough. Please actually read what I say, and don't just interpret it how you feel like interpreting it.
As for that not being all he said... funfact: he still said it. And he hasn't given any real comments on my case on him since that. He's essentially given up against me, as far as I can tell.
You are overestimating the quality of your argument if you think he is trying to get himself hung by not answering your question.
Cherry picking quotes is scummy.
I'm not "overestimating the quality of my argument." I was confused about why he seems to be purposefully avoiding questions (NOT JUST MINE) and the thought came to mind that it could be jester behavior.
And how the hell am I cherry picking quotes? Are you implying that by quoting something I'm automatically cherry picking? HOW DO YOU NOT THINK IT'S RELEVANT THAT HE FUCKING GAVE UP AGAINST ME? And speaking of which, do you have any opinion about that post, or are you just going to dismiss it as irrelevant because I'm the one that brought it up?