I didnt dismiss the question... i answered it, with aMagnaofIllusion wrote:Pro-tip – dismissing questions with sarcasm instead of answering them isn’t Pro-Town.Podium wrote:That was sarcasm, as your criticism didn't really make sense. You said that if i found his analysis to be satisfactory, then i should have also found his conclusion satisfactory (paraphrasing). That isn't true.
I’m not going to get into a debate with your over whether a solid analysis should lead to solid conclusions. That’s a logic debate that has nothing to do with scum-hunting. Just know for the record I think you are wrong.
'Just for the record', i think you are wrong. I dont know why i can't say that i am not impressed with someone's conclusion if their conclusion doesn't make sense... REGARDLESS of how good their analysis was. His conclusion didn't make sense... it doesn't magically make sense just because his analysis was solid. Pretty sure you are wrong to criticize me for this.
Him calling me scummy wasn't as much of a problem as i had with his implosion vote... but i can see how it looks like that based on the way i wrote the post. I'd say that was responsible for mayyybe 10% of my 'less than impressed' opinion.MagnaofIllusion wrote: I asked you why I shouldn’t see your original statement as self-serving because the first thing you didn’t like about his conclusions wasn’t his vote for a ??? read but that he found you to be scummy.
You didn't bring this up previously, so i wasn't aware you were including that in your 'self serving' accusation. I understand better why you had/have that opinion, now.
Is once enough to say that i am 'willing to let questions go unanswered'? Seems a little sensationalist. Have i done it more than once? I cant recall that i have.MagnaofIllusion wrote: We’ve already discussed you seem willing to let direct questions to him go unanswered when he did make a rare post.
You asked me about my opinion of Imp/GW mason connection based on what i said in that quote, but that quote obviously wasn't pertaining to that connection. I didn't answer it because it was irrelevant to the quote context -- not because i was deflecting.MagnaofIllusion wrote:And once again you don’t answer the question put to you – are you trying to say that the was Ghost approached the Implosion situation did not appear to be that of a Mason buddy?Podium wrote:Pretty sure i said that before the claims came out.
Now... i guess you want to ask my opinion of the Imp/GW mason connection. I haven't examined their posts in that regard, but i currently don't really doubt their story. While i dont think what GW did was smart/correct, the pieces fit. If that's what you are asking.
I only said in your opinion, because you were factually criticizing my play based on your personal opinion.MagnaofIllusion wrote:Yes it is my opinion. That’s what this game is about.Podium wrote:In your opinion... i found seacore and GW to be much scummier. I thought implosion was probably a VI... and i was right.
Fine, what do you want me to say? Bad town? Noob town? Does it matter? How does that undermine anything? It is what it is.MagnaofIllusion wrote: Also – you are using the term VI wrong. Implosion may not be a stellar player but he’s far from a VI. That’s reserved for the worst of the worst. You look to be using the term as a means to undermine what we currently think is a Town confirmed player.
Votecount (as of this post)
Deadline is December 7th at 12:34 PM PST
implosion: 1 (VasudeVa) L-6
Seacore: 2 (implosion, podium) L-5
VibeBox: 6 (Fate, GhostWriter, Magna, Nacho, RedCoyote, Seacore)
Not Voting: 3 (Kcdaspot, VibeBox, Zdenek) L-4