and you voted your guy, didn't ask any questions or make any comments, and then moved your vote with absolutely no reasoning attached. how is your rvs any better than mine?Thor665 wrote:I generate reads because I use my vote as a blunt instrument and batter people about the head with it like a soccer hooligan. You made your vote, didn't get a reaction from the guy you voted, and sat there silently not asking the guy you voted anything.don_johnson wrote:no you didn't say that. what reads did you get from your rvs vote? why do you think i don't do the same thing but in a different way?
which is a perfectly logical and justifiable reason to vote.thor wrote:Then you changed your vote to "even wagons".
and your rvs vote did...? nothing as well. which makes your argument entirely hypocritical. so, from your perspective, any vote that doesn't "get reactions" is useless? and votes that are "useless" are "scummy"? please tell me where you're going with this. and yes, the thread is valuable in hindsight. once you have a scumflip, or a couple townflips, or whatever combination of flips you get, going back to reread the thread is a pretty popular method of scumhunting, so i will stand by my statement that rvs can be beneficial later in the game.thor wrote:So...basically your vote did nothing, and I asked you what your vote was doing for you and your answer was 'nothing, but at some future date the stars will align and somehow a tell will develop from this' which i personally don't expect to happen - I'll be excited to see it happen if it does, but I'd be willing to put money on it as a wager because I'm that certain it won't. Please prove me wrong at this later point.
you claim that my rvs vote did nothing and that this is somehow bad. yet your rvs vote did nothing. so is yours like mine or not?thor wrote:Other than you deciding I must agree with Elsa's accusation on you - where is my contradiction? Please try to use words I've actually said.don_johnson wrote:if you think unreasoned votes are scummy, then why are you content to let almost the entire sparx wagon slide without so much as offering opinions? you are a walking contradiction in that respect. but whatever.
agree to disagree. any votethor wrote:1. I do disagree that it's entirely consistent. You went from unreasoned votes are not scummy and scummy votes involve BS logic to - unreasoned votes 'can' be scummy but this one isn't. That's a change of tune. It might be a clarification, but it might be scummy backtracking, and I know which I feel was there more than the other.don_johnson wrote:elsa cherry picked the bolded and ignored the context of the statement. so i clarified what i meant. in fact, this post is entirely consistent with my "clarification". if you disagree, then please explain all of your unreasoned votes today and why they shouldn't be seen as scummy. see how that works. its called logic. you can't have it both ways.
can
be scummy. context matters. a change of tune would have been saying "unreasoned votes are not scummy", and then saying "unreasoned votes are scummy." i'm still working in the same line of reasoning. but whatever. you obviously have your mind made up.start with explaining your first two votes in this game, neither of which had a reason attached to them.thor wrote:2. I don't think I've made an unreasoned vote since maybe my first few games, but your definition of what a scummy vote is defined as is drastically different from how I would define a scummy vote and also has changed somewhat, so I'd like to make sure I understand your question so I can answer it properly. I'm going to work through this a bit;
correct. but my reason was not the type of "reason" that was being asked for.thor wrote:You appear to define "unreasoned" as lacking a reason to vote - which doesn't even pare up with your own actions as you had a reason.
no. "unreasoned" is a vote without a reason attached. my vote had a reason. it just wasn't the type of "reason" that was being asked for, which is what you are now defining as "reason". in other words, i may have mispoke, but it then becomes a semantics argument.thor wrote:I guess you mean unreasoned is lacking a developed case?
if you read elsa iso 12, i believe that is what spurred most of this discussion. so let's start over:thor wrote:I don't see any issue with lacking a developed case to vote, and have never said as much, and I don't see why me disagreeing with the scumminess of your wordplay has to do with me justifying votes that lack a developed case. That's sort of like telling me - oh, you hate milk? Then stop drinking orange juice! Yeah, they're both liquids that people can drink but...
Double check your logic and get back to me on this one. You lost me and you still look scummy.
what is your issue with my posting? is it that i am not elaborating enough. i see where your issue is now, our definition of "reason" and i realize i may have misspoke, but my "logic" is sensible:
evening wagons is a perfectly ok "reason" to vote on day 1. agree or disagree?
votes without "reasons"(however you choose to define "reason") must be read in context in order to determine whether or not they are scummy. agree or disagree?
