Zajnet wrote:MOI is winning some serious scum points for voting shenanigans.
It would have been more clear if you had just said ditto Farside.
Zajnet wrote:I don't know what to think of the Zach/Jack/Sotty/MOI/etc debate. I kind of trust Sotty's read on Zach, but at the same time I don't. Meh
So you return after V/LA and have no opinion on anything that’s gone on? And you trust Sotty’s read but don’t all in the same sentance? When the fence-posts get painful to sit on let me know.
Zach wrote:Well I was kinda classed as one wasn't I?
By who? If it’s me you are referring to here that’s a mis-rep. I classed you as someone with a content free, passive game.
Zach wrote:As it is I'm very suspicious of MOI at the moment, particularly after his response which basically tried to paint everything I said into the scummiest light possible. It just seems like he's trying to make people think he's more sure of his picks for scum than he really is or possibly could be.
Isn’t that you are exactly doing with me and my responses?
Locke wrote:Magna's line of thought that he doesn't think Sotty is scum so Charlie and myself are likely to be is flawed. I'd like him to explain exactly what is weak about our votes and scummy about our play in general.
You disagree that when looking for scum that you should be looking for the players who you perceive to have the worst reasoning? That’s the point of my statement. It’s entirely possible that you both could be innocent. But I’m not going to focus my attention on the players I feel have the best reasoning.
Your vote I feel is the least reasoned for the following reasons –
1. You RVS voted Sotty.
2. In your next post you transition it to a real vote (“I think I'll leave my vote there.”) based on two things – Sotty’s attempt to move suspicion to Zach for scum-lurker meta and Poro’s view.
Both of these are borrowed reasons. Jack posted the first in ISO 72 and you explicitly say you agree with Poro’s view. Two borrowed reasons don’t strike me as an extremely strong foundation for a vote.
Charlie’s vote is not well reasoned as follows –
His stated reason for voting Sotty is that he doesn’t feel Sotty’s responses to Jack are strong. Not that Sotty’s been scummy. He even says that he feels Jack has accepted the reasoning. As I stated in my questions to Charlie – I want to know why he feels Jack’s reasons are compelling.
farside wrote:So first your wrong about charlie not answering
Responding to a question does not automatically make it a response. His original statement was -
Charlie wrote:I'm interested to see the effect of increased pressure on Sando
to see how he responds.
Emphasis added. The bolded portion, as you originally noted, clearly states he is looking for a specific response to his ‘pressure’.
His response to your question was -
Charlie wrote:No, it is an argument between Jack and Sando. I'm taking one side and seeing how it goes and nothing else.
That’s clearly not in line with his original statement. He didn’t say ‘I believe Jack’s opinion is valid, and thus I’ve voting for Sando’. The answer he gave was a non-answer and I want to know what he was looking for from Sando.
farside wrote:You do realize that Locke's original vote on Sotty was RVS
Yes. As stated above in his ISO 1 he in my mind transitions to a serious vote when he states the agreement with what is essentially Jack and Poro’s reasoning. Do you disagree?
farside wrote:Why isn't poro on your scum list then?
I disagree with Poro’s assessment but his suspicion was developed over a serious of posts and responses. That's a Town perspective process IMO. As pointed out above Locke and Charlie both echo others as their support. I find personally developed lines of attack more convincing (and thus better reasoned) than borrowed logic.
farside wrote:And yet I question you about your lack of vote on Sotty and suddenly you find a voice and vote charlie for (1) reason's that are false and (2) weak reason for his vote.
So first I'm scummy for not transitioning to a serious vote very early in the Day. Then I'm scummy for voting someone I find suspicious. Seems like a 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma you are creating here.
And as evidenced above I disagree with your assessment of point 1. Not sure why point 2 isn’t worth suspicion.
@MOD – I’ll be V/LA from today at 4pm EDT until Monday morning for my regular weekend family duties.
"I am a leaf on the wind ... watch how I soar!"
Pretty much Geriatric game restricted at this point ... unless there are players I REALLY want to play with.
