for one had done what I wanted it to (get people to talk about things), second that's hardly "masking an empty unvote" when I suspected Dan in the same post. I just felt stronger about the Affinity vote.
I think your Dan suspicion is based on unfair grounds. You first talk about policy lynching him, then chide him for his reaction. That's an easy door to kick in; you can come back and say, "Hey man, you reacted by posting so much content you must be Scum panicking!" and just tailor fit your argument to the situation. Chiding Dan for responding "pls don't" to a policy lynch proposed during RVS is stupid, that's baiting a response and calling it scummy after. Tell me, how should Dan have responded to game being opened with "let's policy lynch Dan"? I don't think the rest of your post really constitutes "suspecting" Dan, because disagreeing with his vote on Raikaria doesn't imply you think he's scummy. Disagreement != suspicion. I'm also curious why your suspicion of Dan was only made public after you unvote him?
either of these might annoy you but they have nothing to do with my alignment, especially since the lots of words weren't empty, they were relevant to my attempts to get posts out of other people (so I could form reads)
before my proposition there was exactly one (1) jokepost. what scum was I supposed to be lynching
Loaded question. The point of my case is that you called for a policy lynch on Dan, which in the worst case scenario (from a Scum PoV) results in Townie points for ending RVS. In the best case scenario (for Scum), it results in a situation where you can mislynch Dan based on policy lynch nonsense. You don't normally abstain from RVS, and acting outside your meta in a way you tout as pro-Town (get people talking) just smells to me as touting your own horn and doing it for the sake of seeming Town.
Not fond of Bard as he's taking things too face-value, and intentionally not reading between the lines makes it easier to fake a case. Also stating something that by itself is not inherently scummy then tacking on the brownie points part in parenthesis looks like padding his post.
"Padding his post". Really? I don't think it's padding if I feel that your tryharding to provide reads and reading deeply into stuff fits my feeling that you're acting outside of your meta because you're Scum. Huh Whatty doesn't normally go in with such a blaze, and I happen to think posts as
these are bad because you're directly saying voting Dan on a policy lynch is better than RVS voting, and attack Dorian over not immediately voting with you or providing an alternative. "Serious policy lynch votes can be discussed" holds true only insofar as "it's a policy lynch", but there isn't an actual lot to say about them without thinking it's either Scummy or Townie.
actually wtf bard don't seriously try to push "Prims is suspect for putting down a serious vote ASAP" when your "thing" used to be trying to end RVS immediately. This is easily the most constructed thing I've seen this game, it's already bad for the point to not be alignment-indicative but here you should actively know it isn't.
I hate this style of defence because you try to justify your action itself by saying I normally do it, but then fail to actually consider the differences (I don't think I try to beat people into voting policy lynches with me) and the fact that my standard modus operandi does not justify your abnormal opening this game. It's not the action I'm voting, it's the person; in a perfect world we have a list of actions and anyone doing those things is 100% Town or Scum, but unfortunately we have to reason about the intent behind actions.
In this case, my gut tells me that Huh What's abnormal actions feel more scum-aligned due to the way he's going about it and how he's trying so very hard to treat the game super serious from the get-go. In the absence of actual scumtells, yeah, I'll vote gut and out-of-the-ordinary shit.
Don't appreciate Huh What's vote, not sure what it's about. Are you voting me because you're misunderstanding my case on you and/or feel that my usual behaviour justifies your behaviour now? You aren't me, you know. Not even close.
BT's vote on me isn't even anything to take serious, tacking it on idly and forgetting to include why is actually pretty bad. Do you even care?
Warning - while you were typing 6 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
