As of the moment I am typing this post, Dormio is playing Dota2, I wonder what we should do with that piece of information
For why I am kind of on the fence about Serela's alignment;
I'unno if it's how wordy all the posts are this d1 or if it's just because it's d1 or what but I haven't been talking because I'm really just not getting anywhere with this. :T Dang BT can't sub until the 25th, that's not happening. It's probably terrible that I considered replacing out for that anyway. Skimming over the posts again.
Admittance on not having read enough, then taking IRL as a shield. Yes, while IRL is indeed a very convincing and difficult to challenge justification to defend against laziness, the obvious solution here is to just call quits. Which you did mention, okay, let's see how this plays out. I remember your declaration here though.
It's funny, because I'm voting Zakeri, who is the person I can relate to the most here, except he's handling it better >:V (or he's scum, but, they're not mutually exclusive situations anyway!)
This is less universal but when I try to state I like a particular argument, I do it while also highlighting which particular point I like, and if, its being challenged enough by someone else, I will try to back it up and elaborate on it. While I do not know how valid Serela considers my response to Zakeri is, I did post right before him, between a votecount, with 2 hours inbetween. I kind of did expect Serela to have had ample time to also substatiate why Zak's points are good and respond to me, which didn't really happen.
I like Murrin's case against SB, but it's awkward because SB supposedly lost a post? However, the thing is, that was like 7 hours ago, and he never posted anything afterwords. Like, I know losing a big post sucks and is horribly demotivating, but if you post literally nothing afterwords, uh. :T If the post was big enough to be awful to lose that means you had plenty to say and surely it wouldn't take that long to rehash -some- of it into something existant.
Bolded is Serela's SB argument, which, only upon this detailed read, is essentially the same point as Conq ( infact, Serela posted before conq), but was just too long for it to be impressionable. But I already stated that I agree with. The problem is something other than that.
I agree with Murrin that his original point against me was weird, in that it was over me asking DNA what he thought about Raitaki's content itself, which is an entirely reasonable and understandable question to ask someone at any given time regardless of what the circumstances may be.
Went back and reread SB's vote and am reminded of several things about it that seemed weird, e.g. saying it's weird I only paid attention to a small amount of the post (a short 2 sentence post and when I look back I don't understand any other post he could be referring to) OH WAIT actually he's talking about my second post there, where I just commented on the Bard thing, okay that's fine, but anyway I still think his case itself was weird and... then there was the post losing shenanigans later. (if you haven't noticed by now, I'm stream of conscious'ing here because I don't feel like I have anything worth saying in a post otherwise and I'd like to stop looking like I'm trying to post as few words as possible)
Really, really don't like this bolded part, this is basically the same problem I had before with Raitaki's posts, content packed too loosely to be useful. And in this case, Serela is even making cross references to early posts, which only make it more difficult to understand. Regardless, in order to illustrate how exactly ridiculous this is, I have done the work of quoting SB posts for you.
This is SB's post when he tries to catch up.
oh boy you guys did that posting thing again
catching up
The post before that, which SB voted Serela, is this one;
I assumed that the Rebels were the scumteam until I didn't tl;dr the role pm and realised that there was something in there that made no sense if the Feds were town. The colour wasn't a part of it. I don't even think there'll be a neutral because both 8/3/1 and 9/2/1 are pretty lopsided.
##Unvote
##Vote: Serela
I don't like the way that he deflects DNA's Raitaki vote. I think DNA's vote is valid at this point in the game and the question Serela asked feels kind of like posturing to me, because there was no reason for Serela to ask that question when it wasn't related to DNA's vote. It just seems like he was trying to look like he was being helpful.
Was cut by 9 posts because I had to do other things, will look at those in a sec.
As you may notice from the context already, this is when the SB colour shenanigans was still the topic of discussion, which, given the timestamps between Serela's and this SB Serela case, seems way too far fetched for Serela is seriously use this as an accusation for SB, if anything, this feels forced and seems to me Serela is attempting to create fluff rather than casing properly. SB was a lurker up until the point Serela posted, just a simple acknowledgement he is lurking, and that we don't have better targets to vote would be enough at that point of time. In fact, Serela even immediately acknowledged in the following sentence hes just going along as he types, which seems to only highlight hes too slightly aware his casing is weird. Which I something I need to point out because its looks scummy.
I have stuff to do, will be idling in the background.
