|
Let's play a game... |
Also McCoy confirmed for smartest guy in thread, I'll sheep him.
|
On May 29 2013 23:31 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance. I dont understand why making early judgements could be seen as bad i change my mind on things all the time based on new information and flip floping being scummy is a lie pushed by scum. Its only scummy when its convenient. So i dont understand your worry about making snap judgements.
You didn't bring up Ecclestone after he told Smith that he doesn't know if he's angry villager or alien though. I'm curious why you didn't find his post to be filler content as opposed to mine.
The bolded is essentially a statement about scumhunting method. Do you want me to make quick judgments? You seem like you're justifying quick judgments, then asking me why I'm worried about making them. If I'm worried about making them it's cause Ecclestone's posts didn't allow for a quick judgment, as already laid out.
Now, why do you bring that up. Your posting went from telling me my post is wishy washy to justifying your own judgmental posting, is it to tell me that I should make quick judgments? I don't recall ever asking you to justify yourself for quick judgment, but you brought up a justification for it nonetheless. How is it relevant to you claiming that I am scum?
On May 29 2013 23:32 JPertwee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. McCoy, what do you think Eccleston's chances of being human are? I can understand your thought process on how you're reading Eccleston. The part I cannot understand is your reasoning on writing a post where I can only gather you're saying "he is null" because you don't even state whether you think he is more likely to be of either alignment. When you wrote that post, what was the explicit purpose of it?
I already laid out that he could be both. Until he posts more I'll refrain from judging.
Purpose of the post: Trigger an answer and change the posting style of a possible bad townie to a more constructive version. Communicate that I'm suspicious of him.
+ Show Spoiler +I think DrTennant is scum
|
On May 29 2013 23:48 SMcCoy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:31 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance. I dont understand why making early judgements could be seen as bad i change my mind on things all the time based on new information and flip floping being scummy is a lie pushed by scum. Its only scummy when its convenient. So i dont understand your worry about making snap judgements. You didn't bring up Ecclestone after he told Smith that he doesn't know if he's angry villager or alien though. I'm curious why you didn't find his post to be filler content as opposed to mine. The bolded is essentially a statement about scumhunting method. Do you want me to make quick judgments? You seem like you're justifying quick judgments, then asking me why I'm worried about making them. If I'm worried about making them it's cause Ecclestone's posts didn't allow for a quick judgment, as already laid out. Now, why do you bring that up. Your posting went from telling me my post is wishy washy to justifying your own judgmental posting, is it to tell me that I should make quick judgments? I don't recall ever asking you to justify yourself for quick judgment, but you brought up a justification for it nonetheless. How is it relevant to you claiming that I am scum? Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:32 JPertwee wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. McCoy, what do you think Eccleston's chances of being human are? I can understand your thought process on how you're reading Eccleston. The part I cannot understand is your reasoning on writing a post where I can only gather you're saying "he is null" because you don't even state whether you think he is more likely to be of either alignment. When you wrote that post, what was the explicit purpose of it? I already laid out that he could be both. Until he posts more I'll refrain from judging. Purpose of the post: Trigger an answer and change the posting style of a possible bad townie to a more constructive version. Communicate that I'm suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler +I think DrTennant is scum
At the time that post was your only post in the thread. It looked like to me as just a big post to say nothing to me that's why it stood out to me over everything else.
Yes eccelstone did have what could be interpreted as a wishy washy post but right before that he essential through out a town read for no reason. To me your post was devoid of actual content.
Obviously you think it conveyed more than that but i didn't see it that way.
However looking at your recent posting it seems you have had an easy time explaining yourself which i think would be much harder for you if you were scum.
|
On May 29 2013 23:48 SMcCoy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:31 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance. I dont understand why making early judgements could be seen as bad i change my mind on things all the time based on new information and flip floping being scummy is a lie pushed by scum. Its only scummy when its convenient. So i dont understand your worry about making snap judgements. You didn't bring up Ecclestone after he told Smith that he doesn't know if he's angry villager or alien though. I'm curious why you didn't find his post to be filler content as opposed to mine. The bolded is essentially a statement about scumhunting method. Do you want me to make quick judgments? You seem like you're justifying quick judgments, then asking me why I'm worried about making them. If I'm worried about making them it's cause Ecclestone's posts didn't allow for a quick judgment, as already laid out. Now, why do you bring that up. Your posting went from telling me my post is wishy washy to justifying your own judgmental posting, is it to tell me that I should make quick judgments? I don't recall ever asking you to justify yourself for quick judgment, but you brought up a justification for it nonetheless. How is it relevant to you claiming that I am scum? Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:32 JPertwee wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. McCoy, what do you think Eccleston's chances of being human are? I can understand your thought process on how you're reading Eccleston. The part I cannot understand is your reasoning on writing a post where I can only gather you're saying "he is null" because you don't even state whether you think he is more likely to be of either alignment. When you wrote that post, what was the explicit purpose of it? I already laid out that he could be both. Until he posts more I'll refrain from judging. Purpose of the post: Trigger an answer and change the posting style of a possible bad townie to a more constructive version. Communicate that I'm suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler +I think DrTennant is scum
You have to understand on this one, McCoy, that I can see both sides of your and Dr. Tennant's dispute. I can understand exactly where his suspicion of you came from in your entrance, but since then you've alleviated my fears. I might be biased on this because it seems I've followed a similar thought train to him. Is there anything specific in Dr. Tennant's play that you think make him an alien, or is it just this push?
Dr. Tennant, can you clarify what you mean about Eccleston? I can only think of one particular point in his favour for his wishy washy post, and no one has touched on it. I want to know exactly why Eccleston wasn't on your radar.
|
Because they're scumbuddies, duh
|
On May 30 2013 00:03 JPertwee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:48 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 23:31 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance. I dont understand why making early judgements could be seen as bad i change my mind on things all the time based on new information and flip floping being scummy is a lie pushed by scum. Its only scummy when its convenient. So i dont understand your worry about making snap judgements. You didn't bring up Ecclestone after he told Smith that he doesn't know if he's angry villager or alien though. I'm curious why you didn't find his post to be filler content as opposed to mine. The bolded is essentially a statement about scumhunting method. Do you want me to make quick judgments? You seem like you're justifying quick judgments, then asking me why I'm worried about making them. If I'm worried about making them it's cause Ecclestone's posts didn't allow for a quick judgment, as already laid out. Now, why do you bring that up. Your posting went from telling me my post is wishy washy to justifying your own judgmental posting, is it to tell me that I should make quick judgments? I don't recall ever asking you to justify yourself for quick judgment, but you brought up a justification for it nonetheless. How is it relevant to you claiming that I am scum? On May 29 2013 23:32 JPertwee wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. McCoy, what do you think Eccleston's chances of being human are? I can understand your thought process on how you're reading Eccleston. The part I cannot understand is your reasoning on writing a post where I can only gather you're saying "he is null" because you don't even state whether you think he is more likely to be of either alignment. When you wrote that post, what was the explicit purpose of it? I already laid out that he could be both. Until he posts more I'll refrain from judging. Purpose of the post: Trigger an answer and change the posting style of a possible bad townie to a more constructive version. Communicate that I'm suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler +I think DrTennant is scum You have to understand on this one, McCoy, that I can see both sides of your and Dr. Tennant's dispute. I can understand exactly where his suspicion of you came from in your entrance, but since then you've alleviated my fears. I might be biased on this because it seems I've followed a similar thought train to him. Is there anything specific in Dr. Tennant's play that you think make him an alien, or is it just this push? Dr. Tennant, can you clarify what you mean about Eccleston? I can only think of one particular point in his favour for his wishy washy post, and no one has touched on it. I want to know exactly why Eccleston wasn't on your radar.
i said what i thought of it in my previous post.
|
Sorry, I couldn't quite understand your post, Dr. Tennant.
Okay, so you don't think he is an alien because an alien wouldn't have said that McGann was friendly, even though that only somewhat implies he believes McGann to be town.
So you are saying you believe Eccleston to be town. Do you believe that McGann is town?
|
On May 30 2013 00:17 JPertwee wrote:
Sorry, I couldn't quite understand your post, Dr. Tennant.
Okay, so you don't think he is an alien because an alien wouldn't have said that McGann was friendly, even though that only somewhat implies he believes McGann to be town.
So you are saying you believe Eccleston to be town. Do you believe that McGann is town?
What are you talking about?
I was explaining why McCoy's post stood out to me more than eccleston. I dont have that much to say about the other two just that i dont agree that Eccleston early aggression is scummy.
|
wow it is hard to play all smurf games. I can't keep people apart.
|
also it doesn't help that the names are as generic as possible
|
On May 30 2013 00:52 Hurndall3 wrote:
wow it is hard to play all smurf games. I can't keep people apart.
you have anything of value to say?
|
On May 30 2013 00:54 Hurndall3 wrote:
also it doesn't help that the names are as generic as possible
Think they're all doctor who things
|
On May 30 2013 00:57 Baker1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 00:54 Hurndall3 wrote:
also it doesn't help that the names are as generic as possible Think they're all doctor who things
fuck i wish i watched that show it would make it so much easier...
Um yeah I'm usually pretty useless d1 sorries.
|
I'd like to bring attention to H3's posting, in reading and rereading the thread I found him less than useless. He has a fair number of posts and has been involved in discussion without adding anything to said discussion.
He blatantly sheeped an early case without adding anything to it and unvoted as soon as the casee responded. Since that moment he has been complaining about the difficulty of reading an all smurf game, which is the reason I've read the thread more than once, and hasn't added anything to the progression of day one discussion.
For now I find H3 the scummiest player in the thread and shall, therefore, vote for him. I ask each of you to either vote with me and tell me why yo agree with me or, if you are not voting with me, tell me why you disagree.
Vote:Hurndall
|
On May 30 2013 03:11 TheDavison wrote:
I'd like to bring attention to H3's posting, in reading and rereading the thread I found him less than useless. He has a fair number of posts and has been involved in discussion without adding anything to said discussion.
He blatantly sheeped an early case without adding anything to it and unvoted as soon as the casee responded. Since that moment he has been complaining about the difficulty of reading an all smurf game, which is the reason I've read the thread more than once, and hasn't added anything to the progression of day one discussion.
For now I find H3 the scummiest player in the thread and shall, therefore, vote for him. I ask each of you to either vote with me and tell me why yo agree with me or, if you are not voting with me, tell me why you disagree.
Vote:Hurndall
ok
##vote thedavison
pretty self explanatory imo. This is his first post!
|
That is indeed my first post, I have been absent from the thread until now. Upon reading the thread I found you scummy. Instead of doing anything to refute that you have instead reinforced my belief that you are an alien monster who must be purged by our security forces.
|
On May 30 2013 03:11 TheDavison wrote:
For now I find H3 the scummiest player in the thread and shall, therefore, vote for him. I ask each of you to either vote with me and tell me why yo agree with me or, if you are not voting with me, tell me why you disagree.
@TheDavison
I disagree with your conclusion on H3.
I'd describe H3's posting so far as eager, careless, spontaneous, natural, and free-flowing. I agree that you could characterize many of his posts as 'useless', but overall I value spontaneity more as a town trait than I do useless posting as a scum trait.
Also, he's clearly not afraid to draw attention to himself.
|
I want to put this out here to gather a few thoughts on it, and I want you to put yourself into the situation as I have, or else you might end up being confused by me not quoting with name and time, but it will help you understand my case and why I think DrT is scum.
My question to DrT:
I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion.
I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game?
His answer, split into two parts.
#1:
Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance.
This I wrote, and I feel that I voiced my suspicion well enough, but also leaving open the possibility that Eccleston's scumhunting methods might just look scummy to me. I said I have bad vibes about him and why I found him suspicious and why I would keep an eye on him.
+ Show Spoiler +I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
#2:
I dont understand why making early judgements could be seen as bad i change my mind on things all the time based on new information and flip floping being scummy is a lie pushed by scum. Its only scummy when its convenient. So i dont understand your worry about making snap judgements.
This answer, coupled with him ignoring Eccleston's own inconclusiveness, but attacking me for my inconclusiveness which was more thought out, is a further possible indicator for DrT being scum.
This is what he was answering to:
I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game?
I asked him to tell me why he claims I said nothing despite voicing my suspicion and giving reasons, and if he thinks I'm scummy for not jumping quickly to the conclusion that Eccle is scum.
He answers to this by defending quick judgments and what he's doing, and that it's not scummy, and thinks that I am attacking him for making quick judgments.
I didn't attack him for making quick judgments, I asked him if he thought I was supposed to give a quick judgment about Ecclestone, so this answer suggests to me that he completely misunderstood what I meant to say to him, and instead replied with a very defensive post. Could be read as clumsiness if you believe it's just a bad townie, but it's also a good indicator for someone being scum. He might have felt threatened by my strong defense and thought that his dishonest attack was making him look bad, triggering such an answer.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
And finally, he justified ignoring Eccleston's post with this:
Yes eccelstone did have what could be interpreted as a wishy washy post but right before that he essential through out a town read for no reason. To me your post was devoid of actual content.
DrT apparently thinks that throwing out a town read for no reason is a reason to ignore Eccleston's following inconclusive post. It wasn't even clear if that was a townread, and if it was for no reason why didn't it catch his attention?Shouldn't DrT have been more wary of Eccleston's post after seeing an unexplainable townread? Or does DrT think that people giving out townreads for no reason are town?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
The sum of these happenings (+ the loaded question) gives me enough confidence to vote for DrT today. It's unlikely I will change my mind for today's lynch.
##Vote DrTennant
|
smccvoy you exhibited wishy washiness. that means not having a strong opinion and giving reasons why someone could be town as well as scum.
it is commonly seen as a scum trait.
that is why we were suspicious of you. :
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
