The Syndicate

Even if Mac wasn't consistent in his analysis of Sloonei's treatment of Ambray and Nutella, that doesn't mean he's bad. Civs are inconsistent in their positions all the time.

Having said that, I feel good about Epi and think his case on Mac is a good look for Epi.

I thought this ended an hour later. RIP Ambray. I will catch up when I get home.

Voting Timmer for now. He hasn't addressed my points against him from earlier.

Mac is reading civ to me, and his explanation of the red peek being a joke comes across more as dismissing it as typical Day 1 shenanigans rather than a serious case.

I'd still like to hear more from Timmer, and why he feels good about me now.

rabbit8 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:46 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:39 pm

timmer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:17 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:05 pm

timmer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:03 pm The discussion astound rabbit is been mostly that he hasn't played in forever. Even long con who had played with rabbit more then almost anyone admitted that it had been awhile and he's not sure of rabbits norm.

Discussion of a potential meta is different than discussion of any established meta imo

this does nothing to explain why you think DF is suspicious

Of course it does? If he voted for any other lesser contributor the odds of his vote being weighed against known meta would be higher. On day 1, avoiding that kind of thing is a ping for me.

Oh... I guess I understand now. But looking at his post I don't agree. His reasoning for voting rabbit makes sense.

Are you ill? Did I read that shit right? Bad, Nutella.

DFaraday wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 3:20 pm I quickly read through to catch up, and don't have really strong reads atm. I will go ahead and *vote Rabbit* for now since he's made a fair few posts but seems to be avoiding casebuilding or even on-topic engagement.

Why me, why not Epi? The same fucking case could be made, Yeah.

Bullshit reason, but not indicative of alignment IMO . Since all of our votes were complete fucking bullshit.

Yeah, I could have voted Epi, but I was speed reading and your posts stood out to me more (in the wrong way). I fully admit it was a weak reason though.

timmer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:14 pm I'm going to put my vote on DFaraday.

I agree with his briefest of points about rabbit, that he hasn't contributed much, but then again, neither has Wilgy (all jokes), neither has DF himself ( posts), or novaselinenever (barely here), neither have I, really. In a game full of quiet players, singling one out who doesn't have an established meta while others with established metas run rampant with jokes etc and you give them a pass just feels cheap and like something a mafia would do. Why tangle with a meta people know when you can vote the new guy?

Timmer is, intentionally or not, misrepresenting my admittedly terrible case.

My point was specifically that Rabbit seemed to have a high post count and low on-topic content. I went back and looked, at the time I voted Rabbit had made about 15 posts, Wilgy had made 12 (and literally half of those were posted altogether as a meme reference), and I had made one. And about half the players in this game (myself included) have quite a bit of experience playing with Rabbit in the past. I certainly remember him as always being jokey and strange, but also making insightful observations and taking strong stances. He does seem to have been engaging more later in the day, to be fair.

If anything, Timmer seems to be taking an easy option here and setting up a quiet player who makes weak votes as an easy target.

I quickly read through to catch up, and don't have really strong reads atm. I will go ahead and *vote Rabbit* for now since he's made a fair few posts but seems to be avoiding casebuilding or even on-topic engagement.

Just checking in, but very much looking forward to this one!