MovingPictures07 wrote:I can attest to what Golden is trying to express. I see nothing out of the ordinary for either DDL or zebra.
on them, for sure, but no reason to eye them more than anyone else at this point.
zebra, you disagree with DDL's logic, yes? However, do you recognize that just because you think someone has reached a conclusion that you find faulty does not necessarily make them mafia?
Do you eye people who you don't suspect generally? Is everyone at a default status of being
from you? I tend to feel people generally use that to denote a suspicion a level above default? Just trying to get a feel for you.
Is that last question actually meant to be serious? You are asking Zebra if she is aware that just because someone is wrong that doesn't mean they are mafia? That seems like a borderline disrespectful thing to ask someone who clearly has played this game many times MP.
a2thezebra wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:I can attest to what Golden is trying to express. I see nothing out of the ordinary for either DDL or zebra.
on them, for sure, but no reason to eye them more than anyone else at this point.
zebra, you disagree with DDL's logic, yes? However, do you recognize that just because you think someone has reached a conclusion that you find faulty does not necessarily make them mafia?
Of course. But if you read my original post you would know that it wasn't just because I disagreed with him that I was suspicious. It was mainly because I don't understand how someone could point something out and then immediately retract it. Like I said, it comes off as if that person is trying to look like they are contributing when they are not. I also said that it is questionable to use meta as a defense to a slight ping and I stand by that.
I can explain how this occurs to me personally. If I get pinged by something and then start trying to make a post about it but as I make the post I think a little harder on it and start to realise the disputable points of my ping I often trail off the post expressing disputable points to my own case. Personally I tend to do this more as a civ because as a scum I delete half made posts and stay silent far more often than I do as a civ. It is a null tell to me.
That being said on thinking of it, if the disputable detail completely refutes the original ping entirely I see no reason to actually finish making the post, and I probably should not do it, yet I do it quite frequently. A bad trait of mine. If the disputable detail only refutes part of the point, it's certainly worth expressing the entire point as well as the disputable detail, to save someone else from needing to do so and opening up an unnecessary line of discourse.
So that being said, in DDL's case, was there a point to completing the post in light of him disputing his own point? I'm going to say yes, because it is still a relevant subject. I can see a possibility where scum (or a player), if they were to know that the planet that the game is currently on is the planet that is to explode, does vote early in a revealing manner. If it is a player who generally holds their vote, or if it's a throwaway vote of epic proportions.
If we were to attempt to take advantage of the possibility of this we, as civs, would need to be razor sharp with how we choose and direct our own votes, which is something that many civ players fail to do as habitually votes go places out of lazy following of other peoples cases or on minor pings.
Ergo, I think while it's possible, it is incredibly unlikely for us to see anything revealing on it, except for perhaps analysing the previous days poll in reflection after the planet explodes. Even then a scum player would have to have been very poor to stand out.
tl;dr I can see why DDL started making the post. I can see less comprehensive reason for completing the posts but I can sympathise with him having done so. I see this whole discourse as about as likely to net scum as the subject that it is actually discussing.
As for using meta as a defense for a slight ping. I agree with you. A player should not call back on their own civ history as explanation for what they are doing as though it's a defense. I find that pingy too.
I haven't voted at all. I was just wondering if there was a reason not to.
