Scotty wrote:Long Con wrote:Scotty wrote:@LC no, I made multiple points. Your response was more or less "so?"
LC
No, you highlighted some text, and then laid a couple of quotes from me down, and then did a

smiley. I said "...and?", prompting you to make a point somewhere, and you did not.
The point is that it was hypocritical...
What is hypocritical about it?
If the point is that I cast a vote on a third player when two already had a vote, and then told everyone else not to spread it out more... if you call that hypocritical, I guess I can't argue, although I don't think that's such a grievous sin. I was still playing a bit after I voted, and I realized that spreading out the votes is a good way to make it easy for the baddies to control the lynch. Maybe if it had occurred to me before I voted, then I would have stuck with one of the top two contenders instead. This point I would understand, but I don't think that's the point you're making... when you clarify as little as possible, these unsureties tend to crop up.
If the point is that I said I think zebra is bad, and voted her, and then agreed with her on Soneji... that is
not hypocritical at all. There are two baddie teams, and they want to kill each other. Even more than that, they
really want to hunt down and lynch each other! It looks really good when you spearhead the lynch of a baddie. Baddies want to look good.
When I agreed with zebra's analysis of Soneji, it didn't mean that I suddenly trusted that zebra was Civ, it meant that I looked at the points zebra brought up and analyzed them myself, and found that I agreed they were suspicious.
I'm still nowhere near sure if
that's the point you were making, because of the yellow text: "
When you just smile and agree with a suspicion that doesn't really stand up past being a mid-level gut feel, it just makes you look bad.".
Here's a link to your post for those playing along at home.
The yellow text doesn't connect to anything else you said, I don't know why you would try to act like it does. Are you trying to say that, when I agreed with zebra's analysis of Soneji, I was agreeing with a suspicion that's, at most, a mid-level gut feel? If that's the point, then you're just plain wrong and it's not hard to correct you. Zebra pointed out two specifically contradictory passages in Soneji's recent posts, and thought that was a suspicious thing to do. Zebra's accusation was in no way a gut feel of any level, it was a direct analysis of Soneji's posts.
...and by your own admission suspicious.
I looked through my posts and found no point where I had an admission of suspiciousness. The closest thing I can find is when I agreed that I said an odd thing. Odd doesn't mean suspicious, and if you care to
check out the context a little deeper, you'll see that I am not in any way trying to imply that it was suspicious.
That, layered with your flip flopping point I made a few days ago, is suspicious as shit to me.
I think you mean
this... "layered with" is an interesting choice of words. I prefer "referring to the same quote in order to say the same faulty thing in a different way", but to each his own. I covered this earlier this post, and to point you right to it, I pinked up "
If the point is" at the beginning of the paragraph.