How the fuck did that interaction look possibly game-impacting at the start? Please, be specific.In post 149, Gamma Emerald wrote:despite looking possibly game-impacting at the start
This doesn't track with the timeline. You voted for podoboqIn post 148, Mewtaph wrote:I thought that their thoughts overall (on me and bristep123) leading up to the vote was a bit jarring in some sense soI was fine with voting there to see how they would respond wrt them looking towards themselves to explain the L-1/L-2 vote philosophy and unvote.
They were looking towards themselves in that process (78 and 79), which is why it was a good point for me to vote them (80) imo. The vote may or may not have caught them surprise, but even if it didn't, having him respond to my vote allows me to potentially get a more tangible/real response as to why he was voting me and indicate that I am around for an exchanged sequence - my problem being that I'm not following my reasoning (83, 85), his reasoning being that he is finding my posting inorganic. But it is convoluted imo to push on somebody to understand their reasoning more when they themselves are voting me for having inorganic thoughts.In post 151, Dannflor wrote:This doesn't track with the timeline. You voted for podoboqIn post 148, Mewtaph wrote:I thought that their thoughts overall (on me and bristep123) leading up to the vote was a bit jarring in some sense soI was fine with voting there to see how they would respond wrt them looking towards themselves to explain the L-1/L-2 vote philosophy and unvote.afterhe'd already responded to me and explained his philosophy. Why are you saying that was one of your reasons for voting now?
I'll edit this slightly because it seems hard to follow in its current form.In post 152, Mewtaph wrote:They were looking towards themselves in that process (78 and 79), which is why it was a good point for me to vote them (80) imo. The vote may or may not have caught them surprise, but even if it didn't, having him respond to my vote allows me to potentially get a more tangible/real response as to why he was voting me and indicate that I am around for an exchanged sequence - my problem being that I'm not following my reasoning (83, 85), his reasoning being that he is finding my posting inorganic. But it is convoluted imo to push on somebody to understand their reasoning more when they themselves are voting me for having inorganic thoughts.In post 151, Dannflor wrote:This doesn't track with the timeline. You voted for podoboqIn post 148, Mewtaph wrote:I thought that their thoughts overall (on me and bristep123) leading up to the vote was a bit jarring in some sense soI was fine with voting there to see how they would respond wrt them looking towards themselves to explain the L-1/L-2 vote philosophy and unvote.afterhe'd already responded to me and explained his philosophy. Why are you saying that was one of your reasons for voting now?
Hey, I’m actually getting into the game now thanks to posting that so you can buzz off with your outrage.In post 150, Dannflor wrote:Dude what
You pop in to cherry pick one non game-related interaction and then defend this shitty choice by saying you aren't really discussing the game because it's boring? Why areyoufocusing on such a frivolous thing?
How the fuck did that interaction look possibly game-impacting at the start? Please, be specific.In post 149, Gamma Emerald wrote:despite looking possibly game-impacting at the start
I added it on to a post that professed something game related, and he chose to reply to it starting the tangent. IE, why was this a me question and not an Xtoxm question.In post 149, Gamma Emerald wrote:I find the way you phrased things a bit shady, specifically saying Xtoxm continued it the way you did.
To be concerned about being blameless there would have to be something to be "blamed" for.Looks overly concerned with looking blameless.
Revisionist history.at one point mbaki asked Xtoxm’s alignment in the other game
In post 119, Xtoxm wrote:What alignment do you think I was in that game
It was a you question because Xtoxm isn’t part of this conversation.In post 155, mbaki wrote:I added it on to a post that professed something game related, and he chose to reply to it starting the tangent. IE, why was this a me question and not an Xtoxm question.In post 149, Gamma Emerald wrote:I find the way you phrased things a bit shady, specifically saying Xtoxm continued it the way you did.
To be concerned about being blameless there would have to be something to be "blamed" for.Looks overly concerned with looking blameless.
Revisionist history.at one point mbaki asked Xtoxm’s alignment in the other game
Yes, I did guess Xtoxm's alignment in that game... after this post:In post 119, Xtoxm wrote:What alignment do you think I was in that game
I am actually on board with calling this revisionist history. If you read the exchange you see Xtoxm initiated the discussion about his alignment and asked mbaki what he thought. How does mbaki answering "Scum, I would guess." come close to looking like "he was taking an actual interest in the meta information that could be gained?"In post 154, Gamma Emerald wrote:Anyway, it seemed relevant because at one point mbaki asked Xtoxm’s alignment in the other game, which looked like he was taking an actual interest in the meta information that could be gained.
What all this really means is that your only valid reason for post #132 is that the interaction between the two wasn't adding anything to the game. That's self evident. Both players—mbaki more so than Xtoxm—have added more to the game than you have anyways. The extra meaning you're taking from the words of mbaki's explanation is also terrible.In post 149, Gamma Emerald wrote:I like shitposting sometimes butso I was wondering where it was going.it wasn’t adding anythingdespite looking possibly game-impacting at the start
His position that what? What is his position? mbaki straight up admitted that the 3 post interaction didn't add to the game, here you are trying to pull something... I'm not even exactly sure what, out of it. This is so desperate, and currently bothering me more than anything else in this game.In post 157, Gamma Emerald wrote:That actuallyworsensyour position as you took no interest in any sort of meta prodding.
Would scum openly misrep something so easy to just go back and check? Like, there's no way scum Gamma is intentionally misrepping this, knowing it takes 10 seconds to find out that it's not accurate. Using this as justification that Gamme is scum rather than he just mixed things up seems like a leap.In post 160, Dannflor wrote:I am actually on board with calling this revisionist history. If you read the exchange you see Xtoxm initiated the discussion about his alignment and asked mbaki what he thought. How does mbaki answering "Scum, I would guess." come close to looking like "he was taking an actual interest in the meta information that could be gained?"
Using something that didn't actually happen to support the reason you cherry-picked this interaction does look like revisionist history, because it's not just you mixing up who said what, it's you mixing up the whole chain of events and thinking it means something it doesn't.
So do you think Gamma Emerald is posting good, townie thoughts?In post 164, podoboq wrote:Would scum openly misrep something so easy to just go back and check? Like, there's no way scum Gamma is intentionally misrepping this, knowing it takes 10 seconds to find out that it's not accurate. Using this as justification that Gamme is scum rather than he just mixed things up seems like a leap.In post 160, Dannflor wrote:I am actually on board with calling this revisionist history. If you read the exchange you see Xtoxm initiated the discussion about his alignment and asked mbaki what he thought. How does mbaki answering "Scum, I would guess." come close to looking like "he was taking an actual interest in the meta information that could be gained?"
Using something that didn't actually happen to support the reason you cherry-picked this interaction does look like revisionist history, because it's not just you mixing up who said what, it's you mixing up the whole chain of events and thinking it means something it doesn't.
did not make me townread Gamma Emerald more.
This is true. That wasn't what I was thinking when I posted that. Doesn't change the current impact.In post 166, mbaki wrote:I don't believe Gamma Emerald read the game and came to the conclusion his current nitpick is how he's going to find scum. It is unviable.
Good thoughts? Ha, no.In post 166, mbaki wrote:So do you think Gamma Emerald is posting good, townie thoughts?
I agree. I don't think scum really does that.In post 166, mbaki wrote:I don't believe Gamma Emerald read the game and came to the conclusion his current nitpick is how he's going to find scum.
This pinged me too.In post 171, Mewtaph wrote:Is there any particular reason why you're willing to comment on the Gamma push here specifically over anything else that has happened in the game? Do you have any sort of stance towards me v LolWagons or me v podopoq?
Bri’s apathy is a bit annoying but that a fairly Townie thought processIn post 170, bristep123 wrote:I'm not feeling the Gamma push, need to keep an eye on that. Especially Xtotm who only said 'Gamma is scumposting' but didn't vote. That's my thought anyway.