Sineish is correct in divining my intent here. Read the same thing, instead reading "actually" instaed of "really".olio wrote:Where did I say Sineishreallylooking scummy to me?
When I refer to "concrete evidence", I speak more about game mechanics and game-long patterns. In any case, it's apparent that the only such evidence we seem to have now (if I recall correctly) is spork/Drummer's role confirmation. I agree that to vote today, a lower information threshhold is correctly observed.Olio wrote:These statements seem contradictory to me or then I've misunderstood something. You're saying you don't have concrete evidence and at the same time you don't believe in "day one" stuff. In my opinion "day one" stuff is same thing as not having concrete evidence, at least not for your first few votes on the first few pages.
Usually, when a bandwagon turns, the person who initiates the turnOlio wrote:That's crap. How do I deflect criticism by agreeing with Commodore Amazing? With my agreement I signed his conclusions. You'd rather I repeat the words of others and try to present them as my own thoughts? That's scummy to me.
Once more: what kind of significant contribution you're waiting on day one? Am I really the only one in your opinion who hadn't contributed to the thread at that point you maded your post? And why do you believe spork is innocent?
does
get looked at more harshly. I also don't know if you were the only one who hadn't made significant contribution up to that point, I know yours just stuck out at me as I was reading through. I do give you credit for giving us more to work with, here.You claimed you agreed wth him. I just didn't believe you actually did, for whatever reason.Olio wrote:So you think I'm scummy because I didn't try to pass Commodore's thoughts as my own reasoning for my vote (appropriating) but instead said I agreed with his thoughts? To me that sounds like a flawed logic, no offense. What does that track record mean?
I see. I will ponder more on him later. It's worth noting Sineish had already contributed quite a bit to that point as well.Olio wrote:I am. He agreed with Mr. Flay's reasons for voting me and you didn't find that worth FOS, though my agreement with Commodore's reasoning seem to be one of your main reasons for voting me.
Perhaps this is part of the problem. Your vote on Sineish comes across (to me) much harsher than a little-reason attack. I agree there was more reason for the second.[/quote]olio wrote:My first vote against Sineish had very little reason behind it. I agreed with Commodore's thoughts and switched my vote to person I felt was more scummier ie. I had more reason behind my second vote than my first.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. In all fairness, I did try to consider time and frame of reference on each post, as I took notes while I read through it all the first time.Olio wrote:I think you're missing the point. When I made my first vote, there was almost nothing to base it on. My second vote had more substance as I saw Commodore's reasoning a valid one. That doesn't mean there was rock-solid base on that vote, but there was more foundation that on my first vote.
Now, when you made your first vote you had 5 pages information, which I didn't have when I made my votes. So you could go through multiple posts from one person and base your vote on them, when I didn't have that luxury when giving those two votes. Yet you're accusing me for not having some solid evidence for my first and second vote, if I'm not mistaken.
?????Crola wrote:Argh, I died, kind of, even though it says I'm still fighting. Good luck all.
