Vote: pete d
I do agree with Disciple Slayer being a tad eager with Skitzer there, but Gemelli you've just cast the third vote for Disciple Slayer.
Hypocritical much?
Not at all. Putting someone at L-3 for absolutely no reason is absolutely different from putting someone at L-4 because you think they are acting scummy. Isn't it?opie wrote:I do agree with Disciple Slayer being a tad eager with Skitzer there, but Gemelli you've just cast the third vote for Disciple Slayer.
Hypocritical much?
nope, i have no idea about it either, but then again, we can both be idiots. it really depends on the cosmic sense of humour. Could someone who does understand this, eg. disciple slayer, please elaborate on what was meant and enlighten us poor confused souls?opie wrote:I may be an idiot but I'm not making much sense of this.[i]In Post 31[/i] Disciple Slayer wrote:For failing to see that anyone who jumped on the bandwagon, putting someone at L-2 this early in the game would be a good scum suspect.
Why would you vote along with someone who you don't understand?roffman wrote:nope, i have no idea about it either, but then again, we can both be idiots. it really depends on the cosmic sense of humour. Could someone who does understand this, eg. disciple slayer, please elaborate on what was meant and enlighten us poor confused souls?opie wrote:I may be an idiot but I'm not making much sense of this.[i]In Post 31[/i] Disciple Slayer wrote:For failing to see that anyone who jumped on the bandwagon, putting someone at L-2 this early in the game would be a good scum suspect.
I *think* what he was trying to say was that he placed skitzer at L-3 only in order to see if anyone else would jump the gun and put him at L-2. I take this to mean that he thinks a page one L-3 is OK, but an early L-2 is scummy. Personally I think L-3 is overly aggressive, even if L-2 would be more so.opie wrote:I may be an idiot but I'm not making much sense of this.
Keep in mind that in this game, we are forced to have a vote on someone for the entirety of D1. This runs counter to my typical conservative voting style, and it's got me casting a vote for something that I don't think would normally be voteworthy. If the wagon on DS goes any farther, I'll move my vote elsewhere, but keep in mind that with an enforced vote in effect we're going to see marginal votes pretty regularly.skitzer wrote:Gemelli, I don't think DS needs to be voted for jumping on my wagon that was unlikely to go anywhere. But I also think that DS needs to lighten up. Your vote was OMGUSy with saying that he jumped on another bandwagon likely to go nowhere.
Can you be more specific? It sounds like you're actually voting with a purpose, so maybe you can explain your thinking for the rest of us.pete d wrote:Didn't like post 23
Gemelli wrote:Can you be more specific? It sounds like you're actually voting with a purpose, so maybe you can explain your thinking for the rest of us.
Reasons why I don't like this post: Firstly, I don't see anything wrong with the wagon. L-3 in this situation isn't dangerous, he was never going to get lynched. And really it was only L-4 once skitzer unvoted himself. IF someone put on a L-2 vote, that might be cause for alarm. Secondly, I don't like the tone of the post, it feels like a loaded question.Rishi wrote:Hmm, skitzer's bandwagon climbed to four (since he still has a vote on himself).
DS - care to comment?
How is this a good reason to Vote someone? If someone did put Skitzer at L-2, he could just claim that the person who puts him at L-1 would be a good Scum suspect.Disciple Slayer wrote:UNVOTE
VOTE: GEMELLI
For failing to see that anyone who jumped on the bandwagon, putting someone at L-2 this early in the game would be a good scum suspect.
Which event? I didn't see it. I saw him voting DS for being overeager, thats it.roffman wrote:I wasn't voting with disciple slayer, i was voting gemelli for starting the series of events which lead to the statement which resulted in my confusion.farside22 wrote: Why would you vote along with someone who you don't understand?
The point of the post was to see DS's reaction so that we could get some information.pete d wrote:Gemelli wrote:Can you be more specific? It sounds like you're actually voting with a purpose, so maybe you can explain your thinking for the rest of us.Reasons why I don't like this post: Firstly, I don't see anything wrong with the wagon. L-3 in this situation isn't dangerous, he was never going to get lynched. And really it was only L-4 once skitzer unvoted himself. IF someone put on a L-2 vote, that might be cause for alarm. Secondly, I don't like the tone of the post, it feels like a loaded question.Rishi wrote:Hmm, skitzer's bandwagon climbed to four (since he still has a vote on himself).
DS - care to comment?
I think it has to do with what Gemelli was saying about how some people don't see it as scum doing the L-4 vote. I agree with Draux however that anyone can say hey L-2 is scummie or L-3 is scummie. I think a random bandwagon is odd, but I figured most people were just joking around with Skitzer.Rishi wrote:The point of the post was to see DS's reaction so that we could get some information.pete d wrote:Gemelli wrote:Can you be more specific? It sounds like you're actually voting with a purpose, so maybe you can explain your thinking for the rest of us.Reasons why I don't like this post: Firstly, I don't see anything wrong with the wagon. L-3 in this situation isn't dangerous, he was never going to get lynched. And really it was only L-4 once skitzer unvoted himself. IF someone put on a L-2 vote, that might be cause for alarm. Secondly, I don't like the tone of the post, it feels like a loaded question.Rishi wrote:Hmm, skitzer's bandwagon climbed to four (since he still has a vote on himself).
DS - care to comment?
Why are you sticking up for him?
no, it wasn't a serious vote. I just got so confused from what was going on that i voted for Gemelli seeing as his was the last post that made any sense.Draux wrote:Roffman, is this supposed to be a serious Vote?roffman wrote:I wasn't voting with disciple slayer, i was voting gemelli for starting the series of events which lead to the statement which resulted in my confusion.farside22 wrote: Why would you vote along with someone who you don't understand?