Well, I'll certainly concede that the bulk of my efforts have been directed at CoCo. You guys have the same access to my previous posts as I do, but on a quick re-read, I've: placed an early vote on Vaya, called out CyberBob out on some wishy-washy language, took clear stances on Haru and Peabody, weighed in on the CyberBob/Cathart debate, and expressed a more mediated suspicion of Hoopla. But I'm not even sure what the point of your question was.
Charter wrote:
I know that you meant you need time to think about it, but that's what I find scummy.
I don't see how. Not all of us rely solely on our gut for our votes. Brains take time to work things out.
Charter wrote:Why do I assume you're going to unvote CoCo? Same reasons as before, the vote is pointless, it has nowhere to go and you're not trying to make it go anywhere.
Those aren't reasons --
you
think the vote is pointless, I do not. Given that I don't know who I'd vote for afterwards, how is an unvote any less pointless than the CoCo vote?
And I'm not questioning him any more because he doesn't respond to questions (he almost seems proud of this fact), which is precisely one of my most clearly stated attacks on him. He completely ignores, or at least greatly postpones acknowledging, direct attacks or explicit questions direct directly at him. As scum, this would benefit him by waiting and seeing which arguments take hold against him before responding. No sense weaseling your way out of an argument if the town is just going to forget about anyway. A recent example is Peabody's 325:
Peabody wrote:Coco- What exactly led you to change your mind about Sensfan? Not even two pages ago, you were drilling him for making a suspicious vote and then leaving.
This is a fair question, very noticeable given the bold text, and got completely ignored twenty minutes later when CoCo made his next post. And, for that matter, look what's just happened in hist most recent post -- he's basically getting out of responding to a question by citing how long ago it was and how undocumented his thoughts were at the time! Gah!!!
Bush would've hired him as attorney general in a heartbeat.
So instead of furthering my attack on CoCo by questioning him, I've been attempting to penetrate the "Coco's scummy, but that's just his playstyle" attitude. Two recent thoughts on this: 1) Tally's "Since he posts so much, he'll slip up eventually if he's scum." This doesn't work if we let him ignore questions and attribute anything scummy he does to playstyle. 2) Hoopla's "Policy lynches on anti-town play." I completely agree, so I don't see how you can ignore CoCo. I even mildly understand your feeling that CoCo's aggressiveness is helpful to the town, but I just don't think it's enough to compensate. Look, I don't know CoCo is scum (I'm still suspicious that Charter might know he's
not
,
FOS: Charter
), but I do know that if he is, we're never going to catch him unless we make him answer questions. The best way to do this is through voting pressure, and while my vote alone won't do it, it's a start.
Finally, I know I should be commenting more on other discussions, but this whole he said/she said "active lurking" stuff tends to put me to sleep. Regardless of whether which pot is calling which kettle black, an accusation of active lurking is very subjective, and only in very compelling cases do I think it's indicative of scum.
Cam